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. 201–234

Chapter 9
The evolution of a legal genre

Rhetorical moves in British patent specifications, 1711 to 1860

| University of Birmingham
| University of Birmingham
This chapter provides a diachronic corpus-based analysis of a vitally important, yet currently very under-researched, legal genre: the patent specification. The empirical focus of the analysis is on changes in the rhetorical move structure of the patent specification genre over the first 150 years of its existence, as represented by a corpus of British patent specification texts ranging from 1711 to 1860. The methodology of the study involves reducing each exemplar text in the corpus to a simple letter code string representing its rhetorical move structure, and then submitting the resulting list of code strings to two kinds of computational analysis: one focusing on the frequency and distribution of individual rhetorical moves over the period of the study, and the other focusing on the frequency and distribution of the different move sequence types attested in the corpus. It is argued that the findings of the study are consistent with, and may thus be interpreted as providing empirical support for, generalized evolutionary theoretical models of genre change.
Keywords: evolution, genre change, move analysis, patent, replication, selection
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Genre analysis
  • 3.Evolutionary perspectives on genre change
  • 4.Data and methods
  • 5.Move type analysis of BLPAS 1711–1860
  • 6.Move sequence analysis of BLPAS 1711–1860
  • 7.Discussion
  • 8.Summary and conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
Published online: 6 February 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.91.09gro
References (71)
References
Ayers, Gael. 2008. The evolutionary nature of genre: An investigation of the short texts accompanying research articles in the scientific journal “Nature”. English for Specific Purposes 27: 22–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. Madison WI: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
. 1994. Systems of genres and the enactment of social intentions. In Genre and the New Rhetoric, Aviva Freedman & Peter Medway (eds), 79–101. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
. 1999. The Languages of Edison’s Light. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bawarshi, Anis S. & Reiff, Mary Jo. 2010. Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research and Pedagogy. West Lafayette IN: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol. 2009. Patient Tales: Case Histories and the Uses of Narrative in Psychiatry. Columbia SC: University of South Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol & Huckin, Thomas N. 1995. Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/Culture/Power. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Biagioli, Mario. 2006. Patent republic: Representing inventions, constructing rights and authors. Social Research 73(4): 1129–1172.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 1988. Variation Across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, Douglas & Conrad, Susan. 2009. Register, Genre, and Style. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle 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
Bottomley, Sean. 2014a. The British Patent System during the Industrial Revolution 1700–1852: From Privilege to Property. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2014b. Patenting in England, Scotland and Ireland during the Industrial Revolution, 1700–1852. Explorations in Economic History 54: 48–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bunton, David. 2005. The structure of PhD conclusion chapters. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4(3): 207–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Connor, Ulla & Upton, Thomas A. 2004. The Genre of Grant Proposals: A Corpus Linguistic Analysis. In Discourse in the Professions: Perspectives from Corpus Linguistics [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 16], Ulla Connor & Thomas A. Upton (eds), 235–256. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William. 2000. Explaining Language Change: An Evolutionary Approach. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard. 1986. The Blind Watchmaker. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Dennett, Daniel C. 1995. Darwin’s Dangerous Idea: Evolution and the Meanings of Life. New York NY: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
Devitt, Amy J. 2004. Writing Genres. Carbondale IL: Southern Illinois University Press.Google Scholar
Dutton, Harry I. 1984. The Patent System and Inventive Activity during the Industrial Revolution, 1750–1852. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Farley, Peter C. 2017. Genre analysis of decision letters from editors of scientific journals: Building on Flowerdew and Dudley-Evans (2002). Applied Linguistics 38(6): 896–905.Google Scholar
