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. 171–200

Chapter 8
Interpersonality in legal written discourse

A diachronic analysis of personal pronouns in law reports, 1535 to present

 | University of Oviedo
This chapter offers a diachronic analysis of the use of personal pronouns in English law reports. Results show that law reports are narrative texts with high frequencies of third person pronouns. However, markers of subjectivity, involvement and interpersonality, such as first and second person pronouns, are also amply represented–a feature which distinguishes law reports from other formal, specialized text types, as well as from other legal documents. In addition, law reports seem to have developed over time, becoming more involved, subjective and interpersonal, a tendency that coincides with a major change in the history of law reporting in English.
Keywords: law reports, interpersonality, pronouns
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sources and methodology
  • 3.Results
    • 3.1Pronouns in law reports and other legal written documents
    • 3.2Diachronic variation in the use of pronouns in law reports
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 6 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.91.08rod
References (102)
References
Ariel, Mira. 1999. The development of person agreement markers: From pronouns to higher accessibility markers. In Usage-based Models of Language, Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds), 197–260. Stanford CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Atkinson, Dwight. 1996. The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1675–1975: A sociohistorical discourse analysis. Language in Society 2(3): 333–371. DOI logoGoogle 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
Badger, Richard. 2003. Legal and general: Towards a genre analysis of newspaper law reports. English for Specific Purposes 22: 249–263. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, John. 2003. The Oxford History of the Laws of England, Vol. VI: 1483–1558. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Benveniste, Émile. 1971. Problems in General Linguistics. Coral Gables FL: University of Miami Press.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 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
Biber, Douglas & Finegan, Edward. 1997. Diachronic relations among speech-based and written registers in English. In To Explain the Present: Studies in the Changing English Language in Honour of Matti Rissanen, Terttu Nevalainen & Leena Kahlas-Tarkka (eds), 253–275. Helsinki: Société Néophilologique.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Clark, Victoria. 2002. Historical shifts in modification patterns with complex noun phrase structures: How long can you go without a verb? In English Historical Syntax and Morphology: Selected Papers from 11 ICEHL, Santiago de Compostela, 7–11 September 2000, Vol. 1 [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory 223], Teresa Fanego, María José López-Couso & Javier Pérez-Guerra (eds), 43–66. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 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
Breeze, Ruth. 2010. They say, we do: Writer’s strategic positioning in the discourse of political communication research. In Lorés-Sanz, Mur-Dueñas & Lafuente-Millán (eds), 163–179.Google Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2014. The discursive construction of professional relationships through the legal letter of advice. In Breeze, Gotti & Sancho-Guinda (eds), 281–302.Google Scholar
Breeze, Ruth, Gotti, Maurizio & Sancho-Guinda, Carmen (eds). 2014. Interpersonality in Legal Genres. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Breivega, Kjersti, Dahl, Trine & Fløttum, Kjersti. 2002. Traces of self and others in research articles. A comparative pilot study of English, French and Norwegian research articles in medicine, economics and linguistics. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 12(2): 218–239. DOI logoGoogle 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
Comrie, Bernard. 1975. Polite plurals and predicate agreement. Language 51(2): 406–418. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cornish, William, Anderson, J. Stuart, Cocks, Ray, Lobban, Michael, Polden, Patrick & Smith, Keith. 2010. The Oxford History of the Laws of England, Vol. XI: 1820–1914. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Anu Lehto. 2017. Unpublished corpus. Compiled by Anu Lehto. University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Craig, Hugh. 1999. Authorial attribution and computational stylistics: If you can tell authors apart, have you learned anything about them? Literary and Linguistic Computing 14(1): 103–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crystal, David. 1994. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Crystal, David & Davy, Derek. 1969. Investigating English Style. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2000. Data in historical pragmatics: Spoken interaction (re)cast as writing. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1(2): 175–199. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Culpeper, Jonathan & Kytö, Merja. 2010. Early Modern English Dialogues. Spoken Interaction as Writing. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Encyclopædia Britannica Online. <[URL]>
