1887
Volume 11, Issue 3
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In legislative texts, deontic modality helps define rights, privileges, obligations, and responsibilities. Based on a corpus of Chinese civil laws from 1949 to 2015, the study investigates the development of deontic modality in Chinese civil legislative discourse and examines the variations of deontic modality diachronically from a quantitative, functional perspective, thereby shedding lights on variations of legal text. This study shows that patterns of deontic modality manifest different features in different stages. The changes of linguistic forms of deontic modality show evidence of the adaptive feature in legal language. From a quantitative perspective, the study suggests that a corpus-driven approach helps examine the development and evolution of deontic modality diachronically. It also contributes to an understanding of deontic modality mechanisms by providing both empirical evidence and theoretical insights.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16058.gon
2020-07-31
2020-08-07
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aher, Martin
    2013 “Deontic Contexts and the Interpretation of Disjunction in Legal Discourse.” Canadian Journal of Linguistics58 (1): 13–42. 10.1017/S0008413100002504
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008413100002504 [Google Scholar]
  2. Anderson, Alan R.
    1956 The formal analysis of normative systems. InThe Logic of Decision and Action. ed. byNicholas Rescher, 147–213. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beller, Sieghard
    2008a “Deontic Norms, Deontic, Reasoning, and Deontic Conditionals.” Thinking and Reasoning14 (4): 305–341. 10.1080/13546780802222258
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780802222258 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2008b “Deontic Reasoning Squared.” InProceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, ed. byBrad C. Love, Ken McRae, and Vladimir M. Sloutsky, 2103–2108. Austin, Tex.: Cognitive Science Society.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bertels, Ann
    2014 “The Dynamics of Terms and Meaning in the Domain of Machining and Metalworking Terminology in French and English.” InDynamics and Terminology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective on Monolingual and Multilingual Culture-Bound Communicationed. byRita Temmerman and Marc Van Campenhoudt, 259–280. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Biel, Łucja
    2014 “The Textual Fit of Translated EU Law: A Corpus-Based Study of Deontic Modality.” The Translator20 (3): 332–355. 10.1080/13556509.2014.909675
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2014.909675 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bondi, Marina, and Giuliana Diani
    2010 “Conveying Deontic Values in English and Italian Contracts: A Cross-Cultural Analysis.” ESP Across Cultures7: 7–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Cao, Deborah
    2009 “Illocutionary Acts of Chinese Legislative Language.” Journal of Pragmatics41 (7): 1329–1340. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  9. Chen, Jiong
    1995 “On Legislative Language.” Chinese Applied Linguistics15 (3): 34–37.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Cheng, Le, and King Kui Sin
    2009 “Legal Terms across Communities: Divergence behind Convergence in Law.” InDiversity and Tolerance in Socio-Legal Contexts: Explorations in the Semiotics of Lawed. byAnne Wagner and Vijay K. Bhatia, 181–189. Farnham, Burlington: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 2011 “A Sociosemiotic Interpretation of Linguistic Modality in Legal Settings.” Semiotica185 (1/4): 123–146.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cheng, Winnie, and Le Cheng
    2014 “Epistemic Modality in Court Judgments: A Corpus-Driven Comparison of Civil Cases in Hong Kong and Scotland.” English for Specific Purposes33 (1): 15–26. 10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Edwards, John
    2009Language and Identity: An Introduction. New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511809842
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511809842 [Google Scholar]
  14. Eggins, Suzanne
    2004An introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics (Second Edition). New York & London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ferrer-i-Cancho, Ramon, and Ricard V. Solé
    2003 “Least Effort and the Origins of Scaling in Human Language.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences100 (3): 788–791. 10.1073/pnas.0335980100
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0335980100 [Google Scholar]
  16. Garzone, Giuliana
    2013 “Variation in the Use of Modality in Legislative Texts: Focus on Shall.” Journal of Pragmatics57: 68–81. 10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.07.008 [Google Scholar]
  17. Gotti, Maurizio
    2001 “Semantic and Pragmatic Values of Shall and Will in Early Modern English Statutes.” InModality in Specialized Textsed. byMaurizio Gotti and Marina Dossena, 89–112. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 “Logic and Conversation.” InSyntax and Semantics, Volume 3: Speech Acts, ed. byPeter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gries, Stefan Th., and Martin Hilpert
    2008 “The Identification of Stages in Diachronic Data: Variability-Based Neighbour Clustering.” Corpora3 (1): 59–81. 10.3366/E1749503208000075
    https://doi.org/10.3366/E1749503208000075 [Google Scholar]
  20. Grzybek, Peter, and Gabriel Altmann
    2002 “Oscillation in the Frequency-Length Relationship.” Glottometrics5: 97–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    1994An Introduction to Functional Grammar (Second Edition). London: Edward Arnold.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Halliday, Michael A. K. and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen
    2014Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar (Fourth Edition). London & New York: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  23. Hilpert, Martin and Stefan Th. Gries
    2009 “Assessing Frequency Changes in Multistage Diachronic Corpora: Applications for Historical Corpus Linguistics and the Study of Language Acquisition.” Literary and Linguistic Computing24 (4): 385–401. 10.1093/llc/fqn012
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqn012 [Google Scholar]
