USALITY RELATIONS IN LEGAL JUDGMENTS ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGTHS

Main Article Content

Katarzyna STRĘBSKA

Abstract

The aim of the paper is to analyze the judgment as a legal genre whereby causality relations behave in a particular way depending on the type of the connective used. The relations of causality are described against a background of interactional linguistics, semantic and lexical vagueness as well as the degree of subjectivity in the selected types of causality. The emphasis in the present analysis is on the epistemic causality as the one most closely related to the judicial discourse and the language of law. In this type of causality it is the author who becomes the source of a logical continuum between the cause and effect as opposed to the other extremity where the source is outside the speaker. The analysed corpus consists of 20 judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (altogether 496 sentences have been identified where particular causal connectives were present) issued between 2007 and 2013 and available at the official site of the court: http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/homepage_en. The judgments have been selected in order to identify and conduct a quantitative and qualitative analysis of the relation of causality as realized by three English causal connectives: because, as and therefore.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
STRĘBSKA, K. (2013). USALITY RELATIONS IN LEGAL JUDGMENTS ON THE EXAMPLE OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGTHS. Comparative Legilinguistics, 15, 69-82. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2013.15.5
Section
Articles

References

  1. Bardzokas, Valandis. 2012. Causality and Connectives: From Grice to Relevance. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  2. Broadbent, Alex. 2009. Fact and Law in the Causal Inquiry. Legal Theory, vol. 15, issue 3: 173-191,
  3. Couper Kuhlen, Elizabeth and Bernd-Dieter Kortmann. 2000. Cause, Condition, Concession, Contrast: Cognitive and Discourse Perspectives. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter,
  4. Dukiet-Nagórska, Teresa. 2008. Prawo karne. Część ogólna, szczególna i wojskowa. Warszawa: Lexis-Nexis.
  5. Facts and Figures as of 2011: http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Facts_Figures_2011_ENG.pdf.
  6. Hiltunen, Risto. 1990. Chapters on Legal English. Aspects Past and Present of the Language of Law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
  7. Hornby, Albert Sydney, Sally Wehmeier, Collin McIntosh, and Joanna Turnbull. 2005. Oxford
  8. Advanced Dictionary of Current English 7th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  9. Online etymology dictionary available online at: http://www.etymonline.com (accessed 31st August 2013).
  10. Pander Maat, Henk, Ted Sanders, T. 2001. Subjectivity in causal connectives: an empirical study of language in use. Cognitive Linguistics, vol. 12, issue 3: 247-273.
  11. Panek, G. 2010, Semantic vagueness and lexical indeterminacy in legal translation, PhD thesis. Katowice: University of Silesia.
  12. Pit, Mirna. 2003. How to express yourself with a causal connective. Subjectivity and causal connectives in Dutch, German and French. Amsterdam/Utrecht: Studies in Language and Communication.
  13. Sanders, Ted, José Sanders, and Eve Sweetser, E. 2009. Causality, cognition and communication: a mental space analysis of subjectivity in causal connectives. In Causal Categories in Discourse and Cognition, ed. Ted Sanders and Eve Sweetser, 21-60. Berlin: Mouton de
  14. Gruyter.
  15. Stukker Ninke, and Ted Sanders. 2009. Another(’s) perspective on subjectivity in causal connectives: a usage-based analysis of volitional causal relations published in the special issue of Discours. Revue de linguistique, psycholiguistique et informatique.
  16. http://discours.revues.org/7260 (accessed 31st August 2013).
  17. Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2008. Genre-based analysis of the realisation of concession in judicial discourse. Linguistica Universitatis Iagiellonicae Cracoviensis; vol. 12: 127-148
  18. The official site of the European Court of Human Rights:
  19. http://www.echr.coe.int/ECHR/homepage_en.
  20. Traxler, Matthew J., Anthony J. Sanford, Joy P. Aked, and Linda M. Moxey. 1997. Processing causal and diagnostic statements in discourse. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, vol.23, issue 1: 88-101.
  21. Wilcox, Donald J. 1996. The Measure of Times Past. Pre-Newtonian Chronologies and the Rhetoric of Relative Time. Chicago: Chicago University Press.