Fisher, Matthew. 2007. Fundamentals of Patent Law. Interpretation and Scope of Protection. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Garzone, Giuliana, Catenaccio, Paola & Degano, Chiara (eds). 2012. Genre Change in the Contemporary World: Short-term Diachronic Perspectives. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gordon, Swanne P., Reznick, David N., Kinnison, Michael T., Bryant, Michael J., Weese, Dylan J., Räsänen, Katja, Millar, Nathan P. & Hendry, Andrew P. 2009. Adaptive changes in life history and survival following a new guppy introduction. The American Naturalist 174(1): 34–45. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gough, Ian, Runciman, Garry, Mace, Ruth, Hodgson, Geoffrey & Rustin, Michael. 2008. Darwinian evolutionary theory and the social sciences. Twenty-First Century Society 3(1): 65–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gross, Alan G., Harmon, Joseph E. & Reidy, Michael S. 2002. Communicating Science. The Scientific Article from the 17th Century to the Present. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Hairston, Nelson G. Jr., Ellner, Stephen, Geber, Monica A., Yoshida, Takehito & Fox, Jennifer A. 2005. Rapid evolution and the convergence of ecological and evolutionary time. Ecology Letters 8: 1114–1127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hendry, Andrew P. & Kinnison, Michael T. 1999. Perspective: The pace of modern life: Measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53: 1637–1653. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Joseph & McElreath, Richard. 2003. The evolution of cultural evolution. Evolutionary Anthropology 12: 123–135. DOI logoGoogle 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
Hyland, Ken. 2002. Genre: Language, context, and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 22: 113–135. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2008. Genre and academic writing in the disciplines. Language Teaching 41(4): 543–562. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas. 2007. From Helsinki through the centuries: The design and development of English diachronic corpora. In Towards Multimedia in Corpus Studies [ Studies in Variation, Contact and Change in English 2], Päivi Pahta, Irma Taavitsainen, Terttu Nevalainen & Jukka Tyrkkö (eds). Helsinki: VARIENG. <[URL]> Google Scholar
. 2009. Historical corpus pragmatics: Focus on speech acts and texts. In Corpora: Pragmatics and Discourse. Papers from the 29th International Conference on English Language Research in Computerized Corpora (ICAME 29), Andreas H. Jucker, Daniel Schreier & Marianne Hundt (eds), 13–36. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Kwan, Becky S. C. 2006. The schematic structure of literature reviews in doctoral theses of applied linguistics. English for Specific Purposes 25: 30–55. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Li-Juan & Ge, Guang-Chun. 2009. Genre analysis: Structural and linguistic evolution of the English-medium medical research article (1985–2004). English for Specific Purposes 28(2): 93–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacLeod, Christine. 1988. Inventing the Industrial Revolution. The English Patent System, 1660–1800. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2005[1997]. Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In Genre and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School, 3rd edn, Frances Christie & James R. Martin (eds), 3–39. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex. 2011. Cultural Evolution: How Darwinian Theory Can Explain Human Culture and Synthesize the Social Sciences. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mesoudi, Alex, Whiten, Andrew & Laland, Kevin N. 2004. Is human cultural evolution Darwinian? Evidence reviewed from the perspective of The Origin of Species . Evolution 58: 1–11.Google Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70: 151–176. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. Genre innovation: Evolution, emergence, or something else? The Journal of Media Innovations 3(2): 4–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Carolyn R. & Shepherd, Dawn. 2004. Blogging as social action: A genre analysis of the weblog. In Laura Gurak, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff & Jessica Reymann (eds), Into the Blogosphere: Rhetoric, Community, and the Culture of Weblogs. Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota. Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy. <[URL]> Google Scholar
. 2009. Questions for genre theory from the blogosphere. In Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 188], Janet Giltrow & Dieter Stein (eds), 263–290. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moreno, Ana I. & Swales, John M. 2018. Strengthening move analysis methodology towards bridging the function-form gap. English for Specific Purposes 50(1): 40–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myers, Greg. 1995. From discovery to invention: The writing and rewriting of two patents. Social Studies of Science 25: 57–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Navarro, Gonzalo. 2001. A guided tour to approximate string matching. ACM Computing Surveys 33(1): 31–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nwogu, Kevin Ngozu. 1997. The medical research paper: Structure and functions. English for Specific Purposes 16(2): 119–138. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 1994. Genre analysis and the identification of textual boundaries. Applied Linguistics 15(3): 288–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, Brian & Starfield, Sue. (eds). 2013. The Handbook of English for Specific Purposes. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
