A Comparative Analysis of Hedging in a Corpus of Two Written Legal Discourse Genres
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
UNIVERSIDAD POLITÉCNICA DE MADRID ESCUELA TÉCNICA SUPERIOR DE INGENERÍA DE MONTES A Comparative Analysis of Hedging in a Corpus of Two Written Legal Discourse Genres TESIS DOCTORAL Holly Vass Ward Licenciada en Filología Hispánica 2015 Departamento de Lingüística Aplicada a la Ciencia y a la Tecnología Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingenería de Montes A Comparative Analysis of Hedging in a Corpus of Two Written Legal Discourse Genres TESIS DOCTORAL Holly Vass Ward Licenciada en Filología Hispánica Dirigida por: Dr. D. Salvador Rodríguez Nuero Madrid 2015 Acknowledgements I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. D. Salvador Rodríguez Nuero, without whose guidance this research would not have been possible. His expertise, motivation and patience helped me immensely in the research and writing of this thesis, and encouraged me to exceed what I thought I was capable of. I would like to extend my gratitude to Dra. Da Ana Roldán Riejos who directed by original project, as well as to the lecturers on the doctoral programme, all of whom have contributed to my growth as a researcher, and helped rekindle my interest in linguistics. In addition, I would also like to acknowledge Prof. Sheena Gardner for giving me time and encouragement to continue with my doctoral studies. This has been essential to balance my research and my work at university. Finally, I would like to thank Natalia and David for their understanding while I dedicated so much ‘family time’ to finishing my thesis. Their unconditional support has been indispensable. Resumen Esta tesis doctoral, que es la culminación de mis estudios de doctorado impartidos por el Departamento de Lingüística Aplicada a la Ciencia y a la Tecnología de la Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, aborda el análisis del uso de la matización (hedging) en el lenguaje legal inglés siguiendo los postulados y principios de la análisis crítica de género (Bhatia, 2004) y empleando las herramientas de análisis de córpora WordSmith Tools versión 6 (Scott, 2014). Como refleja el título, el estudio se centra en la descripción y en el análisis contrastivo de las variedades léxico-sintácticas de los matizadores del discurso (hedges) y las estrategias discursivas que con ellos se llevan a cabo, además de las funciones que éstas desempeñan en un corpus de sentencias del Tribunal Supremo de EE. UU., y de artículos jurídicos de investigación americanos, relacionando, en la medida posible, éstas con los rasgos determinantes de los dos géneros, desde una perspectiva socio-cognitiva. El elemento innovador que ofrece es que, a pesar de los numerosos estudios que se han podido realizar sobre los matizadores del discurso en el inglés general (Lakoff, 1973; Hübler, 1983; Clemen, 1997; Markkanen and Schröder, 1997; Mauranen, 1997; Fetzer 2010; y Finnegan, 2010 entre otros) académico (Crompton, 1997; Meyer, 1997; Skelton, 1997; Martín Butragueňo, 2003) científico (Hyland, 1996a, 1996c, 1998c, 2007; Grabe and Kaplan, 1997; Salager-Meyer, 1997 Varttala, 2001) médico (Prince, 1982; Salager-Meyer, 1994; Skelton, 1997), y, en menor medida el inglés legal (Toska, 2012), no existe ningún tipo de investigación que vincule los distintos usos de la matización a las características genéricas de las comunicaciones profesionales. Dentro del lenguaje legal, la matización confirma su dependencia tanto de las expectativas a macro-nivel de la comunidad de discurso, como de las intenciones a micro-nivel del escritor de la comunicación, variando en función de los propósitos comunicativos del género ya sean éstos educativos, pedagógicos, interpersonales u operativos. El estudio pone de relieve el uso predominante de los verbos modales epistémicos y de los verbos léxicos como matizadores del discurso, estos últimos divididos en cuatro tipos (Hyland 1998c; Palmer 1986, 1990, 2001) especulativos, citativos, deductivos y sensoriales. La realización léxico- sintáctica del matizador puede señalar una de cuatro estrategias discursivas particulares (Namsaraev, 1997; Salager-Meyer, 1994), la indeterminación, la despersonalización, la subjectivisación, o la matización camuflada (camouflage hedging), cuya incidencia y función varia según género. La identificación y cuantificación de los distintos matizadores y estrategias empleados en los diferentes géneros del discurso legal puede tener implicaciones pedagógicos para los estudiantes de derecho no nativos que tienen que demostrar una competencia adecuada en su uso y procesamiento. Abstract This doctoral thesis, which represents the culmination of my doctoral studies undertaken in the Department of Linguistics Applied to Science and Technology of the Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, focusses on