尼日利亚最高法院主要判决中表明立场的补充条款:基于语料库的研究

IF 2 Q1 LINGUISTICS
Florence Oluwaseyi Daniel
{"title":"尼日利亚最高法院主要判决中表明立场的补充条款:基于语料库的研究","authors":"Florence Oluwaseyi Daniel","doi":"10.1515/ijld-2024-2005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The study investigates grammatical means of marking stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements. Specifically, it examines the frequency, form and stance functions of that-complement clauses in lead judgements using Du Bios’ stance triangle model (Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins) and Biber’s (Biber, Douglas. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins) semantic domains of verbal and adjectival predicates controlling that-complement clauses. The study shows that that-complement clauses in the lead judgements are predominantly verb-based and they mainly signal epistemic and few alignment stances. Verb-based that-clauses are largely indexed by communication verbs which report prior stances, present the lead judges’ arguments and validate them. Adjective-based that-clauses signal evaluative and few affective stances. They are frequently signalled by certainty adjectives which express lead judges’ certitude on the issues argued. That-complement clauses signal few alignment stances and yet fewer affective ones, possibly due to judges’ need to assert their authoritative voice as experts in the discourse community. The frequency of certainty verbs and adjectives in the that-complement clauses underscores the centrality of certitude in judicial argumentation. I suggest that judgements are not only evaluative as has been noted in earlier studies but also epistemic based on the predominance of epistemic and certainty markers lexico-grammatically realised and indexed by verb and adjective based that-clauses.","PeriodicalId":55934,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"That-complement clauses signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements: a corpus-based study\",\"authors\":\"Florence Oluwaseyi Daniel\",\"doi\":\"10.1515/ijld-2024-2005\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The study investigates grammatical means of marking stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements. Specifically, it examines the frequency, form and stance functions of that-complement clauses in lead judgements using Du Bios’ stance triangle model (Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins) and Biber’s (Biber, Douglas. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins) semantic domains of verbal and adjectival predicates controlling that-complement clauses. The study shows that that-complement clauses in the lead judgements are predominantly verb-based and they mainly signal epistemic and few alignment stances. Verb-based that-clauses are largely indexed by communication verbs which report prior stances, present the lead judges’ arguments and validate them. Adjective-based that-clauses signal evaluative and few affective stances. They are frequently signalled by certainty adjectives which express lead judges’ certitude on the issues argued. That-complement clauses signal few alignment stances and yet fewer affective ones, possibly due to judges’ need to assert their authoritative voice as experts in the discourse community. The frequency of certainty verbs and adjectives in the that-complement clauses underscores the centrality of certitude in judicial argumentation. I suggest that judgements are not only evaluative as has been noted in earlier studies but also epistemic based on the predominance of epistemic and certainty markers lexico-grammatically realised and indexed by verb and adjective based that-clauses.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55934,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Legal Discourse\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Legal Discourse\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2024-2005\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Legal Discourse","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2024-2005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究调查了尼日利亚最高法院主要判决中标记立场的语法手段。具体而言,研究采用杜比欧斯的立场三角模型(Du Bois, John.2007.The stance triangle.In Englebretson Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse:主观性、评价、互动,139-177。阿姆斯特丹:John Benjamins)和比伯(Biber, Douglas.2006.University language:A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers.阿姆斯特丹:John Benjamins)的动词和形容词谓语的语义域控制着该补语从句。研究表明,主导判断中的that-补语从句主要以动词为基础,它们主要表示认识论立场,很少表示对齐立场。以动词为基础的that-clauses主要以交流动词为索引,这些动词报告先前的立场、提出主要法官的论点并验证这些论点。以形容词为基础的that-clauses表示评价立场,很少表示情感立场。它们通常由确定性形容词表示,这些形容词表达了主审法官对所争论问题的确定性。that-补语句表示的对齐立场较少,而情感立场较少,这可能是由于法官需要在话语社区中以专家的身份发出权威性的声音。确定性动词和形容词在that-complement分句中的出现频率强调了确定性在司法论证中的核心地位。我认为,判断不仅是评价性的,正如先前的研究中所指出的那样,而且也是认识性的,其依据是认识性和确定性标记在词汇语法上的主导地位,并以动词和形容词为基础的that-clauses为索引。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
That-complement clauses signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements: a corpus-based study
The study investigates grammatical means of marking stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements. Specifically, it examines the frequency, form and stance functions of that-complement clauses in lead judgements using Du Bios’ stance triangle model (Du Bois, John. 2007. The stance triangle. In Englebretson Robert (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–177. Amsterdam: John Benjamins) and Biber’s (Biber, Douglas. 2006. University language: A corpus-based study of spoken and written registers. Amsterdam: John Benjamins) semantic domains of verbal and adjectival predicates controlling that-complement clauses. The study shows that that-complement clauses in the lead judgements are predominantly verb-based and they mainly signal epistemic and few alignment stances. Verb-based that-clauses are largely indexed by communication verbs which report prior stances, present the lead judges’ arguments and validate them. Adjective-based that-clauses signal evaluative and few affective stances. They are frequently signalled by certainty adjectives which express lead judges’ certitude on the issues argued. That-complement clauses signal few alignment stances and yet fewer affective ones, possibly due to judges’ need to assert their authoritative voice as experts in the discourse community. The frequency of certainty verbs and adjectives in the that-complement clauses underscores the centrality of certitude in judicial argumentation. I suggest that judgements are not only evaluative as has been noted in earlier studies but also epistemic based on the predominance of epistemic and certainty markers lexico-grammatically realised and indexed by verb and adjective based that-clauses.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.00
自引率
80.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信