  24. Horn, Laurence R.
    1989A Natural History of Negation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Hu, Yunwan
    2005 “Dongkou Fangyan Nengxing ‘De’ Zi Yanjiu [Study of the auxiliary word ‘de’ in Dongkou dialect].” Journal of Nanchang University (Social Science)36 (3): 144–149.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hutton, Christopher
    2009Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 10.3366/edinburgh/9780748633500.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748633500.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  27. Jacobsson, Bengt
    1994 “Recessive and Emergent Uses of Modal Auxiliaries in English.” English Studies75 (2): 166–182. 10.1080/00138389408598908
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00138389408598908 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ji, Yixin
    1986 “Yingyu Qingtai Zhudongci yu Hanyu Nengyuan Dongci de Bijiao [Auxiliary Verbs in English and ‘Nengyuan’ Verbs in Chinese: A Comparison Study].” Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (3): 67–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Knežević, Božana, and Irena Brdar
    2012 “Deontic Possibility and Necessity: A Case Study Based on Two Parallel Legislative Texts.” The Linguistics Journal6 (1): 34–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  31. Li, Jian, Le Cheng, and Winnie Cheng
    2016 “Deontic Meaning Making in Legislative Discourse.” Semiotica209: 1–18.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Li, Min
    2010 “Xiandai Hanyu de Yiwu Qingtai Fenxi [Deontic Modality in Contemporary Chinese].” Language Teaching and Research (1): 52–59.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Lian, Zhangjun, and Ting Jiang
    2014 “A Study of Modality System in Chinese-English Legal Translation From the Perspective of SFG.” Theory and Practice in Language Studies4 (3): 497–503. 10.4304/tpls.4.3.497‑503
    https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.4.3.497-503 [Google Scholar]
  34. Iatridou, Sabine, and Hedde Zeijlstra
    2013 “Negation, Polarity, and Deontic Modals.” Linguistic Inquiry44 (4): 529–568. 10.1162/LING_a_00138
    https://doi.org/10.1162/LING_a_00138 [Google Scholar]
  35. McNamara, Paul
    2006 “Deontic Logic.” InHandbook of the History of Logic Volume 7. Logic and the Modalities in the Twentieth Centuryed. byDov M. Gabbay and John Woods, 297–288. Amsterdam & Oxford: Elsevier. 10.1016/S1874‑5857(06)80029‑4
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S1874-5857(06)80029-4 [Google Scholar]
  36. Milroy, James, and Lesley Milroy
    1999Authority in Language: Investigating Language Prescription and Standardization (Third Edition). London & New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Moisl, Hermann
    2015Cluster Analysis for Corpus Linguistics. Berlin, Munich & Boston: De Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110363814
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110363814 [Google Scholar]
  38. Murtagh, Fionn, and Pedro Contreras
    2012 “Algorithms for Hierarchical Clustering: An Overview.” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery2 (1): 86–97.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Narrog, Heiko
    2005 “Modality, Mood, and Change of Modal Meanings: A New Perspective.” Cognitive Linguistics16 (4): 677–731. 10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.677
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cogl.2005.16.4.677 [Google Scholar]