the analysis of hedging in legal English following the principles of Critical Genre Analysis (Bhatia, 2004), and using WordSmith Tools version 6 (Scott, 2014) corpus analysis tools. As the title suggests, this study centers on the description and contrastive analysis of lexico-grammatical realizations of hedges and the discourse strategies which they can indicate, as well as the functions they can carry out, in a corpus of U.S. Supreme Court opinions and American law review articles. The study relates realization, incidence and function of hedging to the predominant generic characteristics of the two genres from a socio- cognitive perspective. While there have been numerous studies on hedging in general English (Lakoff, 1973; Hübler, 1983; Clemen, 1997; Markkanen and Schröder, 1997; Mauranen, 1997; Fetzer 2010; and Finnegan, 2010 among others) academic English (Crompton, 1997; Meyer, 1997; Skelton, 1997; Martín Butragueňo, 2003) scientific English (Hyland, 1996a, 1996c, 1998c, 2007; Grabe and Kaplan, 1997; Salager-Meyer, 1997 Varttala, 2001) medical English (Prince, 1982; Salager-Meyer, 1994; Skelton, 1997), and, to a lesser degree, legal English (Toska, 2012), this study is innovative in that it links the different realizations and functions of hedging to the generic characteristics of a particular professional communication. Within legal English, hedging has been found to depend on not only the macro-level expectations of the discourse community for a specific genre, but also on the micro-level intentions of the author of a communication, varying according to the educational, pedagogical, interpersonal or operative purposes the genre may have. The study highlights the predominance of epistemic modal verbs and lexical verbs as hedges, dividing the latter into four types (Hyland, 1998c; Palmer, 1986, 1990, 2001): speculative, quotative, deductive and sensorial. Lexical- grammatical realizations of hedges can signal one of four discourse strategies (Namsaraev, 1997; Salager-Meyer, 1994), indetermination, depersonalization, subjectivization and camouflage hedging, as well as fulfill a variety of functions. The identification and quantification of the different hedges and hedging strategies and functions in the two genres may have pedagogical implications for non-native law students who must demonstrate adequate competence in the production and interpretation of hedged discourse. Table of Contents INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1 CHAPTER 1: THE CONCEPT OF GENRE ...................................................... 9 1.1 Overview of genre analysis ................................................................ 12 1.1.1 The origins of genre analysis ...................................................... 12 1.1.2 The Sydney School ..................................................................... 17 1.1.3 The ESP School .......................................................................... 24 1.1.4 New Rhetoric ............................................................................... 32 1.2 Legal genres ...................................................................................... 40 1.2.1 Classifying legal genres .............................................................. 40 1.2.2 U.S. Supreme Court opinions ...................................................... 46 1.2.3 American law review articles ....................................................... 61 1.3 The relationship between genre and hedging .................................... 79 CHAPTER 2: THE CONCEPT OF HEDGING ................................................ 83 2.1 A general overview of hedging as a linguistic phenomenon .............. 87 2.1.1 Hedging as a semantic phenomenon .......................................... 87 2.1.2 Hedging as a pragmatic phenomenon......................................... 96 2.1.3 Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging ........................................... 105 2.2 Key elements in the study of hedging .............................................. 108 2.2.1 Lexico-grammatical items which can serve as hedges.............. 108 2.2.2 Hedging functions and strategies .............................................. 124 2.3 Hedging in legal discourse ............................................................... 135 2.3.1 Previous studies ........................................................................ 135 2.3.2 Lexico-grammatical items used as hedges in legal discourse ... 140 2.3.3 Hedging strategies in legal discourse ........................................ 143 2.3.4 Hedging functions in legal discourse ......................................... 150 2.4 Pedagogical applications of hedging studies ................................... 156 i CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY ..................................................................