The expression of emotion in institutionalized legal opiniona contrastive spanish-english pre-translational study

  1. María Ángeles Orts Llopis 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

Revue:
Revista española de lingüística aplicada

ISSN: 0213-2028

Année de publication: 2017

Volumen: 30

Número: 2

Pages: 611-635

Type: Article

DOI: 10.1075/RESLA.00009.ORT DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: Revista española de lingüística aplicada

Objectifs de Développement Durable

Résumé

The present work carries out a contrastive study of interpersonal devices between two corpora of legal opinion in English and Spanish, with a view to assessing the different use that is made in these languages of the indicators of emotion, evaluation and appreciation as to the ideational context of these texts. The antecedents of the present study are found in the Appraisal theory, which constitutes the interpretation of Halliday’s (1994/2004) Systemic-Functional Linguistics by the Sydney School. Through the analysis of an ad-hoc corpus of forty opinion columns from two prestigious and influential newspapers, El País and The New York Times, aims to understand how the use of the different evaluation resources advocated by Appraisal theory (Affect, Judgment and Appreciation) varies depending on the way legal opinion articles as genres are conceived in the languages and cultures under scrutiny. In other words, it tries to deepen into the different application of the prototypical rhetorical strategies used to express emotion and evaluation, through which the different ideological positions of the institutionalized press are naturalized

Références bibliographiques

  • Anthony, L. (2016). AntConc 2.0. Software available at http://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/
  • Bakhtin, M. (1981). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  • Bednarek, M. (2010). Evaluation in the news. A methodological framework for analysing evaluative language in journalism. Australian Journal of Communication, 37(2), 15–50.
  • Bhatia, V. K. (1982). An investigation into formal and functional characteristics of qualifications in legislative writing and its application to English for Academic Legal Purposes. PhD thesis. University of Aston in Birmingham.
  • Breeze, R., Gotti, M., & Sancho Guinda, C. (Eds). (2014). Interpersonality in legal genres. Bern: Peter Lang. doi: 10.3726/978-3-0351-0725-8
  • Dafouz, E. (2008). The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics, 40, 95–113. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
  • Eggins, S., & Slade, D. (1997). Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell.
  • Fossum, J. E., & Schlesinger, P. R. (2007). The European Union and the public sphere: A communicative space in the making? London: Routledge
  • Gibbons, J. (2004). Taking legal language seriously. In J. V. Gibbons, V. Prakasam, K. V. Tirumalesh, & Hemalatha Nagarajan (Eds.), Language in the law (pp. 2–5). New Delhi: Orient Longman.
  • Goodrich, P. (1987). Legal discourse: Studies in linguistics, rhetoric, and legal analysis. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
  • González, M. J. (2011). La expresión lingüística de la actitud en el género de opinión: El modelo de la valoración [The linguistic expression of attitude in opinion discourse: The appraisal theory]. RLA: Revista de Lingüística Teórica y Aplicada, 49(1), 109–141. doi: 10.4067/S0718-48832011000100006
  • Halliday, M. A. K. (1994/2004). An introduction to Functional Grammar. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
  • Hiltunen, R. (1990). Chapters on legal English: Aspects past and present of the language of the law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
  • Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Hutchinson, A. C. (1995). A postmodern’s Hart: Taking rules sceptically. The Modern Law Review Ltd., 58(6), 788–819. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.1995.tb02053.x
  • Iedema, R., Feez, S., & White, P. R. R. (1993). Media literacy: Disadvantaged schools program. Sydney: NSW Department of School Education.
  • Jovanović-Krstić, V. (2005). Evaluating the discourse of war: Examining the system of Attitude in the discourse of media. In A. Makkay, W. Sullivan, & A. R. Lommel (Eds), LACUS Forum, XXXI, Interconnections (pp. 242–253). Houston, TX: LACUS. http://www.lacus. org/volumes/31/jovanovic-krstic_v.pdf
  • Martin, J. R., & Rose, D. (2003). Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.
  • Martin, J. R., & White, P. R. R. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Mattila, H. (2013). Comparative legal linguistics: Language of law, Latin and modern lingua francas. London: Ashgate.
  • Miller, D. R. (2002). Multiple judicial opinions as specialized sites of engagement: conflicting paradigms of valuation and legitimation in Bush v. Gore 2000. In M. Gotti, D. Heller, & M. Dossena (Eds.),Conflict and negotiation in specialized texts (pp. 119–141). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Miller, D. R. (2004). ‘Truth, justice and the American way’: The appraisal system of judgement in the U. S. House debate on the impeachment of the President, 1998. In P. Bayley (Ed.), Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture: Cross- cultural perspectives on parliamentary discourse (pp. 271–300). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/dapsac.10.08mil
  • Orts, M. A. (2015). Power and complexity in legal genres: Unveiling insurance policies and arbitration rules. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue international Sémiotique juridique, 28(3), 485–505. doi: 10.1007/s11196-015-9429-6
  • Orts, M. A. (2016). Power distance and persuasion: The tension between imposition and legitimation in international legal genres. Journal of Pragmatics, 92, 1–16. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2015.11.009
  • Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
  • White, P. R. (1998). Telling media tales: The news story as rhetoric. Unpublished doctoral thesis. Sidney: University of Sidney.
  • White, P. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259–284. doi: 10.1515/text.2003.011
  • White, P. R. (2004). The language of attitude, arguability and interpersonal positioning. [Available online]. Last retrieved May 22 2017: http://www.grammatics.com/appraisal/ White, P. R. (2015). Appraisal theory. In The international encyclopedia of language and social interaction [Available online]. Last retrieved May 22 2017: ttp://www.prrwhite.info/prrwhite,%202015,%20Appraisal%20theory,%20Wiley%20Encylopedia.pdf doi: 10.1002/9781118611463.wbielsi041
  • Orts, M. A., Breeze, R., & Gotti, M. (Eds.). (2017). Power, persuasion and manipulation in specialised genres: Providing keys to the rhetoric of professional communities. Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Salmi-Tolonen, T. (2014). Interpersonality and fundamental rights. In R. Breeze, M. Gotti, & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Interpersonality in legal genres (pp. 303–328). Bern: Peter Lang.
  • Sancho Guinda, C., Gotti, M., & Breeze, R. (2014). Framing interpersonality in law contexts. In R. Breeze, M. Gotti, & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Interpersonality in legal genres (pp. 9–35) Bern: Peter Lang.
La source de données: Dialnet