1887
Volume 11, Issue 2
  • ISSN 2210-4119
  • E-ISSN: 2210-4127
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The aim of this article is to present text markers as a dialogical mechanism in the French language used in a legal setting. The dialogue between the court and the public administration takes place primarily through a judgment’s justification. On the other hand, the dialogue between the authorities and the court takes place in two possible variants: as a response to the parties allegations raised in the complaint or cassation complaint or as arguments formulated in the cassation complaint. Analyzing the decisions issued by the French , one may notice that this material is characterized by three aspects: intentional, conventional and institutional, as it refers to a set of established beliefs about the nature of the world of a given community.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00096.dol
2021-06-14
2022-05-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adam, Jean-Michel
    2013 “Les consécutives intensives : un schéma syntaxique commun à plusieurs genres de discours.” Linx64–65: 115–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Aijmer, Karin
    2007 “The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that.” InConnectives as Discourse Landmarks, ed. byAgnès Celle, Ruth Huart, 31–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.161.05aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.161.05aij [Google Scholar]
  3. 2009 “Seem and evidentiality.” Functions of Language16(1): 63–88. 10.1075/fol.16.1.05aij
    https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.05aij [Google Scholar]
  4. Asher, Nicholas, Farah Benamara and Yvette Yannick, Mathieu
    2009 “Appraisal of opinion expressions in discourse.” Lingvisticae Investigationes32(2): 279–292. 10.1075/li.32.2.10ash
    https://doi.org/10.1075/li.32.2.10ash [Google Scholar]
  5. Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich
    1981 “The Dialogic Imagination: Four essays.” Ed. byMichael Holquist, translated byCaryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Austin: Texas University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 1986 “Speech Genres and Other Late Essays.” Ed. byCaryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, translated byVern W. McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Austin: Texas University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bartmiński, Jerzy, Stanisława Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska
    2009Tekstologia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bazerman, Charles
    1994 “Systems of Genre and the Enactment of Social Intentions.” InGenre and the new rhetoric, ed. byAviva Freedman and Peter Medway, 79–101. London: Taylor & Francis.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 2009 “How does Science Come to Speak in the Courts? Citations, Intertexts, Expert Witnesses, Consequential Facts and Reasoning.” Law and Contemporary Problems, 72:1: 91–120.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bazerman, Charles and James Paradis
    1991Textual Dynamics of the Professions. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bell, Allan
    1984 “Language as audience design.” Language in Society13(2): 145–204. 10.1017/S004740450001037X
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S004740450001037X [Google Scholar]
  12. 2001 “Back in style : Reworking audience design.” InStyle and Sociolinguistic Variation, ed. byPenelope Eckert and John R. Rickford, 139–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bhatia, Vijay
    1993Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 1997 “Introduction: Genre analysis and world Englishes.” World Englishes16: 313–19. 10.1111/1467‑971X.00066
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-971X.00066 [Google Scholar]
  15. Boch, Françoise, Francis Grossmann, and Fanny Rinck
    2007 “Conformément à nos attentes…’, ou l’étude des marqueurs de convergence/divergence dans l’article de linguistique.” Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée12(2): 109–122. 10.3917/rfla.122.0109
    https://doi.org/10.3917/rfla.122.0109 [Google Scholar]
  16. Conrad, Susan and Douglas Biber
    2000 “Adverbial Marking of Stance in Speech and Writing.” InEvaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. bySusan Hunston and Geoff Thompson, 56–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dahl, Östen
    2004 “The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity.” Studies in Language Companion Series, 71, Stockholm University.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dauter, Bogusław
    2011Metodyka pracy sędziego sądu administracyjnego [The methodology of work of an administrative court judge]. Warszawa: Lexis-Nexis.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Dudley-Evans, Tony and Maggie Jo St John
    1998Developments in English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Duszak, Anna
    1998Tekst, dyskurs, komunikacja międzykulturowa [Text, discourse, intercultural communication]. Warszawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. 1994 “Academic Discourse and Intellectual Styles.” Journal of Pragmatics21: 291–313. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90003‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90003-5 [Google Scholar]
  22. Fairclough, Norman
    1993Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Fakhri, Ahmed
    2009 “Rhetorical Variation in Arabic Academic Discourse: Humanities versus Law.” Journal of Pragmatics41: 306–24. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood
    1994/ [2004] (3rd ed.). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood and Ruqaiya Hasan
    1989Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hunston, Susan and Geoff Thompson
    2000Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Hyland, Ken
    1998 “Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics, 30: 437–455. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(98)00009‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00009-5 [Google Scholar]
  28. 1999 “Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles.” InWriting: Texts, Processes and Practices, ed. byChristopher N. Candlin, Ken Hyland, 99–121. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2005Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hyland, Ken and Polly Tse
    2004 “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics25(2): 156–177. 10.1093/applin/25.2.156
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156 [Google Scholar]
  31. Hyon, Sunny