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
Gea-Valor, María-Lluisa. 2010. The emergence of the author’s voice in book reviewing: A contrastive study of academic vs. non-academic discourse. In Lorés-Sanz, Mur-Dueñas & Lafuente-Millán (eds), 117–135.Google Scholar
Gotti, Maurizio. 2010. Identity traits in written academic discourse across languages and cultures. In Lorés-Sanz, Mur-Dueñas & Lafuente-Millán (eds), 41–59.Google Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 1999. Nineteenth-Century England: An Introduction. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Görlach, Manfred. 2001. Eighteenth-Century English. Heidelberg: Universitätsverlag C. Winter.Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisƚaw. 2011. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-based Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greenberg, Daniel. 2008. The techniques of gender-neutral drafting. In Drafting Legislation. A Modern Approach, Constantin Stefanou & Helen Xanthaki (eds), 63–76. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Grund, Peter. 2007. From tongue to text: The transmission of the Salem witchcraft examination records. American Speech 82(2): 119–150. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hafner, Christoph A. 2014. Stance in a professional legal genre. The barrister’s opinion. In Breeze, Gotti & Sancho-Guinda (eds), 137–160.Google Scholar
Haigh, Rupert. 2009 [2004]. Legal English, 2nd edn. London: Routledge-Cavendish.Google Scholar
Harwood, Nigel. 2005.‘We do not seem to have a theory … The theory I present here attempts to fill this gap’: Inclusive and exclusive pronouns in academic writing. Applied Linguistics 26(3): 343–375. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Herrando-Rodrigo, Isabel. 2010. “If you suffer from… check the Internet”: The role of engagement and self-mention devices in medical research articles and electronic popularizations. In Lorés-Sanz, Mur-Dueñas & Lafuente-Millán (eds), 255–274.Google Scholar
Hiltunen, Risto. 1990. Chapters on Legal English. Aspects Past and Present of the Language of the Law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.Google Scholar
Hoadley, Daniel. 2015. The curious case of the judgment enhancers. In Magrath (ed), 17–27.Google Scholar
Holborn, Guy. 2015. The old law reporters. In Magrath (ed), 29–36.Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus. 2007. The Old Bailey Proceedings, 1764–1834. Evaluating and annotating a corpus of 18th- and 19th-century spoken English. In Annotating Variation and Change [Studies in Variation, Contacts and Change in English 1], Anneli Meurman-Solin & Arja Nurmi (eds). Helsinki: University of Helsinki <[URL]> Google Scholar
Huber, Magnus, Nissel, Magnus, Maiwald, Patrick & Widlitzki, Bianca. 2012. The Old Bailey Corpus. Spoken English in the 18th and 19th centuries. <[URL]> Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey K. 2002. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2001. Humble servants of the discipline? Self mention in research articles. English for Specific Purposes 20(3): 207–226. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2002. Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 34: 1091–1112. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken 2005. Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 7(2): 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanič, Roz. 1998. Writing and Identity: The Discoursal Construction of Identity in Academic Writing [Studies in Written Language and Literacy 5]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ivanič, Roz & Camps, David. 2001. I am how I sound. Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 10: 3–33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jaffe, Alexandra 2009. Introduction: The sociolinguistics of stance. In Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, Alexandra Jaffe (ed), 1–28. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kearns, Martin. 2007. Legal English. Madrid: Colex.Google Scholar
Kilgarriff, Adam. 2001. Comparing corpora. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 6(1): 97–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuo, Chih-Hua. 1999. The use of personal pronouns: Role relationships in scientific journal articles. English for Specific Purposes 18(2): 121–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja. 1996. Manual to the Diachronic Part of The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. Coding Conventions and Lists of Source Texts, 3rd edn. Helsinki: Department of English, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Walker, Terry. 2003. The linguistic study of Early Modern English speech-related texts: How ‘bad’ can ‘bad’ data be? Journal of English Linguistics 31: 221–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kytö, Merja & Culpeper, Jonathan. 2006. A Corpus of English Dialogues, 1560–1760. <[URL]> Google Scholar
