Volume 64, Issue 4
  • ISSN 0521-9744
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9668
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



We develop a new method of discourse analysis using speech act theory and formal ontology. The method constitutes an attempt to make discourse analysis more formal and repeatable. We apply the method to a corpus of bi-lingual, interpreted legal dialogue, focusing on the speech act of clarification and its component acts. While discourse analysis is primarily a qualitative tool, it can be applied quantitatively by counting certain types of discourse, such as clarification speech acts. Dialogues are still analysed, utterances are classified as speech acts and their semantic relationships are qualitatively assessed. Subjectivity of human analysis is minimised using a new method of discourse analysis that employs a formal ontology. The ontology is stated in higher-order logic making the annotation of the corpus more objective, formal and repeatable than prior research.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Angelelli, C. V.
    2004Medical Interpreting and Cross-cultural Communication. Cambridge (NY): CUP. 10.1017/CBO9780511486616
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486616 [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, J.
    1962How to Do Things With Words. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bond, F.; Fellbaum, C.; Hsieh, S.-K.; Huang, C.-R.; Pease, A.; and Vossen, P.
    2014 “A Multilingual Lexico-Semantic Database and Ontology”. InTowards the Multilingual Semantic Web, ed. byP. Buitelaar, and P. Cimiano, 243–258. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Cheung, A.
    2012 “The use of reported speech by court interpreters in Hong Kong source”. Interpreting14 (1): 73–91. 10.1075/intp.14.1.04che
    https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.14.1.04che [Google Scholar]
  5. Cohen, P.; and Levesque, H.
    1990 “Intention is choice with commitment”. Artificial Intelligence42 (2–3): 213–361. 10.1016/0004‑3702(90)90055‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(90)90055-5 [Google Scholar]
  6. de Melo, G.; Suchanek, F.; and Pease, A.
    2008 “Integrating YAGO into the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology”. Proceedings of the 20th IEEE International Conference on Tools with Artificial Intelligence. 10.1109/ICTAI.2008.34
    https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAI.2008.34 [Google Scholar]
  7. Fairclough, N. C. H.
    1995Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Genesereth, M.
    1991 “Knowledge interchange format”. InProceedings of the Second International Conference on the Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, ed byAllen, J.; Fikes, R.; and Sandewall, E., 238–249. Burlington (MA): Morgan Kaufmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gile, D.
    1999 “Testing the effort models: tightrope hypothesis in simultaneous interpreting: A contribution”. Hermes23: 153–172.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Hale, S.
    2004The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.52
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.52 [Google Scholar]
  11. Hertog, E.
    2013 “Legal interpreting”. InThe Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. byChapelle, C. A., 3274-3281. Hoboken (NJ): Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Jacobsen, B.
    2004 “Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting: An empirical study of additions in consecutively interpreted question-answer dialogues”. Hermes32: 237–249.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. James F. Allen, C. R. P.
    1980 “Analyzing intention in utterances”. Artificial Intelligence15 (3): 143–178. 10.1016/0004‑3702(80)90042‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(80)90042-9 [Google Scholar]
  14. Jurafsky, D.; and Martin, J. H.
    2009Speech and Language Processing: An Introduction to Natural Language Processing, Computational Linguistics, and Speech Recognition. Upper Saddle River (NJ): Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Katan, D.
    2004Translating Cultures: An Introduction for Translators, Interpreters, and Mediators. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Kaufman, S.
    2006 “The interpreter as intervener”. InThe Negotiator’s Fieldbook: The Desk Reference for the Experienced Negotiator. ed. bySchneider, A. K.; and Honeyman, C., 535–546. Chicago (IL): American Bar Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Lee, J.
    2009a “Interpreting inexplicit utterances during courtroom examination”. Applied Linguistics30: 93–114. 10.1093/applin/amn050
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amn050 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2009b “When linguistic and cultural differences are not disclosed in court interpreting”. Multilingua28: 379–401. 10.1515/mult.2009.017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2009.017 [Google Scholar]
  19. 2013 “A study of facework in interpreter-mediated courtroom examination”. Perspectives: Studies in Translatology21: 82–99. 10.1080/0907676X.2011.629729
    https://doi.org/10.1080/0907676X.2011.629729 [Google Scholar]
  20. Leung, E.
    2005 “From legislation to translation, from translation to interpretation: The narrative of sexual offences”. cpdb-arts.hkbu.edu.hk
  21. Mason, I.; and Ren, W.
    2012 “Power in face-to-face interpreting events”. Translation and Interpreting Studies7 (2): 234–253. 10.1075/tis.7.2.08mas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.7.2.08mas [Google Scholar]
  22. Morris, R.
    1995 “The moral dilemmas of court interpreting”. The Translator1 (1): 25–46. 10.1080/13556509.1995.10798948
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1995.10798948 [Google Scholar]
  23. Nakane, I.
    2009 “The myth of an invisible mediator : An Australian case study of English- Japanese police interpreting”. PORTAL Journal of Multidisciplinary International Studies6 (1): 1–16. 10.5130/portal.v6i1.825
    https://doi.org/10.5130/portal.v6i1.825 [Google Scholar]
  24. Niles, I.; and Pease, A.
    2001 “Toward a Standard Upper Ontology”. InProceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems (FOIS- 2001), ed. byWelty, C.; and Smith, B., 2–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 2003 “Linking Lexicons and Ontologies: Mapping Word Net to the Suggested Upper Merged Ontology”. InProceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering, 412–416.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Pease, A.
    2009Standard upper ontology knowledge interchange format. https://github.com/ontologyportal/sigmakee/blob/master/suo-kif.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 2011Ontology: A Practical Guide. Articulate Software Press. Angwin (CA): Articulate Software Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Pease, A.; Sutcliffe, G.; Siegel, N.; and Trac, S.
    2010 “Large Theory Reasoning with SUMO at CASC”. AI Communications, Special issue on Practical Aspects of Automated Reasoning23 (2–3): 137–144.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Reddy, M. J.
    1979 “The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language”. Metaphor and thought: 164–201.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Sacks, H.; Schegloff, E. A.; and Jefferson, G.
    1974 “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation”. Language50 (4): 696–735. 10.1353/lan.1974.0010
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010 [Google Scholar]
  31. Schegloff, E.; and Sacks, G. J. H.
    1977 “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation”. Language53 (2): 361–382. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  32. Searle, J.
    1969Speech Acts: an Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge (NY): CUP. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  33. Searle, J.; and Vanderveken, D.
    1985Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge (NY): CUP.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Sutcliffe, G.; and Suttner, C.
    2006 “The state of CASC”. AI Communications19 (1): 35–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Toury, G.
    2012Descriptive Translation Studies – and beyond: Revised edition, volume100. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/btl.100
    https://doi.org/10.1075/btl.100 [Google Scholar]
  36. Yuan, X.
    (ed.) 2013Managing language and cultural challenges in cross-border negotiation and deal-making. Hoschton (GA): China Media Research.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): corpus; court interpreting; Hong Kong; interprétation judiciaire; ontologie; ontology
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error