PL EN


2009 | 126 | 127-148
Article title

Genre-based analysis of the realisation of concession in judicial discourse

Title variants
Languages of publication
Abstracts
EN
The article aims to contribute a genre-based description of the realisation of Concession in EU judicial discourse. The analysis has been carried out on a corpus of judgments issued by the EU court of last instance, i.e. the European Court of Justice with the intention to identify the patterns and markers of Concession in judicial argumentation.In the analysis the author used the concept of Concession developed by Couper-Kuhlen and Thompson (1999, 2000) following the assumptions underlying Interactional Linguistics. The results revealed the most frequent patterns and markers of Concession in judicial discourse. At the same time, they led the author to the conclusion that the interactional model of Concession developed for analysing the spoken mode of language may successfully be applied in the examination of written data.
Keywords
Publisher
Year
Volume
126
Pages
127-148
Physical description
Contributors
  • Kraków
References
  • Barth D. 2000. "that's true, although not really, but still": Expressing concession in spoken English. - Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.)Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 411-437.
  • Barth-Weingarten D. 2003.Concession in spoken English. On the realisation of a discourse pragmatic relation. Tübingen.
  • Bhatia V. K. 1993.Analysing genre. Language in use in professional settings. London.
  • Bhatia V. K. 2002. Applied genre analysis: a multi-perspective model. -IBÉRICA4.2002: 3-19.
  • Crevels M. 2000. Concessives on different semantic levels: A typological perspective. - Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.)Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 313-339.
  • Couper-Kuhlen E., Thompson S. A. 1999. On the concessive relation in conversational English. - Neumann F. W., Scheulting S. (eds.)Anlistentag 1998 Erfurt Proceedings. Trier: 29-39.
  • Couper-Kuhlen E., Thompson S. A. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. - Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.)Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 381-410.
  • Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.) 2000.Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin.
  • Ford C. E. 1994. Dialogic aspects of talk and writing:becauseon the interactive-edited continuum. -Text14.4: 531-554. [quoted in: Barth-Weingarten D. 2003.Concession in spoken English. On the realisation of a discourse-pragmatic relation. Tübingen].
  • Grochowski M. 1976. O strukturze semantycznej przyzwolenia. - Mayenowa M. R. (ed.)Semantyka tekstu i języka. Wrocław: 25-237.
  • Grote B. et al. 1997. Ma(r)king concessions in English and German. -Discourse Processes24: 87-117.
  • Halliday M. A. K., Hasan R. 1976.Cohesion in English. London.
  • Knott A. 1996.A data-driven methodology for motivating a set of coherence relations. [unpublished Ph.D. diss.]. University of Edinburgh.
  • Knott A., Dale R. 1994. Using linguistic phenomena to motivate a set of coherence relations. -Discourse Processes18: 35-62.
  • König E. 1988. Concessive connectives and concessive sentences: cross-linguistic regularities and pragmatic principles. - Hawkins J. A. (ed.)Explaining language universals. New York: 321-349.
  • König E., Siemund P. 2000. Causal and concessive clauses: Formal and semantic relations. - Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.)Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 341-360.
  • Kurzon D. 1997. ‘Legal language’: varieties, genres, registers, discourses. -International Journal of Applied Linguistics7.2: 119-139.
  • Le Ch. et al. 2008. Contrastive analysis of Chinese and American court judgments. -Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines2.1: 49-58. [Available at: http://cadaad.rg/ejournal]http://cadaad.rg/ejournal
  • Łyda A. 2007.Concessive relation in spoken discourse. A study into academic spoken English. Katowice.
  • Mann W., Thompson S. A. 1988. Rhetorical structure theory: toward a functional theory of text organization. -Text8.3: 243-281.
  • Mazzi D. 2005. Grounds and reasons. Argumentative signals in judicial texts. -Linguistica e Filologia20: 157-178.
  • Mazzi D. 2006. "This is an attractive argument, but …": argumentative conflicts as an interpretive key to the discourse of judges. - Bhatia V. K., Gotti M. (eds.)Explorations in specialised genres. Bern: 271-290.
  • Mazzi D. 2007. The construction of argumentation in judicial texts: combining a genre and a corpus based perspective. -Argumentation21: 21-38.
  • Oates S. L. 2000. Multiple discourse marker occurrence: creating hierarchies for natural language generation. -ACM International Conference Proceeding Series. [vol. VProceedings of the workshop on student research]. Seattle, Wa: 41-45.
  • Pincoff E. 1971. The audiences of the judge. - Hubien H. (ed.)Legal reasoning (Proceedings of the world congress for legal and social philosophy). Bruxelles: 337-344.
  • Pisarkowa K. 1974. O stosunkach między parataksą i hipotaksą. Na przykładzie polskich zdań przeciwstawnych i przyzwalających. -Język Polski54.2: 81-93.
  • Porter J. E. 1986. Intertextuality and the discourse community. -Rhetoric Review5.1: 34-47.
  • Quirk R., Greenbaum S. 1973.A university grammar of English. Harlow.
  • Rudolph E. 1996.Contrast: adversative and concessive relations and their expressions in English, German, Spanish and Portuguese on sentence level and text level. Berlin, New York.
  • Sanders T. J. M. et al. 1992. Towards a taxonomy of coherence relations. -Discourse Processes15: 1-35.
  • Swales J. M. 1990.Genre analysis. English in academic and research settings. Cambridge.
  • Taboada M. 2006. Discourse markers as signals (or not) of rhetorical relations. -Journal of Pragmatics38.4: 567-592.
  • Thompson G., Zhou J. 2000. Evaluation and organisation in text: The structuring role of evaluative disjuncts. - Hunston S. (ed.)Evaluation in text: authorial stance and the construction of discourses. Oxford: 121-141.
  • Vannier G. 2001. Argumentation et droit. Introduction à la nouvelle rhétorique de Perelman. Paris. [quoted in: Mazzi D. 2007. The construction of argumentation in judicial texts: combining a genre and a corpus based perspective. -Argumentation21: 21-38].
  • Verhagen A. 2000. Concession implies causality, though in some other space. - Couper-Kuhlen E., Kortmann B. (eds.)Cause, condition, concession, contrast: cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin: 361-380.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.cejsh-article-doi-10-2478-v10148-010-0011-z
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.