  40. Palmer, Frank R.
    2001Mood and Modality (Second Edition). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139167178
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2013Modality and the English Modals (Second Edition). Oxford & New York: Routledge [1990 1997]
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Peltola, Rea
    2016 “Permission and Obligation intertwined: The Twofold Modal Meaning of the Finnish Jussive from a Discourse Perspective.” Linguistics54 (4): 683–716. 10.1515/ling‑2016‑0017
    https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2016-0017 [Google Scholar]
  43. Peyraube, Alain
    1999 “On the Modal Auxiliaries of Possibility in Classical Chinese.” InSelected Papers from the 5th International Conference on Chinese Linguistics, ed. byHsu S. Wang, Fengfu Tsao, and Chinfa Lien, 27–52. Taipei: Crane Publishing Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Prtljaga, Jelena
    2014 “Deontic Uses of Should and Ought (to).” British and American Studies20: 163–204.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Strauss, Udo, Peter Grzybek, and Gabriel Altmann
    2007 “Word Length and Word Frequency.” InContributions to the Science of Text and Language: Word Length Studies and Related Issues, ed. byPeter Grzybek, 277–294. Boston & Dordrecht: Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Tagliamonte, Sali, and Jennifer Smith
    2006 “Layering Competition and a Twist of Fate: Deontic Modality in Dialects of English.” Diachronica23 (2): 341–380. 10.1075/dia.23.2.06tag
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dia.23.2.06tag [Google Scholar]
  47. Teubert, Wolfgang, and Ramesh Krishnamurthy
    2007Corpus Linguistics (Critical Concepts in Linguistics). London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Vanden Bulcke, Patricia
    2013 “Dealing with Deontic Modality in a Termbase: The Case of Dutch and Spanish Legal Language.” Linguistica Antverpiensia12: 12–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Verstraete, Jean-Christophe
    2005 “Scalar Quantity Implicatures and the Interpretation of Modality: Problems in the Deontic Domain.” Journal of Pragmatics37 (9): 1401–1418. 10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2005.02.003 [Google Scholar]
  50. Walker, Anne G.
    1986 “The Verbatim Record: the Myth and the Reality.” InDiscourse and Institutional Authority: Medicine, Education, and Law, ed. bySue Fisher and Alexandra Dundas Todd, 205–222. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Wang, Donghai
    2013 “Lifa Yuyan zhong de Falv Changyongci Yanjiu [High Frequency Words in Legislative Discourse].” Journal of Tongji University (Social Science Section)24 (1): 89–95.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Wang, Li
    1985Zhongguo Xiandai Yufa [Contemporary Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Wright, Georg H. von
    1951An Essay in Modal Logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Xu, Yangchun
    1998 “Nanchanghua ‘De’ Zi Yanjiu [‘De’ in Nanchang Dialect].” Journal of Nanchang University29 (4): 103–107.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Zhang, Xinhong
    2000 “Hanyu Lifa Yupian de Yuyan Xingwei Fenxi [Speech Acts in Chinese Legislative Discourse].” Modern Foreign Languages23 (3): 283–295.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Zhao, Wei
    2009 “Lifa Yuyan Qingtai Biaodashi ji qi Guifan Hua [Modal Expressions and their Normalization in Legal Discourse].” Contemporary Rhetoric152 (2): 30–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhou, Yun
    2013 “Lun Zuowei Lifa yong Xuci de ‘Bixu’ – Zhuyao yi ‘Yingdang’ wei Canzhao [On ‘bixu’ in Legislative Discourse – in Comparison with ‘yingdang’].” Journal of Soochow University (Philosophy & Social Science Section)34 (1): 100–105.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhu, Minche
    1960 “‘De’ Zi Yongfa Biankao [The Development of the Use of ‘De’].” Journal of Northwest Normal University (Social Sciences) (S1): 49–61.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Zipf, George Kingsley
    1949Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort. Cambridge, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16058.gon
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.16058.gon
Loading

Data & Media loading...

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