Cover not available
Article published In:
Australian Review of Applied Linguistics
Vol. 19:1 (1996) ► pp.89–110

Multi-level structure of meaning in a business law tutorial

| Monash University.

This paper investigates the tutor’s discourse in a university classroom for a business law tutorial. It is argued that the discourse is structured on several levels. On a deeper level, linguistic models of values underpinning the legal system can be discerned. Sinclair and Coulthard’s classroom taxonomy was applied firstly to the discourse, followed by further investigation of the moves in the exchanges along the lines of Halliday’s interpersonal, ideational and metalanguage components. In addition, characteristics of legal language were explored. It was found that, in combination, these form the medium through which the linguistic models of the legal system are presented. It is suggested that these elements of the discourse play an important role in initiating the students into the subject’s discourse community. It is further suggested that students with less facility and flexibility in English may be positioned less advantageously to benefit from these subtle messages.

Published online: 1 January 1996
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/aral.19.1.06cro
References
Allan, K. and D. Burridge
(1991) Euphemism and dysphemism. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bhatia, V
(1983) Simplification v. easification-the case of legal texts. Applied Linguistics 4, 1: 42–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(1987) Language of the law. Language Teaching 201:227–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danet, B
(1980) Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review 141:445–564. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gee, J
(1990) Social linguistics and literacies. Ideology in discourses. London, The Falmer Press.Google Scholar
Halliday, M
(1978) Language as social semiotic. London, Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Hammond, J
(1991) Synoptic and dynamic analyses of classroom discourse: The role of meta language in teaching literacy. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 14, 2: 1–29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iedema, R
(1993) Legal English: Subject specific literacy and genre theory. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 16, 2: 86–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kittay, E
(1987) Metaphor: Its cognitive force and linguistic structure. New York, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lemke, J
(1988) Genres, semantics and classroom education. Linguistics and Education 11:81–99. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lublin, J
(1987) Conducting tutorials. Kensington, Higher Education Research and Development Society of Australia.Google Scholar
Matalene, C.B.
(ed.) (1989) Worlds of writing. New York, Random House.Google Scholar
McKenna, E
(1987) Preparing foreign students to enter discourse communities in the U.S. English For Academic Purposes 61:187–202. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Phelps, T
(1989) In the law the text is king. In Matalene (ed.)Google Scholar
Sinclair, J. and R. Coulthard
(1978) Towards an analysis of discourse. The English used by teachers and pupil. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Swales, J
(1991) Genre analysis. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
(1982) The case of cases. IRAL 20, 2: 139–148.Google Scholar
Warnock, W
(1989) To English professors: On what to do with a lawyer. In Matalene (ed.).Google Scholar
White, J
(1982) The invisible discourse of the law: Reflections on legal literacy and general education. Michigan Quarterly Review420–438.Google Scholar
Widdowson, H
(1984) Language purpose and language use. London, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar