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. 1–22

Chapter 1
“Why may not that be the skull of a lawyer?” English legal discourse past and present

| University of Santiago de Compostela
| University of Oviedo
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Law-related fields of language study
  • 3.Register and genre perspectives on legal discourse
  • 4.Legal discourse and (historical) pragmatics
  • 5.Book overview
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.91.01fan
References
Alcaraz, Enrique & Hughes, Brian
2002 Legal Translation Explained. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Archer, Dawn
2005 Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). A Sociopragmatic Analysis [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 135]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Asprey, Michèle M.
2003 [1991] Plain Language for Lawyers, 3rd edn. Sydney: The Federation Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight
1999 Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
2001 Scientific discourse across history: A combined multi-dimensional/rhetorical analysis of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London . In Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies, Susan Conrad & Douglas Biber (eds), 45–65. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Baron, Jane B.
1999 Law, literature, and the problems of interdisciplinarity. Yale Law Journal 108: 1059–1085. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, Charles
1999 The Languages of Edison’s Light. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K.
1987 Language of the law. Language Teaching 20(4): 227–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993 Analysing Genre. Language Use in Professional Settings. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas
1988 Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1989 A typology of English texts. Linguistics 27: 3–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 Dimensions of Register Variation: A Cross-linguistic Perspective. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006 University Language: A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Registers [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Corpus-based analyses of discourse: Dimensions of variation in conversation. In Advances in Discourse Studies, Vijay K. Bhatia, John Flowerdew & Rodney H. Jones (eds), 100–114. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Connor, Ulla & Upton, Thomas A.
2007 Discourse on the Move. Using Corpus Analysis to Describe Discourse Structure [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 28]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan
2009 Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward
2001 Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies, Susan Conrad & Douglas Biber (eds), 66–83. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Gray, Bethany
2012 The competing demands of popularization vs. economy: Written language in the age of mass literacy. In The Oxford Handbook of the History of English, Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Traugott (eds), 314–328. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
2016 Grammatical Complexity in Academic English: Linguistic Change in Writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward
1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Reppen, Randi
(eds) 2015 The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biel, Łucja
2010 Corpus-based studies of legal language for translation purposes: Methodological and practical potential. In Reconceptualizing LSP. Online Proceedings of the XVII European LSP Symposium 2009, Carmen Heine & Jan Engberg (eds). Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business, Aarhus University.Google Scholar
Bolly, Catherine T. & Degand, Liesbeth
2009 Quelle(s) fonction(s) pour donc en français oral? Du connecteur conséquentiel au marqueur de structuration du discours. Lingvisticæ Investigationes 32(1): 1–32. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Campos, Miguel Ángel & Isani, Shaeda
2015 Aspects of language and the law: Exploring further avenues. Alicante Journal of English Studies 28: 5–12.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia
2012 Linguistic levels: Styles, registers, genres, text types. In English Historical Linguistics. An International Handbook, Vol. 1, Alexander Bergs & Laurel J. Brinton (eds), 237–253. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Claridge, Claudia & Wilson, Andrew
2002 Style evolution in the English sermon. In Sounds, Words, Texts and Change. Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000, Vol. 2 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 224], Teresa Fanego, Belén Méndez-Naya & Elena Seoane (eds), 25–44. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, Malcolm & Alison Johnson
(eds) 2010 The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulthard, Malcolm, Johnson, Alison, Wright, David
2017 [2007] An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics. Language in Evidence, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining Language Change. An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Longman Pearson.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja
2000 Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1: 175–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Dessouter, Cécile
2006 Le processus de simplification du langage administratif en France. In New Trends in Specialized Discourse, Maurizio Gotti & Davide S. Giannoni (eds), 163–182. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Diller, Hans-Jürgen
2001  Genre in linguistic and related discourses. In Towards a History of English as a History of Genres, Hans-Jürgen Diller & Manfred Görlach (eds), 3–43. Heidelberg: C. Winter.Google Scholar
Doty, Kathleen L.
2010 Courtroom discourse. In Historical Pragmatics, Andreas H. Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds), 621–650. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Egbert, Jesse
2012 Style in nineteenth century fiction: A multi-dimensional analysis. Scientific Study of Literature 2: 167–198. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fanego, Teresa, Rodríguez-Puente, Paula, López-Couso, María José, Méndez-Naya, Belén, Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma, Blanco-García, Cristina & Tamaredo, Iván
2017 The Corpus of Historical English Law Reports 1535–1999 (CHELAR): A resource for analysing the development of English legal discourse. ICAME Journal 41: 53–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferguson, Charles A.
