1887
Volume 30, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0213-2028
  • E-ISSN: 2254-6774
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

The present work carries out a contrastive study of interpersonal devices between two corpora of legal opinion in English and Spanish, with a view to assessing the different use that is made in these languages of the indicators of emotion, evaluation and appreciation as to the ideational context of these texts. The antecedents of the present study are found in the Appraisal theory, which constitutes the interpretation of Halliday’s (1994/2004) Systemic-Functional Linguistics by the Sydney School. Through the analysis of an ad corpus of forty opinion columns from two prestigious and influential newspapers, and The New York Times, aims to understand how the use of the different evaluation resources advocated by Appraisal theory (Affect, Judgment and Appreciation) varies depending on the way legal opinion articles as genres are conceived in the languages and cultures under scrutiny. In other words, it tries to deepen into the different application of the prototypical rhetorical strategies used to express emotion and evaluation, through which the different ideological positions of the institutionalized press are naturalized.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00009.ort
2018-03-26
2019-10-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthony, L.
    (2016) AntConc 2.0. Software available atwww.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, M.
    (1981) The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bednarek, M.
    (2010) Evaluation in the news. A methodological framework for analysing evaluative language in journalism. Australian Journal of Communication, 37(2), 15–50.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Bhatia, V. K.
    (1982) An investigation into formal and functional characteristics of qualifications in legislative writing and its application to English for Academic Legal Purposes. PhD thesis. University of Aston in Birmingham.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Breeze, R. , Gotti, M. , & Sancho Guinda, C.
    (Eds) (2014) Interpersonality in legal genres. Bern: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0725‑8
    https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0725-8 [Google Scholar]
  6. Dafouz, E.
    (2008) The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95–113. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Eggins, S. , & Slade, D.
    (1997) Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Fossum, J. E. , & Schlesinger, P. R.
    (2007) The European Union and the public sphere: A communicative space in the making?London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Gibbons, J.
    (2004) Taking legal language seriously. In J. V. Gibbons , V. Prakasam , K. V. Tirumalesh , & Hemalatha Nagarajan (Eds.), Language in the law (pp.2–5). New Delhi: Orient Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Goodrich, P.
    (1987) Legal discourse: Studies in linguistics, rhetoric, and legal analysis. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. González, M. J.
    (2011) La expresión lingüística de la actitud en el género de opinión: El modelo de la valoración [The linguistic expression of attitude in opinion discourse: The appraisal theory]. RLA: Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada, 49(1), 109–141. doi: 10.4067/S0718‑48832011000100006
    https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-48832011000100006 [Google Scholar]
  12. Halliday, M. A. K.
    (1994/2004) An introduction to Functional Grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Hiltunen, R.
    (1990) Chapters on legal English: Aspects past and present of the language of the law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hyland, K.
    (2005) Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Hunston, S. , & Thompson, G.
    (Eds.) (2000) Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hutchinson, A. C.
    (1995) A postmodern’s Hart: Taking rules sceptically. The Modern Law Review Ltd., 58(6), 788–819. doi: 10.1111/j.1468‑2230.1995.tb02053.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb02053.x [Google Scholar]
  17. Iedema, R. , Feez, S. , & White, P. R. R.
    (1993) Media literacy: Disadvantaged schools program. Sydney: NSW Department of School Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Jovanović-Krstić, V.
    (2005) Evaluating the discourse of war: Examining the system of Attitude in the discourse of media. In A. Makkay , W. Sullivan , & A. R. Lommel (Eds), LACUS Forum, XXXI, Interconnections (pp.242–253). Houston, TX: LACUS. www.lacus.org/volumes/31/jovanovic-krstic_v.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Martin, J. R. , & Rose, D.
    (2003) Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Martin, J. R. , & White, P. R. R.
    (2005) The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  21. Mattila, H.
    (2013) Comparative legal linguistics: Language of law, Latin and modern lingua francas. London: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Miller, D. R.
    (2002) Multiple judicial opinions as specialized sites of engagement: conflicting paradigms of valuation and legitimation in Bush v. Gore 2000. In M. Gotti , D. Heller , & M. Dossena (Eds.),Conflict and negotiation in specialized texts (pp.119–141). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2004) ‘Truth, justice and the American way’: The appraisal system of judgement in the U. S. House debate on the impeachment of the President, 1998. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture: Cross- cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp.271–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil [Google Scholar]
  24. Orts, M. A.
    (2015) Power and complexity in legal genres: Unveiling insurance policies and arbitration rules. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue international Sémiotique juridique, 28(3), 485–505. doi: 10.1007/s11196‑015‑9429‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9429-6 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2016) Power distance and persuasion: The tension between imposition and legitimation in international legal genres. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  26. Orts, M. A. , Breeze, R. , & Gotti, M.
    (Eds.) (2017) Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: Providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Salmi-Tolonen, T.
    (2014) Interpersonality and fundamental rights. In R. Breeze , M. Gotti , & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Interpersonality in legal genres (pp.303–328). Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Sancho Guinda, C. , Gotti, M. , & Breeze, R.
    (2014) Framing interpersonality in law contexts. In R. Breeze , M. Gotti , & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Interpersonality in legal genres (pp.9–35) Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Tiersma, P. M.
    (1999) Legal language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. White, P. R.
    (1998) Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Sidney: University of Sidney.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. (2003) Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284. doi: 10.1515/text.2003.011
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011 [Google Scholar]
  32. (2004) The language of attitude, arguability and interpersonal positioning. [Available online]. Last retrievedMay 22 2017: www.grammatics.com/appraisal/
  33. (2015) Appraisal theory. InThe international encyclopedia of language and social interaction[Available online]. Last retrievedMay 22 2017: www.prrwhite.info/prrwhite,%202015,%20Appraisal%20theory,%20Wiley%20Encylopedia.pdf doi: 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi041
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi041 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00009.ort
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/resla.00009.ort
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