Lafuente-Millán, Enrique, Mur-Dueñas, Pilar, Lorés-Sanz, Rosa & Vázquez-Orta Ignacio. 2010. Interpersonality in written academic discourse. In Lorés-Sanz, Mur-Dueñas & Lafuente-Millán (eds), 13–39.Google Scholar
Lass, Roger. 1999. Phonology and morphology. In The Cambridge History of the English Language, Vol. III: 1476–1776, Roger Lass (ed), 56–186. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lehto, Anu. 2013. Complexity and genre conventions. Text structure and coordination in Early Modern English proclamations. In Meaning in the History of English. Words and Texts in Context [Studies in Language Companion Series, 148], Andreas H. Jucker, Daniela Landert, Annina Seiler & Nicole Studer-Joho (eds), 233–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehto, Anu. 2017. Binomials and multinomials in Early Modern English Parliamentary Acts. In Binomials in the History of English, Joanna Kopaczyk & Hans Sauer (eds), 261–278. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Lehto, Anu. 2018. Lexical bundles in Early Modern and Present-day English Acts of Parliament. In Applications of Pattern-driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 82], Joanna Kopaczyk & Jukka Tyrkkö (eds), 159–186. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Leith, Dick. 1997 [1983]. A Social History of English, 2nd edn. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lijffijt, Jefrey, Nevalainen, Terttu, Säily, Tanja, Papapetrou, Panagiotis, Puolamäki, Kai & Mannila, Heikki. 2016. Significance testing of word frequencies in corpora. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities 31(2): 374–397. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorés-Sanz, Rosa, Mur-Dueñas, Pilar & Lafuente-Millán Enrique (eds). 2010. Constructing Interpersonality: Multiple Perspectives on Written Academic Genres. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Lyons, John. 1982. Deixis and subjectivity: Loquor, ergo sum? In Speech, Place, and Action: Studies in Deixis and Related Topics, Robert J. Jarvella & Wolfgang Klein (eds), 101–124. New York NY: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Maci, Stefania. 2006. An emerging medical genre: The research letter. Paper presented at the conference on Identity and Culture in English Domain-Specific Discourse: Methodological Issues and Preliminary Studies. October 19–20, Naples, Italy.
Magrath, Paul. 2015a. The past, present, and future of the ICLR. In Magrath (ed), 5–15.Google Scholar
Magrath, Paul (ed). 2015b. The Law Reports 1865–2015. Anniversary Edition. London: The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales.Google Scholar
Marín Pérez, María José & Rea Rizzo, Camino. 2012. Structure and design of the British Law Report Corpus (BLRC): A legal corpus of judicial decisions from the UK. Journal of English Studies 10: 131–145. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mazzi, Davide. 2014. “The words are plain and clear …”: On interpersonal positioning in the discourse of judicial interpretation. In Breeze, Gotti & Sancho-Guinda (eds), 39–62.Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston MA: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Mitchell, Paul. 2015. Between speech and writing. In Magrath (ed), 37–46.Google Scholar
Mur-Dueñas, Pilar. 2007. “I/we focus on…”: A cross-cultural analysis of self-mentions in business management research articles. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7: 15–26.Google Scholar
John A. SimpsonOED = Oxford English Dictionary. Third edition in progress: OED Online, March 2000–, John A. Simpson (ed). <[URL]> Google Scholar
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey & Svartvik, Jan. 1985. A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
R version 3.3.1. 2016. A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Core Team. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria. <[URL]>
Rahimivand, Masumeh & Kuhi, Davud. 2014. An exploration of discoursal construction of identity in academic writing. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 98: 1492–1501. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ratia, Maura. 2005. Personal pronouns in argumentation: An early tobacco controversy. In Opening Windows on Texts and Discourses of the Past [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 134], Janne Skaffari, Matti Peikola, Ruth Carroll, Risto Hiltunen & Brita Wårvik (eds), 123–141. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ratia, Maura & Suhr, Carla. 2011. Medical pamphlets: Controversy and advertising. In Medical Writing in Early Modern English, Irma Taavitsainen & Päivi Pahta (eds), 180–203. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rissanen, Matti, Kytö, Merja, Kahlas-Tarka, Leena, Kilpiö, Matti, Nevanlinna, Saara, Taavitsainen, Irma, Nevalainen, Terttu & Raumolin-Brunberg, Helena. 1991. The Helsinki Corpus of English Texts. <[URL]> Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Puente, Paula. 2011. Introducing the Corpus of Historical English Law Reports: Structure and compilation techniques. Revista de Lenguas para Fines Específicos 17: 99–120.Google Scholar
