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
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