Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

While there are many studies on hedging in a wide variety of disciplinary discourses,the field of Law,to date,has been largely overlooked.Moreover,most research on hedging approaches the phenomenon from either a textual or pragmatic perspective,and tends to compare the same genre across disciplines.By contrast,the objective of this study was to analyse hedging in two legal written discourse genres,namely U.S.Supreme Court opinions and American law review articles,from a comprehensive,socio-cognitive, intra-disciplinary perspective.Due to the essential roles of intuition and hedging competence in the identification of hedges,qualitative data gathering and interpretation techniques were used.Results indicate that differences between the two genres can be linked to certain prototypical features of the genres themselves,particularly context and communicative purposes.Therefore,it is possible to postulate that hedging is in fact genre-specific, at least insofar as legal genres are concerned.Further comparative research must be done to determine if the same is true in other fields as well.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)125-141
Number of pages17
JournalIberica
Volume7
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Fingerprint

genre
discourse
Law
comparative research
intuition
Supreme Court
pragmatics
interpretation

Keywords

  • hedging
  • Genre Analysis
  • Legal discourse
  • cognitive approach,
  • English for Academic Legal Purposes (EALP)

Cite this

Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres. / Vass, Holly.

In: Iberica, Vol. 7, 2004, p. 125-141.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{6f69f570a5f341ffaf45069e2ae33f63,
title = "Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres",
abstract = "While there are many studies on hedging in a wide variety of disciplinary discourses,the field of Law,to date,has been largely overlooked.Moreover,most research on hedging approaches the phenomenon from either a textual or pragmatic perspective,and tends to compare the same genre across disciplines.By contrast,the objective of this study was to analyse hedging in two legal written discourse genres,namely U.S.Supreme Court opinions and American law review articles,from a comprehensive,socio-cognitive, intra-disciplinary perspective.Due to the essential roles of intuition and hedging competence in the identification of hedges,qualitative data gathering and interpretation techniques were used.Results indicate that differences between the two genres can be linked to certain prototypical features of the genres themselves,particularly context and communicative purposes.Therefore,it is possible to postulate that hedging is in fact genre-specific, at least insofar as legal genres are concerned.Further comparative research must be done to determine if the same is true in other fields as well.",
keywords = "hedging, Genre Analysis, Legal discourse, cognitive approach,, English for Academic Legal Purposes (EALP)",
author = "Holly Vass",
year = "2004",
language = "English",
volume = "7",
pages = "125--141",
journal = "Iberica",
issn = "1139-7241",
publisher = "Asociacion Europea de Lenguas para Fines Especificos",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Socio-cognitive aspects of hedging in two legal discourse genres

AU - Vass, Holly

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - While there are many studies on hedging in a wide variety of disciplinary discourses,the field of Law,to date,has been largely overlooked.Moreover,most research on hedging approaches the phenomenon from either a textual or pragmatic perspective,and tends to compare the same genre across disciplines.By contrast,the objective of this study was to analyse hedging in two legal written discourse genres,namely U.S.Supreme Court opinions and American law review articles,from a comprehensive,socio-cognitive, intra-disciplinary perspective.Due to the essential roles of intuition and hedging competence in the identification of hedges,qualitative data gathering and interpretation techniques were used.Results indicate that differences between the two genres can be linked to certain prototypical features of the genres themselves,particularly context and communicative purposes.Therefore,it is possible to postulate that hedging is in fact genre-specific, at least insofar as legal genres are concerned.Further comparative research must be done to determine if the same is true in other fields as well.

AB - While there are many studies on hedging in a wide variety of disciplinary discourses,the field of Law,to date,has been largely overlooked.Moreover,most research on hedging approaches the phenomenon from either a textual or pragmatic perspective,and tends to compare the same genre across disciplines.By contrast,the objective of this study was to analyse hedging in two legal written discourse genres,namely U.S.Supreme Court opinions and American law review articles,from a comprehensive,socio-cognitive, intra-disciplinary perspective.Due to the essential roles of intuition and hedging competence in the identification of hedges,qualitative data gathering and interpretation techniques were used.Results indicate that differences between the two genres can be linked to certain prototypical features of the genres themselves,particularly context and communicative purposes.Therefore,it is possible to postulate that hedging is in fact genre-specific, at least insofar as legal genres are concerned.Further comparative research must be done to determine if the same is true in other fields as well.

KW - hedging

KW - Genre Analysis

KW - Legal discourse

KW - cognitive approach,

KW - English for Academic Legal Purposes (EALP)

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 125

EP - 141

JO - Iberica

JF - Iberica

SN - 1139-7241

ER -