Cover not available
Part of
Corpus-based Research on Variation in English Legal Discourse
Edited by Teresa Fanego and Paula Rodríguez-Puente
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 91] 2019
► pp. 79–104

Chapter 4
Part-of-speech patterns in legal genres

Text-internal dynamics from a corpus-based perspective

 | University of Navarra
Four corpora constructed from different genre families in business law (academic texts, case law, legal documents, and legislation) are analysed in terms of key parts of speech. The differences between them show that legal academic writing and case law tend to follow patterns comparable to argumentative texts elsewhere, while documents and legislation show unusual patterns of cohesion and modality. These phenomena are related to the functional requirements of the genres in question, and to disciplinary conventions.
Keywords: parts of speech, business law, keyness, legal genres, phraseology
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Corpus and method
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Overview of differences
    • 3.2Key features in all four corpora
      • 3.2.1Singular and plural possessive nouns
    • 3.3Key features in Academic and Cases
      • 3.3.1Academic and Cases: VVZ (third person singular present)
      • 3.3.2Academic and Cases: IN/that and WDT
    • 3.4Key features in Documents and Legislation
      • 3.4.1Documents and Legislation: CC (coordinating conjunctions)
        • 3.4.1.1And
        • 3.4.1.2Or
      • 3.4.2Documents and Legislation: VVN (past participles)
      • 3.4.3Documents: MD (modal verbs)
      • 3.4.4Legislation: WPZ (possessive wh-pronoun)
      • 3.4.5Documents: VB (be, base form)
  • 4.Summing up
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 6 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.91.04bre
References (47)
References
Biber, Douglas. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany. 2015. Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
BNC = The British National Corpus, version 3 (BNC XML Edition). 2007. Distributed by Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford, on behalf of the BNC Consortium. <[URL]> (30 January 2018).
Bondi, Marina & Scott, Mike (eds). 2010. Keyness in Texts [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 41]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. Lexical bundles in four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(2): 229–253. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breeze, Ruth, Gotti, Maurizio & Sancho Guinda, Carmen (eds). 2014. Interpersonality in Legal Genres. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2017. Corpora and computation in teaching law and language. International Journal of Language and Law 6: 1–17.Google Scholar
. 2018. Giving voice to the law: Speech act verbs in legal academic writing. In Goźdź-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo (eds), 221–239.Google Scholar
Brett, David & Pinna, Antonio. 2015. Patterns, fixedness and variability: Using PoS-grams to find phraseologies in the language of travel journalism. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 198: 52–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Levinson, Stephen C. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buendía Castro, Miriam & Faber, Pamela. 2018. Online resources for phraseology-related problems in legal translation. In Goźdź-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo (eds), 61–85.Google Scholar
Companies Act. 2006. <[URL]>
Dobrić Basaneže, Katja. 2018. Extended binomial expressions in the language of contracts. In Goźdź-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo (eds), 203–220.Google Scholar
Engberg, Jan. 2014. General and specific perspectives on vagueness in law: Impact upon the feasibility of legal translation. In Translating the DCFR and Drafting the CESL: A Pragmatic Perspective, Barbara Pasa & Lucia Morra (eds), 147–160. Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2011. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English: A Corpus-Based Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Pontrandolfo, Gianluca (eds). 2018. Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2018. Facts in law. A comparative study of fact that and its phraseologies in American and Polish judicial discourse. In Goźdź-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo (eds), 143–159.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1990. Chapters on Legal English. Aspects Past and Present of the Language of the Law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Hoey, Michael, Mahlberg, Michaela, Stubbs, Michael & Teubert, Wolfgang. 2007. Text, Discourse and Corpora. Theory and Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Hornero, Ana María, Luzón, María José & Murillo, Silvia (eds). 2006. Corpus Linguistics: Applications for the Study of English. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 1998. Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. Text 18(3): 349–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam, Baisa, Vít, Bušta, Jan, Jakubíček, Miloš, Kovvář, Vojtěch, Michelfeit, Jan, Rychlý, Pavel, Suchomel, Vít. 2014. The Sketch Engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1: 7–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kopaczyk, Joanna. 2018. Terms and conditions. A comparative study of noun binomials in UK and Scottish legislation. In Goźdź-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo (eds), 160–185.Google Scholar
Kruse, Otto & Chitez, Madalina. 2012. Contrastive genre mapping in academic contexts: An intercultural approach. Journal of Academic Writing 1(2): 59–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lin, Yen-Liang. 2015. Using key part-of-speech analysis to examine spoken discourse by Taiwanese EFL learners. ReCALL 27(3): 302–320. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marmor, Andrei. 2014. The Language of Law. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston MA: Little, Brown & Company.Google Scholar
Model Business Corporation Act. 2005. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Nesi, Hilary & Gardner, Sheena. 2012. Genres across the Disciplines: Student Writing in Higher Education. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Orts Llopis, María de los Ángeles. 2009. Legal genres in English and Spanish: Some attempts of analysis. Ibérica 18: 109–130.Google Scholar
. 2014. Contractual commitment or obligation? The linguistic interactions in charter parties. In Breeze, Gotti & Sancho Guinda (eds), 87–111.Google Scholar
Pérez-Paredes, Pascual. 2017. A keyword analysis of the 2015 UK Higher Education Green Paper and the Twitter debate. In Power, Persuasion and Manipulation in Professional Discourse, María de los Ángeles Orts Llopis, Ruth Breeze & Maurizio Gotti (eds), 161–191. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pontrandolfo, Gianluca & Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2014. Exploring the local grammar of evaluation: The case of adjectival patterns in American and Italian judicial discourse. Research in Language 12(1): 71–92. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salkie, Raphael. 2018. Legal phraseology in contrast. The fact that and its German counterparts. In Goźdź-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo (eds), 126–142.Google Scholar
Salmi-Tolonen, Tarja. 2014. Interpersonality and fundamental rights. In Breeze, Gotti & Sancho Guinda (eds), 63–86.Google Scholar
Stubbs, Michael. 2007. On texts, corpora and models of language. In Text, Discourse and Corpora: Theory and Analysis, Michael Stubbs, Michaela Mahlberg, Michael Hoey & Wolfgang Teubert (eds), 127–162. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Swales, John. 2004. Research Genres: Explorations and Applications. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2018. Verba dicendi in courtroom interaction. In Goźdź-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo (eds), 240–257.Google Scholar
Taylor, John. 1991. Possessive genitives in English: A discourse perspective. South African Journal of Linguistics 9(3): 59–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
TreeTagger. <[URL]>
Trosborg, Anna. 1997. Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Language. Discourse Analysis of Statutes and Contracts. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2005. Tradition and Change in Legal English. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Changes in the verb phrase in legislative language in English. In The Verb Phrase in English. Investigating Recent Language Change with Corpora, Bas Aarts, Joanne Close, Geoffrey Leech & Sean Wallis (eds), 353–371. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Appleby, Thomas, Juliette Scott, Wesley Flannery & Edward Donelan
2024. Making Sense of Interlinkages in EU Marine Environment Legislation: Unearthing Effectiveness. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique DOI logo
Giampieri, Patrizia
2024. Key n-Grams in EU Directives and in the UK National Legislation on Consumer Contracts. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 37:1 ► pp. 59 ff. DOI logo
McKeown, Jamie
2022. Stancetaking in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence (1973-present): epistemic (im)probability and evidential (dis)belief. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7:2 ► pp. 323 ff. DOI logo
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław
2021. Corpus Linguistics in Legal Discourse. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 34:5 ► pp. 1515 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.