Rodríguez-Puente, Paula, Fanego, Teresa, López-Couso, María José, Méndez-Naya, Belén & Núñez-Pertejo, Paloma. 2016. Corpus of Historical English Law Reports 1535–1999 (CHELAR). <[URL]> Google Scholar
Sancho-Guinda, Carmen, Gotti, Maurizio & Breeze, Ruth. 2014. Framing interpersonality in law contexts. In Breeze, Gotti & Sancho-Guinda (eds), 9–35.Google Scholar
Šarčević, Susan. 2000. New Approach to Legal Translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Scheibman, Joanne. 2002. Point of View and Grammar: Structural Patterns of Subjectivity in American English Conversation [Studies in Discourse and Grammar 11] Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Michael. 2012. WordSmith Tools, version 6. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Scotto di Carlo, Giuseppina. 2015. Diachronic and Synchronic Aspects of Legal English: Past, Present, and Possible Future of Legal English. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars.Google Scholar
Scowen, Clive. 2015. 150 not out. In Magrath (ed), 3–4.Google Scholar
Shoemaker, Robert B. 2008. The Old Bailey Proceedings and the representation of crime and criminal justice in eighteenth-century London. Journal of British Studies 47(3): 559–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma & Pahta, Päivi. 2010. Scientific discourse. In Historical Pragmatics, Irma Taavitsainen & Andreas H. Jucker (eds), 549–586. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tang, Ramona & Suganthi, John. 1999. The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes 18: 23–39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tessuto, Girolamo 2006. Opinions of counsel: An exploratory survey of generic features. In Explorations in Specialized Genres, Vijay K. Bhatia & Maurizio Gotti (eds), 291–308. Bern: Peter LangGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
van Gelderen, Elly. 2006. A History of the English Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vassileva, Irena. 1998. Who am I/Who are we in academic writing? International Journal of Applied Linguistics 8(2): 163–190. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vázquez Rozas, Victoria & García-Miguel, José M. 2006. Transitividad, subjetividad y frecuencia de uso. Actes del VII Congrés de Lingüística General. Barcelona, 18–21 April 2006. Barcelona: Universitat de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Wales, Katie. 1996. Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
Walker, Terry. 2007. Thou and You in Early Modern English Dialogues [Benjamins Translation Library 84]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Widlitzki, Bianca & Huber, Magnus. 2016. Taboo language and swearing in 18th century and 19th century English. A diachronic study based on the Old Bailey Corpus . In Corpus Linguistics on the Move: Exploring and Understanding English Through Corpora, María José López-Couso, Belén Méndez-Naya, Paloma Núñez-Pertejo & Ignacio M. Palacios-Martínez (eds), 313–336. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2007[2005]. Tradition and Change in Legal English. Verbal Constructions in Prescriptive Texts, 2nd edn. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 2008. The end of the ‘masculine rule’? Gender-neutral legislative drafting in the United Kingdom and Ireland. Statute Law Review 3(1): 139–153. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Williams, Christopher. 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
Wydick, Richard C. 2005[1978]. Plain English for Lawyers, 5th edn. Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Rodríguez-Puente, Paula & David Hernández-Coalla
2023. The Corpus of Contemporary English Legal Decisions, 1950–2021 (CoCELD): A new tool for analysing recent changes in English legal discourse. ICAME Journal 47:1 ► pp. 109 ff. DOI logo
Wood, Margaret
2022. A lexico-grammatical comparison of statutory law and popular written language. Research in Corpus Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 16 ff. DOI logo
Rodríguez-Puente, Paula
2021. Nominalizations in Early Modern English. In Corpus-based approaches to register variation [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 103], ► pp. 259 ff. DOI logo
Rodríguez-Puente, Paula
2024. Is legal discourse really “outside the ravages of time”?. In Unlocking the History of English [Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, 364], ► pp. 101 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 december 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.