The Realisation of Concession in the Discourse of Judges

Magdalena Szczyrbak

Uzyskaj dostęp

Zakup książkę

ISBN/ISSN:

978-83-233-3627-3

DOI:

Wydawnictwo:

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

Rok wydania:

2013

Liczba stron:

241

XML:ISBN/ISSN:

ONIX MARC21

Bibliografia:

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. The Realisation of Concession in the Discourse of Judges. Red. . Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2013, 241 s. ISBN 978-83-233-3627-3

Bibliografia refWorks:

RT Book, Whole

SR Electronic(1)

A1 Szczyrbak, M.

T1 The Realisation of Concession in the Discourse of Judges

PB Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

PP Kraków

YR 2013

SN 978-83-233-3627-3

Bibliografia BibTex:

@Book{ 187229, author = "Szczyrbak, Magdalena", editor = "", title = "The Realisation of Concession in the Discourse of Judges", publisher = "Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego", year = "2013", address = "Kraków", isbn = "978-83-233-3627-3" }

Bibliografia endNote:

TY - BOOK

AU - Szczyrbak, Magdalena

ED -

TI - The Realisation of Concession in the Discourse of Judges

PB - Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

CY - Kraków

PY - 2013

SN - 978-83-233-3627-3

ER -

Netografia (standard APA):

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. The Realisation of Concession in the Discourse of Judges [baza danych online] Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego, 2013 [dostęp: 22 07 2024]. Dostęp w Ibuk Libra: https://libra.ibuk.pl/reader/the-realisation-of-concession-in-the-discourse-of-judges-magdalena-szczyrbak-187229.

Concession, Rhetorical Structure Theory, legal argumentation

Complementing other studies on judicial discourse, this book investigates previously unexplored areas, focusing on the realisation of Concession in the genre of judgment. In addition to providing a review of approaches to concessivity as well as l...

Więcej

ISBN/ISSN:

978-83-233-3627-3

DOI:

Wydawnictwo:

Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego

Rok wydania:

2013

Liczba stron:

241

XML:ISBN/ISSN:

ONIX MARC21

INTRODUCTION11
PART I THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 15
1.1. Semantic-syntactic approach to concession17
CHAPTER ONE CONCESSION: AN OVERVIEW OF APPROACHES17
1.1.1. Defi ning concessive connection17
1.2. CONCESSION as a relation in Rhetorical Structure Theory28
1.2.1. Text relations in RST28
1.2.2. Defi ning CONCESSION in RST31
1.3. Discourse-pragmatic concept of Concession35
1.3.1. Defi ning Concession as an interactional sequence35
1.3.2. Concessive moves40
1.3.3. Concessive schemata49
1.3.4. Pragmatic marking of Concession55
2.1. Subject-matter of argumentative discourse studies59
CHAPTER TWO JUDICIAL ARGUMENTATION: LEGAL AND LINGUISTIC PERSPECTIVES59
2.2. Historical background of argumentative discourse studies61
2.3. Defi ning legal and judicial argumentation63
2.4. Theories of legal argumentation65
2.4.1. Historical perspective on legal argumentation66
2.4.2. Pragma-dialectical perspective on legal argumentation73
2.4.2.1. General assumptions of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation74
2.4.2.2. Application of the pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation in the legal context77
3.1. Defi ning discourse83
CHAPTER THREE ANALYSING GENRE: METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES83
3.2. Discourse community revisited87
3.3. Genre90
3.3.1. Defi ning genre90
3.3.2. Analysing genre93
3.4. Genre-based view of legal discourse96
3.5. Analysing the genre of judgment103
PART II THE REALISATION OF CONCESSION IN THE GENRE OF JUDGMENT109
4.1. Research objectives111
CHAPTER FOUR CONCEPT OF THE STUDY AND THE DATA111
4.2. Research questions112
4.3. Procedure113
4.4. Corpus design and the source of data114
4.5. Contextual analysis of the genre of judgment118
4.5.1. Generic structure of judgments in the corpus125
5.1. Concessive schemata129
CHAPTER FIVE ANALYSIS OF THE DATA129
5.1.1. Identifi cation of monologic schemata: pseudo-dyadic and monadic patterns129
5.2. Concessive moves133
5.2.1. Identifi cation of moves: acknowledgments and counterclaims133
5.2.2. Distribution of acknowledgments and counterclaims135
5.3. Signalling associated with Concession139
5.3.1. Categories of Concessive signals recognised in the corpus140
5.3.2. Frequency of occurrence of Concessive signals in the corpus149
5.3.3. Distribution of Concessive signals in the moves153
5.3.4. Co-occurrence of Concessive signals159
5.4. Metafunctions of Concessive moves164
5.4.1. Ideational metafunctions of Concessive moves165
5.4.2. Interpersonal metafunctions of Concessive moves169
5.4.3. Textual metafunctions of Concessive moves177
5.4.4. Function-form correlation: Co-occurrence of Concessive signals and metafunctions180
5.5. Corpus data against previous fi ndings189
CONCLUSIONS203
LIST OF FIGURES211
LIST OF TABLES213
APPENDICES Appendix 1a215
Appendix 1b217
Appendix 2219
REFERENCES225

König1991;Rudolph1996;Latos2009),hiddencausality(DiMeola1998)and

constraintonrelevance(Blakemore1987)deserveamention.