1994 Dialect, register, and genre: Working assumptions about conventionalization. In Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register, Douglas Biber & Edward Finegan (eds), 15–30. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Forchini, Pierfranca
2017 A multi-dimensional analysis of legal American English: Real-life and cinematic representations compared. International Journal of Language Studies 11(3): 133–150.Google Scholar
Freeman, Michael & Smith, Fiona
(eds) 2013 Law and Language. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geisler, Christer
2002 Investigating register variation in nineteenth-century English: A multidimensional comparison. In Using Corpora to Explore Linguistic Variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 9],  Randi Reppen, Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Douglas Biber (eds), 249–271. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ghadessy, Mohsen
(ed) 1993 Register Analysis: Theory and Practice. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisƚaw
2011 Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-based Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław
2018 Facts in law. A comparative study of fact that and its phraseologies in American and Polish judicial discourse. In Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective, Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski & Gianluca Pontrandolfo (eds), 143–159. Abingdon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Pontrandolfo, Gianluca
2014 Facing the facts: Evaluative patterns in English and Italian judicial language. In Language and Law in Professional Discourse. Issues and Perspectives, Vijay Bhatia, Giuliana Garzone & Rita Salvi (eds), 10–28. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian
2014 Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huber, Magnus
2007 The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1674–1834. Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Annotating Variation and Change, Anneli Meurman-Solin & Arja Nurmi (eds). Helsinki: Research Unit for Variation, Contacts and Change in English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus, Nissel, Magnus & Puga, Karin
2016 The Old Bailey Corpus 2.0, 1720–1913. [URL] (1 January 2018).Google Scholar
Hull, David L.
1988 Science as a Process: An Evolutionary Account of the Social and Conceptual Development of Science. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Isani, Shaeda
2010 Semiotic dialectics of legal courtroom attire and the cross-cultural erosion of professional identity. ESP Across Cultures 7: 89–103.Google Scholar
Isani, Shaeda & Chapon, Sandrine
2015 A socio-cultural approach to ELP: Accessing the language and culture of law through fictional television series. Alicante Journal of English Studies 28: 103–118.Google Scholar
Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey N. & Goodluck, Helen
1978 Manual of Information to Accompany the Lancaster-Oslo-Bergen Corpus of British English, for Use with Digital Computers. Oslo: Department of English, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Johnson, Alison & Coulthard, Malcolm
2010 Introduction: Current debates in forensic linguistics. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Malcolm Coulthard & Alison Johnson (eds), 1–15. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jucker, Andreas H.
(ed) 1995 Historical Pragmatics. Pragmatic Developments in the History of English [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 35]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Historical pragmatics. Language and Linguistics Compass 2(5): 894–906. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis
1986 It is Hereby Performed … Explorations in Legal Speech Acts [Pragmatics & Beyond VII:6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis & Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara
(eds) 2018 Legal Pragmatics [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 288]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Culpeper, Jonathan
(compilers) 2006 Corpus of English Dialogues 1560–1760. [URL] (1 January 2018)Google Scholar
Lee, Thomas R. & Mouritsen, Stephen C.
2017 Judging ordinary meaning. Yale Law Journal. 19 March 2017: [URL] (1 January 2018).Google Scholar
Longacre, Robert E.
1996 [1983] The Grammar of Discourse. New York NY: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mann, William & Thompson, Sandra A.
(eds) 1992 Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-raising Text [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 16]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moessner, Lilo
(ed) 2001 Early Modern English text types. Special issue of European Journal of English Studies 5: 131–256. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montolío Durán, Estrella
2012 La modernización del discurso jurídico impulsada por el Ministerio de Justicia. Presentación y principales aportaciones del informe sobre el lenguaje escrito. Revista de Llengua i Dret 57: 95–121.Google Scholar
Olsson, John
2002–2018 What is Forensic Linguistics? UNESCO – Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (UNESCO-EOLSS). [URL] (1 January 2018)Google Scholar
Olsson, John & Luchjenbroers, June
2013 Forensic Linguistics. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti
1998 Towards an integrated view of the development of English: Notes on causal linking. In Advances in English Historical Linguistics, Jacek Fisiak & Marcin Krygier (eds), 389–406. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Šarčević, Susan
2000 New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Sinclair, John
2004 Trust the Text: Language, Corpus and Discourse. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan
1968 The Evans Statements: A Case for Forensic Linguistics [Gothenburg Studies in English 20]. Göteborg: Acta Universitatis Gothoburgensis.Google Scholar
Svartvik, Jan & Quirk, Randolph
(eds) 1980 A Corpus of English Conversation. Lund: CWK Gleerup.Google Scholar
Swales, John M.
1981 Aspects of Article Introductions [Aston ESP Research Reports 1]. Birmingham: University of Aston.Google Scholar
1990 Genre Analysis: English for Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M.
1999 Legal Language. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Todorov, Tzvetan
1978 Les genres du discours. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna
1997 Rhetorical Strategies in Legal Language. Discourse Analysis of Statutes and Contracts. Tübingen: Gunter Narr.Google Scholar
Upton, Thomas A. & Cohen, Mary Ann
2009 An approach to corpus-based discourse analysis: The move analysis as an example. Discourse Studies 11(5): 585–605. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Werlich, Egon
1975 Typologie der Texte. Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer.Google Scholar
Wigmore, John H.
1922 A list of one hundred legal novels. Illinois Law Review 17: 26–41.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher
2004 Legal English and plain language: An introduction. ESP Across Cultures 1: 111–124.Google Scholar
2011 Legal English and plain language: An update. ESP Across Cultures 8: 139–151.Google 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