R Core Team. 2017. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. <[URL]> Google Scholar
Richerson, Peter J. & Christiansen, Morten H. (eds). 2013. Cultural Evolution: Society, Technology, Language, and Religion. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rissanen, Matti. 2000. The world of English historical corpora: From Cædmon to the computer age. Journal of English Linguistics 28(1): 7–20. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Salager-Meyer, Françoise. 1992. A text-type and move analysis study of verb tense and modality distribution in medical English abstracts. English for Specific Purposes 11(2): 93–113. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samraj, Betty. 2014. Move structure. In Pragmatics of Discourse, Klaus P. Schneider & Anne Barron (eds), 385–406. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Samraj, Betty & Gawron, Jean Mark. 2015. The suicide note as a genre: Implications for genre theory. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 19: 88–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Smitterberg, Erik & Kytö, Merja. 2015. English genres in diachronic corpus linguistics. In From Clerks to Corpora: Essays on the English Language Yesterday and Today, Philip Shaw, Britt Erman, Gunnel Melchers & Peter Sundkvist (eds), 117–133. Stockholm: Stockholm University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stuart, Yoel E., Campbell, Todd S., Hohenlohe, Paul A., Reynolds, Robert G., Revell, Liam J. & Losos, Jonathan B. 2014. Rapid evolution of a native species following invasion by a congener. Science 346, Issue 6208 (Oct. 24): 463–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Swales, John M. 1981. Aspects of Article Introductions [Aston ESP Research Reports 1]. Birmingham: University of Aston.Google Scholar
1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: CUP.Google Scholar
2004. Research Genres: Exploration and Applications. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Taavitsainen, Irma. 2016. Genre dynamics in the history of English. In The Cambridge Handbook of English Historical Linguistics, Merja Kytö & Päivi Pahta (eds), 271–285. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tardy, Christine M. & Swales, John M. 2014. Genre analysis. In Pragmatics of Discourse, Klaus P. Schneider & Anne Barron (eds), 165–187. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, John N. 1998. Rapid evolution as an ecological process. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 13(8): 329–332. DOI logoGoogle 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
Upton, Thomas A. & Connor, Ulla. 2001. Using computerized corpus analysis to investigate the textlinguistic discourse moves of a genre. English for Specific Purposes 20(4): 313–329. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Dulken, Stephen. 1999. British Patents of Invention, 1617–1977: A Guide for Researchers. London: The British Library.Google Scholar
Yang, Ruiying & Allison, Desmond. 2003. Research articles in applied linguistics: Moving from results to conclusions. English for Specific Purposes 22(4): 365–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Yoshida, Takehito, Jones, Laura E., Ellner, Stephen P., Fussmann, Gregor F. & Hairston, Nelson G. 2003. Rapid evolution drives ecological dynamics in a predator–prey system. Nature 424(6946): 303–306. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (7)

Cited by seven other publications

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Julia Mazurkiewicz-Sułkowska
2023. The status of generic structure in expert opinions. Insights from a comparative analysis of American, Russian and Bulgarian documents. Przegląd Wschodnioeuropejski 13:2 ► pp. 317 ff. DOI logo
Grieve, Jack
2023. Situational diversity and linguistic complexity. Linguistics Vanguard 9:s1 ► pp. 73 ff. DOI logo
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
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław
2021. Corpus Linguistics in Legal Discourse. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 34:5 ► pp. 1515 ff. DOI logo
Jürine, Anni, Djuddah Leijen, Helen Hint, Jolanta Sinkuniene, Diāna Laiveniece, Christer Johansson & Nicholas Groom
2021. Academic Writing in the Baltic States. Educare :1 ► pp. 27 ff. DOI logo
Gozdz-Roszkowski, Stanislaw
2020. Move Analysis of Legal Justifications in Constitutional Tribunal Judgments in Poland: What They Share and What They Do Not. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 33:3 ► pp. 581 ff. DOI logo
Groom, Nicholas
2019. Construction Grammar and the corpus-based analysis of discourses. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 24:3 ► pp. 291 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 october 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.