LEGAL SPEECH ACTS IN A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE – FOCUS ON MODALITY

Main Article Content

Iwona WITCZAK-PLISIECKA

Abstract

The paper involves three main fields of linguistic analysis: the pragmatic theory of speech acts, cognitive linguistics and legal language. Its main aim is to demonstrate the relevance of the cognitive framework to the analysis of speech acts and especially the deontic use of the modal verb shall in the legal context. The focus is on the use of the modal, which is mainly used to impose obligations or to confer rights. Thus, its meaning seems to be in most cases a combination of both assertive and directive illocutionary forces when approached from a pragmatic perspective, and a combination of deonticity with futurity and prediction in traditional grammar terminology. The discussion is illustrated with a variety of examples retrieved from a corpus of legal documents drafted in English and translated into Polish.

It is argued that the meaning of most instances of shall in the legal domain, due to its context-sensitivity, can be best accounted for in terms of a cognitive blend, which integrates various aspects of its meaning. These aspects are believed to be inherently vague and possibly an instance of ongoing processes of grammaticalisation, which can only be grasped with reference to the context of a particular expression, thus pragmatic in nature.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
WITCZAK-PLISIECKA, I. (2009). LEGAL SPEECH ACTS IN A COGNITIVE LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVE – FOCUS ON MODALITY. Comparative Legilinguistics, 1, 159-175. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2009.01.12
Section
Articles

References

  1. Akmajian, A., R.A. Demers, A.K. Farmer i R.M. Harnish (2001) Linguistics. An Introduction to Language and Communication. 5th ed. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press
  2. Austin, J.L. (1962) How to Do Things with Words. London: Oxford University Press.
  3. Barker, Stephen J. (2004) Renewing Meaning. A Speech-Act Theoretic Approach. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  4. Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad & Edward Finegan (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Longman.
  5. Blakemore, D. (1989) “Linguistic form and pragmatic interpretation: the explicit and the implicit” In: The Pragmatics of Style ed. by L. Hickey. London: Routledge, pp.28-51.
  6. Carston, R. (2002) Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Blackwell.
  7. Van Dijk, T.A. (1977), Text and Context. London: Longman.
  8. Fauconnier, G. (1985) Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press.
  9. Fauconnier, G. (1999) “Methods and generalisations” In: Janssen, T. & G. Redeker, pp. 96-127.
  10. Fauconnier, G. i M. Turner (1996) “Blending as a Central Process of Grammar” In: A. Goldberg Conceptual Structure, Discourse and Language. Stanford: CSLI, pp. 113-130 (the expanded version of the article i salso available In Polish in: W. Kubiński & D. Stanulewicz (eds.) (2001) Językoznawstwo kognitywne II. Zjawiska pragmatyczne. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego, pp. 173-211).
  11. Harris, R. (1998) Introduction to Integrational Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon.
  12. Janssen, T. & G. Bedeker (eds.) Cognitive Linguistics: Foundations, Scope, and Methodology. Berlin & New York: Mouton.
  13. Kalisz, R. (2001) „Pojęcia pragmatyki językowej w świetle językoznawstwa kognitywnego” In: W. Kubiński & D. Stanulewicz (eds.) Językoznawstwo kognitywne II. Zjawiska pragmatyczne, pp. 13-21.
  14. W. Kubiński & D. Stanulewicz (eds.) (2001) Językoznawstwo kognitywne II. Zjawiska pragmatyczne. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
  15. Kurzon, D. (1986) It is Hereby Performed ... Explorations in legal speech acts. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  16. Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire,and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal About the Mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  17. Langacker, R.W. (1983) Foundations of Cognitive Grammar, 2 vol. Trier: LAUT.
  18. Langacker, R.W. (1999) Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  19. Lauchman, Richard (2001-2005) Plain Language. A handbook for writers in the U.S. Government. http://www.lauchmangroup.com/PDFfiles/PLHandbook.PDF (accessed May 2005)
  20. Lycan, W.G. (2000) Philosophy of Language. A contemporary introduction. London & New York: Routledge.
  21. Palmer, Frank R. (1990) Modality and the English Modals (2nd ed.). London & New York: Longman.
  22. Palmer, Frank R. (1986/2001) Mood and Modality. Cambridge: CUP.
  23. Robinson, Stanley (1973) Drafting: Its application to conveyancing and commercial documents. London: Butterworths.
  24. Rosch, E. (1975). “Cognitive representations of semantic categories.” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104, pp.192-233.
  25. Ross, J.R. (1970) “On Declarative Sentences” In: R.A. Jacobs & P.S. Rosenbaum (eds.) Readings in English Transformational Grammar. Waltham, Mass.: Ginn., pp.222-272.
  26. Sadock, J. (1974) Toward a Linguistic Theory of Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press.
  27. Searle, J.R. (1969) Speech Acts. An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  28. Searle, J.R. & D. Vanderveken (1985) Foundations of Illocutionary Logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  29. Sweetser, E. (1990) From etymology to pragmatics. Metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  30. Sweetser, E. (1999) “Compositionality and blending: semantic composition in a cognitively realistic framework” In: Janssen, T. & G. Redeker, pp. 129-162.
  31. Toolan, M. (1996) Total Speech: An Integrational Linguistic Approach to Language. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
  32. Trosborg, A. (1994) “’Acts’ in contracts: Some guidelines for translation”. Translation Studies – An Interdiscipline. ed.by M. Snell-Hornby et al. Benjamin Transl. 2, pp.309-318.
  33. Trosborg, A. (1991) “An Analysis of Legal Speech Acts in English Contract Law” Hermes Journal of Linguistics, vol.6, pp.65-90.
  34. Vanderveken, D. (1990) Meaning and Speech Acts. Vol.1: Principles of Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  35. Vanderveken, D. (1991) Meaning and Speech Acts. Vol.2: Formal Semantics of Success and Satisfaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  36. Vanderveken, D. (1994) “A complete formulation of a simple logic of elementary illocutionary acts” In: S.L. Tsohatzidis (ed.) Foundations of Speech Act Theory: Philosophical and Linguistic Perspectives. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 99-131.
  37. Verschueren, J. (1999) Understanding Pragmatics. New York: Arnold.
  38. Witczak-Plisiecka, I. (2001) Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects of Speech Acts in English Legal Texts, niepublikowana praca doktorska, Uniwersytet Łódzki.
  39. Wittgenstein, L. (1953) Philosophical Investigations. New York: Macmillan.