The Syntax-Semantics-Prosody Interface in Legislative Language
- 1 China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China
Abstract
Though Chinese and English legislative language share similarities in certain aspects, they contrast most sharply in their syntactic structures and representations, owing to a number of social, cultural and typological factors. Traditional works have directed most of their attention to the lexicon, i.e. the collection of technical terms which are indispensable to the working of law, and the analysis of idiosyncrasies of those terms. Not much effort, if any, has been at present devoted to the study of the syntactic properties of legislative language and the way syntactic computation interfaces with semantic layer, which, the author believes, play a more determinate role in the constructing and interpreting of legislative clauses. This paper first attempts to examine the syntax-semantics interface in Chinese and English legal clauses from the levels of recursion, locality of reference and the general principle of economy respectively, and then tries to study how the position and stress of a word affect the syntax-prosody interface and the information flow. In the end, it concludes that syntax is responsible for base meaning and while prosody highlights a part or parts of that meaning.
- Bhatia, V. K. (2010). Legal Writing: Specificity. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 37-50). New York: Routledge.
- Brunson, S. (2012). Book Review: Solan’s the language of Statutes. http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/2012/02/book-review-solans-the-language-of-statutes.html
- Buring, D. (2013). Syntax, Information Structure and Prosody. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax (pp. 860-895). Cambridge, England: CUP. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.029
- Chomsky, Norm. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
- Chomsky, Norm. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
- Coode, G. (1845). On Legislative Expression, or the Language of the Written Law. London.
- Crandall, J., & Charrow, V. R. (1990). Linguistic Aspects of Legal Language, 1-23. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED318248
- Dikken, den. M., & Lahne, A. (2013). The Locality of Syntactic Dependencies. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax (pp. 655-697). Cambridge, England: CUP.
- Epstein, S. D. et al. (2013). Economy of Derivation and Representation. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax (pp. 487-514). Cambridge, England: CUP. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511804571.019
- Feng, S. L. (2007). Theory of Prosodic Grammar and Chinese Linguistics. Linguistic Sciences, 2, 48-59.
- Goodrich, P. (1984). The Role of Linguistics in Legal Analysis. The Modern Law Review, 47, 523-534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1984.tb01664.x
- Hart, H. L. A. (1983). Essay in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford: OUP. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198253884.001.0001
- Hutton, C. (2009). Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinbergh: Edinbergh University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748633500.001.0001
- Ji, G. (1998). Falv Yingyu de Wenti Tedian ji Yingyi Jiqiao. Chinese Translators Journal, 5, 31-34.
- Johnson, A., & Coulthard, M. (2010). Introduction: Current Debates in Forensic Linguistics. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 1-15). New York: Routledge.
- Maat, E. et al. (2009). Making Sense of Legal Texts. In Formal Linguitics and Law (pp. 225-255). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.