Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton January 21, 2016

Deontic meaning making in legislative discourse

  • Jian Li , Le Cheng EMAIL logo and Winnie Cheng
From the journal Semiotica

Abstract

Modality and negation, as two important linguistic features used to realise subjectivity, have been investigated within various disciplines, such as logic, linguistics and philosophy, and law. The interaction between modality and negation, as a relatively new and undeveloped domain, has however not been paid due attention in scholarship. This corpus-based study investigates three aspects of their interaction: the differentiation of the deontic value by negation, the categorization of deontic modality in Hong Kong legislation via negation, and distribution patterns of deontic modality, especially distribution patterns of the negation of modality, in Hong Kong legislation. This study shows that negation is a powerful linguistic mechanism not only for determining the nature and functions of modality, but also for determining the value of modality. This study also reveals that negation helps us to investigate the distribution of deontic modality in Hong Kong legislation and hence revisit the legal framework in Hong Kong. A study taking into account the discursive and professional aspects of the interaction between deontic modality and negation will provide a theoretical basis for the natural language processing of modality and negation in legislation and also offer important implications for the study of negation and modality in general contexts.

References

Bybee, J. & S. Fleischman. (eds.). 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.32Search in Google Scholar

Cao, D. 1999. “Ought to” as a Chinese legal performative? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 12. 153–169.10.1023/A:1008938622006Search in Google Scholar

Cao, D. 2009. Illocutionary acts of Chinese legislative language. Journal of Pragmatics 41. 1329–1340.10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.003Search in Google Scholar

Chao, Y. R. 1968. A grammar of spoken Chinese. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, L. 2010a. Discourse and judicial thinking: A corpus-based study of court judgments in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Mainland China. International Journal of Speech, Language, and Law 17(2). 295–298.10.1558/ijsll.v17i2.295Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, L. 2010b. A semiotic interpretation of genre: Court judgments as an example. Semiotica 182(1/4). 189–213.10.1515/semi.2010.053Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & W. Cheng. 2010. Language modeling for legal proof. In X. G. Jin, Y. G. Liu, T. R. Li, & D. Ruan (eds.), Proceedings of 2010 IEEE international conference on Intelligent Systems and Knowledge Engineering (ISKE), 533–537. Beijing: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.10.1109/ISKE.2010.5680745Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, L. & K. K. Sin. 2008. A court judgment as dialogue. In Edda Weigand (ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric, 267–281. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/ds.2.21cheSearch in Google Scholar

Cheng, L. & K. K. Sin. 2011. A sociosemiotic interpretation of linguistic modality in legal settings. Semiotica 185(1/4). 123–146.10.1515/semi.2011.036Search in Google Scholar

Coates, J. 1983. The semantics of the modal auxiliaries. London: Croom Helm.Search in Google Scholar

Greimas, A. & J. Courtès. 1979. Sémiotique: Dictionnaire raisonné de la théorie du langage, vol. 1. Paris: Hachette.Search in Google Scholar

Guo, S. 2003. The syntax and semantics of modal verb hui4: A comparison between hui4 and ke3neng2. Studies and Explorations on Grammar 12. 382–396.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. & M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. New York: St Martin‘s Press.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. & E. McDonald. 2004. Metafunctional profile of the grammar of Chinese. In A. Caffarel, J. R Martin & M. I. M. Matthiessen (eds.), Language typology: A functional perspective, 305–396. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/cilt.253.08halSearch in Google Scholar

Helbig, H. 2005. Knowledge representation and the semantics of natural language. Berlin: Springer.Search in Google Scholar

Horn, L. R. 2001. A natural history of negation. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Search in Google Scholar

Jesperson, O. 1924. The philosophy of grammar. London: Allen and Unwin.Search in Google Scholar

Li, C. N. & S. A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkley: University of California Press.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, H. 2003. Forensic linguistics. Beijing: Beijing University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, J. 1960. On auxiliary verbs. Journal of Chinese Language 1. 1–4.Search in Google Scholar

Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ma, J. 1983 [1898]. Ma’s grammar. Beijing: Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar

Ma, Q. 1992. Chinese verbs and verbal structures. Beijing: Language Institute Press.Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 1990. Modality and the English modals, 2nd edn. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781139167178Search in Google Scholar

Palmer, F. R. 2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In R. Facchinnetti, M. Krug & F. R. Palmer (eds.), Modality in contemporary English, 1–17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110895339Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, R., S. Greenbaum, G. Leech & J. Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Radden, G. 2007. Interaction of modality and negation. In Władysław Chłopicki, Andrzej Pawelec & Agnieszka Pokojska (eds.), Cognition in language: Volume in honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska, 224–254. Kraków: Tertium.Search in Google Scholar

Sullivan, R. 2002. Sullivan and Driedger on the construction of statutes. Toronto: Butterworths.Search in Google Scholar

Sun, D. 1989. The scope of the auxiliary verbs in Chinese. In Mingyang Hu (ed.), On the issues of word categories, 286–291. Beijing: Language Institute Press.Search in Google Scholar

Teubert, W. & R. Krishnamurthy. 2007. Corpus linguistics. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Tierney, B. 2007. Obligation and permission: On a “deontic hexagon” in Marsilius of Padua. History of Political Thought 28(3). 419–432.Search in Google Scholar

Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/scl.6Search in Google Scholar

Tottie, G. 1991. Negation in English speech and writing: A study in variation. New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tsang, C. 1981. A semantic study of modal auxiliary verbs in Chinese. Stanford: Stanford University dissertation.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, L. 1985 [1943]. Modern Chinese grammar. Beijing: Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar

Wright, H. von. 1951. An essay in modern logic. Amsterdam: North Holland.Search in Google Scholar

Yip, P. & D. Rimmington 1997. Chinese: An essential grammar. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Zhu, D. 1982. Lecture notes on Chinese grammar. Beijing: Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-1-21
Published in Print: 2016-3-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 29.3.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2016-0002/html
Scroll to top button