    1996 “Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL.” TESOL Quarterly, 30(4): 693–722. 10.2307/3587930
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3587930 [Google Scholar]
  32. Jopek-Bosiacka, Anna
    2012 “Retoryka władzy sądowniczej w orzecznictwie Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego.” [The rhetoric of the judiciary in the judicature of the Supreme Administrative Court] InMiędzy znaczeniem a działaniem. Retoryka i władza, ed. byAgnieszka Kampka, 81–108. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SGGW.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine
    2009L’énonciation. De la subjectivité dans le langage. Paris: Armand Colin.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Le, Cheng and King Kui Sin
    2008 “A Court Judgment as Dialogue.” Dialogue and Rhetoric: 267–281.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Lichański, Jakub Zdzisław
    2000Retoryka od renesansu do współczesności – tradycja i innowacja [Rhetoric from the Renaissance to the present day – tradition and innovation]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Loi, Chek Kim, Moyra Sweetnam Evans
    2010 “Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics42: 2814–2825. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.010
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.03.010 [Google Scholar]
  37. Maley, Yon
    1985 “Judicial discourse: the case of legal judgment.” InThe Cultivated Australian, ed. byJohn E. Clark, 159–175. Hamburg: Buske.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 1994 “The Language of the Law.” InLanguage and The Law, ed. byJohn Gibbons, 11–50. London: Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Martin, Jim R. and David Rose
    2003Working with Discourse. Meaning beyond the Clause. London, New York: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 2008Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equino.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 2012Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Martin, Jim R. and Peter Robert Rupert White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  43. Miczka, Ewa
    2002Kognitywne struktury sytuacyjne i informacyjne w interpretacji dyskursu [Cognitive situational and informational structures in the interpretation of discourse]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Muntigl, Peter and Helmut Gruber
    2005 “Introduction: Approaches to Genre.” Folia Linguistica39(1–2): 1–18. 10.1515/flin.2005.39.1‑2.1
    https://doi.org/10.1515/flin.2005.39.1-2.1 [Google Scholar]
  45. Mur Dueñas, Pilar
    2011 “An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics43: 3068–3079. 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  46. Mushin, Ilana
    2013 “Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality.” Discourse Studies15(5): 627–645. 10.1177/1461445613501447
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613501447 [Google Scholar]
  47. Nuyts, Jan
    2015 “Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization.” Journal of Pragmatics86: 106–110. 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.05.015 [Google Scholar]
  48. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001 [1986]Mood and Modality (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  49. Perelman, Chaim
    1984Justice, Law and Argumentation. Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning. Dodrecht/ Boston/ London: Springer.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Puzynina, Janina
    1992Język wartości [The language of values]. Warszawa.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Sidnell, Jack
    2012 “Declaratives, questioning, defeasibility.” Research on Language and Social Interaction45 (1): 53–60. 10.1080/08351813.2012.646686
    https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2012.646686 [Google Scholar]
  52. Siepmann, Dirk
    2007 “Les marqueurs de discours polylexicaux en français scientifique.” Revue française de linguistique appliquéeXII(2): 123–136. 10.3917/rfla.122.0123
    https://doi.org/10.3917/rfla.122.0123 [Google Scholar]
  53. Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Karin Aijmer
    2007The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110198928
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110198928 [Google Scholar]
  54. Swales, John
    1990Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus
    1988News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Weigand, Edda
    1999 “Rhetoric and argumentation in a dialogic perspective.” InRhetoric and Argumentation, ed. byEddo Rigotti in collaboration with Sara Cigada, 53–69. Tübingen: Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110938814‑005
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110938814-005 [Google Scholar]
  57. 2005 “Conflict Resolution in Court. Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction.” Special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences, 193–202.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 2006 “Argumentation: The Mixed Game.” Argumentation20(1): 59–87. 10.1007/s10503‑006‑9000‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-006-9000-4 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2008 “Towards a Common European Legal Thinking: A dialogic challenge.” InParadoxes of European Legal Integration, ed. byHanne Petersen, Anne Lise Kjær, Mikael Rask Madsen and Helle Krunke. Aldershot: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 2009 “Language as Dialogue.” InDialogue Studiesvol.5, ed. bySebastian Feller. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.5
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.5 [Google Scholar]
  61. 2010Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.10
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.10 [Google Scholar]
  62. 2017 “IADA history: The unity of dialogue and its multiple faces.” Language and Dialogue7(1): 63–79. 10.1075/ld.7.1.05wei
    https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.7.1.05wei [Google Scholar]
  63. White, Peter R. R.
    2000 “Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging.” InWorking with Dialog, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill and Frances Rock, 67–80. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 10.1515/9783110941265‑006
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110941265-006 [Google Scholar]
  64. 2003 “Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance.” Text23(2): 2594–2598.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ld.00096.dol
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): dialogue; judgment; language; text markers
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