Cover not available
Article published In:
Language and Dialogue
Vol. 11:2 (2021) ► pp.173–199

Text operators as dialogical mechanisms in judgments of the French Court of Cassation

| University of Silesia
The aim of this article is to present text markers as a dialogical mechanism in the French language used in a legal setting. The dialogue between the court and the public administration takes place primarily through a judgment’s justification. On the other hand, the dialogue between the authorities and the court takes place in two possible variants: as a response to the parties allegations raised in the complaint or cassation complaint or as arguments formulated in the cassation complaint. Analyzing the decisions issued by the French Cour de cassation, one may notice that this material is characterized by three aspects: intentional, conventional and institutional, as it refers to a set of established beliefs about the nature of the world of a given community.
Keywords: text markers, dialogue, language, judgment
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Judgment as a genre
  • 3.Dialogicality of Court judgments
  • 4.Corpus
  • 5.Text operators
    • 5.1Text operators – content operators
    • 5.2Text operators – Truth modal expressions
    • 5.3Text operators – Enhancer operators
    • 5.4Text operators – Emotional-evaluating and valuing operators
    • 5.5Text operators – Mentality operators
    • 5.6Text operators – In-text operators
  • 6.Conclusions
  • References
  • Corpus
Published online: 14 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.00096.dol
References (65)
References
Adam, Jean-Michel. 2013. “Les consécutives intensives : un schéma syntaxique commun à plusieurs genres de discours.” Linx 64–651: 115–131.Google Scholar
Aijmer, Karin. 2007. “The interface between discourse and grammar: The fact is that.” In Connectives as Discourse Landmarks, ed. by Agnès Celle, Ruth Huart, 31–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2009. “Seem and evidentiality.” Functions of Language 16(1): 63–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asher, Nicholas, Farah Benamara and Yvette Yannick, Mathieu. 2009. “Appraisal of opinion expressions in discourse.” Lingvisticae Investigationes 32(2): 279–292. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1981. “The Dialogic Imagination: Four essays.” Ed. by Michael Holquist, translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin, TX: University of Texas Austin: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
. 1986. “Speech Genres and Other Late Essays.” Ed. by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist, translated by Vern W. McGee. Austin, TX: University of Texas Austin: Texas University Press.Google Scholar
Bartmiński, Jerzy, Stanisława Niebrzegowska-Bartmińska. 2009. Tekstologia. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1994. “Systems of Genre and the Enactment of Social Intentions.” In Genre and the new rhetoric, ed. by Aviva Freedman and Peter Medway, 79–101. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
. 2009. “How does Science Come to Speak in the Courts? Citations, Intertexts, Expert Witnesses, Consequential Facts and Reasoning.” Law and Contemporary Problems, 72:1: 91–120.Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles and James Paradis. 1991. Textual Dynamics of the Professions. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Bell, Allan. 1984. “Language as audience design.” Language in Society 13(2): 145–204. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. “Back in style : Reworking audience design.” In Style and Sociolinguistic Variation, ed. by Penelope Eckert and John R. Rickford, 139–169. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 1997. “Introduction: Genre analysis and world Englishes.” World Englishes 161: 313–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boch, Françoise, Francis Grossmann, and Fanny Rinck. 2007. “Conformément à nos attentes…’, ou l’étude des marqueurs de convergence/divergence dans l’article de linguistique.” Revue Française de Linguistique Appliquée 12(2): 109–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Conrad, Susan and Douglas Biber. 2000. “Adverbial Marking of Stance in Speech and Writing.” In Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse, ed. by Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson, 56–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, Östen. 2004. “The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity.” Studies in Language Companion Series, 711, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
Dauter, Bogusław. 2011. Metodyka pracy sędziego sądu administracyjnego [The methodology of work of an administrative court judge]. Warszawa: Lexis-Nexis.Google Scholar
Dudley-Evans, Tony and Maggie Jo St John. 1998. Developments in English for specific purposes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Duszak, Anna. 1998. Tekst, dyskurs, komunikacja międzykulturowa [Text, discourse, intercultural communication]. Warszawa.Google Scholar
. 1994. “Academic Discourse and Intellectual Styles.” Journal of Pragmatics 211: 291–313. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1993. Discourse and Social Change. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Fakhri, Ahmed. 2009. “Rhetorical Variation in Arabic Academic Discourse: Humanities versus Law.” Journal of Pragmatics 411: 306–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood. 1994/ [2004] (3rd ed.). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael Alexander Kirkwood and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1989. Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan and Geoff Thompson. 2000. Evaluation in Text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. “Persuasion and context: The pragmatics of academic metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics, 301: 437–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 1999. “Disciplinary discourses: Writer stance in research articles.” In Writing: Texts, Processes and Practices, ed. by Christopher N. Candlin, Ken Hyland, 99–121. London: Longman.Google Scholar
. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken and Polly Tse. 2004. “Metadiscourse in Academic Writing: A Reappraisal.” Applied Linguistics 25(2): 156–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyon, Sunny. 1996. “Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL.” TESOL Quarterly, 30(4): 693–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jopek-Bosiacka, Anna. 2012. “Retoryka władzy sądowniczej w orzecznictwie Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego.” [The rhetoric of the judiciary in the judicature of the Supreme Administrative Court] In Między znaczeniem a działaniem. Retoryka i władza, ed. by Agnieszka Kampka, 81–108. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo SGGW.Google Scholar
Kerbrat-Orecchioni, Catherine. 2009. L’énonciation. De la subjectivité dans le langage. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
Le, Cheng and King Kui Sin. 2008. “A Court Judgment as Dialogue.” Dialogue and Rhetoric: 267–281.Google Scholar
Lichański, Jakub Zdzisław. 2000. Retoryka od renesansu do współczesności – tradycja i innowacja [Rhetoric from the Renaissance to the present day – tradition and innovation]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo DiG.Google Scholar
Loi, Chek Kim, Moyra Sweetnam Evans. 2010. “Cultural differences in the organization of research article introductions from the field of educational psychology: English and Chinese.” Journal of Pragmatics 421: 2814–2825. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maley, Yon. 1985. “Judicial discourse: the case of legal judgment.” In The Cultivated Australian, ed. by John E. Clark, 159–175. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar
. 1994. “The Language of the Law.” In Language and The Law, ed. by John Gibbons, 11–50. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Martin, Jim R. and David Rose. 2003. Working with Discourse. Meaning beyond the Clause. London, New York: Continuum.Google Scholar
. 2008. Genre Relations: Mapping Culture. London: Equino.Google Scholar
. 2012. Learning to Write, Reading to Learn: Genre, knowledge and pedagogy in the Sydney School. Equinox.Google Scholar
Martin, Jim R. and Peter Robert Rupert White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miczka, Ewa. 2002. Kognitywne struktury sytuacyjne i informacyjne w interpretacji dyskursu [Cognitive situational and informational structures in the interpretation of discourse]. Katowice: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Śląskiego.Google Scholar
Muntigl, Peter and Helmut Gruber. 2005. “Introduction: Approaches to Genre.” Folia Linguistica 39(1–2): 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mur Dueñas, Pilar. 2011. “An intercultural analysis of metadiscourse features in research articles written in English and in Spanish.” Journal of Pragmatics 431: 3068–3079. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mushin, Ilana. 2013. “Making knowledge visible in discourse: Implications for the study of linguistic evidentiality.” Discourse Studies 15(5): 627–645. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nuyts, Jan. 2015. “Subjectivity: Between discourse and conceptualization.” Journal of Pragmatics 861: 106–110. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank R. 2001 [1986]. Mood and Modality (2nd edn). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Perelman, Chaim. 1984. Justice, Law and Argumentation. Essays on Moral and Legal Reasoning. Dodrecht/ Boston/ London: Springer.Google Scholar
Puzynina, Janina. 1992. Język wartości [The language of values]. Warszawa.Google Scholar
Sidnell, Jack. 2012. “Declaratives, questioning, defeasibility.” Research on Language and Social Interaction 45 (1): 53–60. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siepmann, Dirk. 2007. “Les marqueurs de discours polylexicaux en français scientifique.” Revue française de linguistique appliquée XII(2): 123–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie and Karin Aijmer. 2007. The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: A Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun Adrianus. 1988. News as Discourse. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 1999. “Rhetoric and argumentation in a dialogic perspective.” In Rhetoric and Argumentation, ed. by Eddo Rigotti in collaboration with Sara Cigada, 53–69. Tübingen: Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2005. “Conflict Resolution in Court. Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction.” Special issue of Studies in Communication Sciences, 193–202.Google Scholar
. 2006. “Argumentation: The Mixed Game.” Argumentation 20(1): 59–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. “Towards a Common European Legal Thinking: A dialogic challenge.” In Paradoxes of European Legal Integration, ed. by Hanne Petersen, Anne Lise Kjær, Mikael Rask Madsen and Helle Krunke. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
. 2009. “Language as Dialogue.” In Dialogue Studies vol. 51, ed. by Sebastian Feller. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2010. Dialogue: The Mixed Game. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2017. “IADA history: The unity of dialogue and its multiple faces.” Language and Dialogue 7(1): 63–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
White, Peter R. R. 2000. “Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging.” In Working with Dialog, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill and Frances Rock, 67–80. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003. “Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance.” Text 23(2): 2594–2598.Google Scholar
Corpus
http://www.courdecassation.fr/IMG/pdf/bull_crim_1210.pdf