Still,intheEnglish-languageliterature,alltraditionalgrammarbookscon-

sistentlysituateconcessionalongsideothercircumstantialrelations,inlinewith

theestablishedsemantic-syntacticapproach(see,forinstance,Greenbaum1969;

Quirketal.1985;DowningandLocke1995;Biberetal.1999;Huddlestonand

Pullum2002).Inthesamevein,acomprehensivesemantic-syntacticdescription

ofconcessivesentencesinmodernPolishcanbefoundinGrochowski(2006),

who,ontheotherhand,stressestheabsenceofcoordinationbetweenthemultiple

analysesofconcessionfoundinthePolishlinguisticsliterature.2Exploringmod-

ernPolishusageofconcessives,whicharedescribedbytermssuchas:zdania

koncesywne,przyzwolone,przyzwalające,ustępcze,przyczynyniedostatecznej,

przyczynyniewystarczającejor,ﬁnally,aszdaniaprzyczynowo-przeciwstawne,

Grochowski(2006:221),likemanyotherresearchers,believesthatconcession

reﬂectstherelationholdingbetweenthepropositionofthesubordinateclause

andthatofthemainclause;thus,asheasserts,whatmaybeinferredfromthe

subordinateclauseisincompatiblewithwhatisexpressedbythemainclause.3

Yet,Grochowski(2006:222)maintainsthattheaboveassertionholdstrue

inthecaseofrelationsdemonstratedbythechociażp,q(althoughp,q)for-

mulaanditsequivalents,e.g.aczkolwiekp,q(eventhoughp,q)orp,jednak(że)

q(p,howeverq).Itlosesitsrelevance,however,withregardtothechoćby

p,q(evenifp,q)structure.Whileintheﬁrstthreecausal-concessiveparadigms

itisassumedthatboththepropositionofthemainclauseandthatofthesubor-

dinateclausereﬂectfactsand,further,thattheconclusiondrawnisbasedonthe

juxtapositionofcontrastiveviews,thelastsequenceexempliﬁestheconditional-

concessiverelation,wherefutureorpotentialstatesofaffairsarepresented(cf.

Lerch1929;Polański1967).

Further,asarguedbyGrochowski,concessiverelationsfallintotwoirreduc-

iblecategories.Whiletheprimaryconcessivestructurehasbeenillustratedby

Examples1.1.aand1.2.a,secondaryconstructions,alsoclassiﬁedasconces-

sive,canbefoundinExamples1.1.band1.2.b(Grochowski2006:220-221).

ThisviewissharedbyPisarkowa(1974),who,drawingonWojtasiewicz(1972),

maintainsthatconcessivestructurescangenerallybedescribedastwodistinct

2Tothisend,Grochowski(2006:221)citesstudiesbyKotarbiński(1961),Pisarkowa(1974),

Ampel(1975,1976),Jodłowski(1976)andGrzegorczykowa(1996).

3Grochowski’sviewisinagreementwithtraditionaldeﬁnitionsofconcession.Compare,for

instance,Quirk,LeechandSvatvik’s(1985:1098)assertionthat“concessiveclausesindicatethat

thesituationinthematrixclauseiscontrarytoexpectationinthelightofwhatissaidintheconces-

siveclause,”König’s(1988:163)claimthatthe“earliermeaningsfromwhichconcessiveconnec-

tivestypicallyderiveexpressoneoftheessentialingredientsofconcessivity:theconcomitanceof

twofacts,thegeneralincompatibilityoftherelevanteventualitiesandthetruthofthetwoclauses

linkedbytheconnective”orCrevels’(2000b:313)observationthat“aconnectionisimpliedbe-

tweenthepropositionsofthetworelatedclausesinquestion:thespeakerassertsthesetwoproposi-

tionsagainstthebackgroundassumptionthatthetwotypesofsituationswhichpandqdescribeare

generallyincompatible.”

Brak wyników

The Realisation of Concession in the Discourse of Judges

Treść książki

Znajdź bibliotekę blisko siebie, i uzyskaj dostęp do ebooka w systemie IBUK Libra