1

Specialised discourse: syntactic

featuresGotti

2

Special language : a language used in a subject field and characterized by the use of special linguistic means of expression, [... which] always include[s] subject-specific terminology and phraseology and also may cover stylistic or syntactic features [ISO 1087-1:2000]

Specialised discourseSpecial/specialised languageLanguage for Special Purposes

3

Exactitude, simplicity and clarity Objectivity Abstractness Generalization Density of information Brevity or laconism Emotional neutrality Unambiguousness Impersonality Logical consistency Use of defined terms, symbols and figures

General features of specialized discourse: Hoffman (1984)

4

Economy Precision Appropriateness

interdependent: maximum communicative effectiveness is achieved when the requirements of all three are satisfied

Sager: dominant criteria of specialised discourse

5

Specialised versus general language: quantitative rather than qualitative difference

1. Omission of phrasal elements2. Expressive conciseness3. Premodification4. Nominalisation5. Lexical density6. Sentence complexity7. Sentence length8. Use of verb tenses9. Use of the passive10. Depersonalisation

Syntactic features: Gotti

6

Extremely compact syntactic structure:

Rubber plug method of tubeless tire repair

Which phrasal elements tend to be omitted?

Omission of phrasal elements

7

Devices which make the sentence denser Affixation to substitute relative clauses with

adjectives: workable metal (= metal which can be worked)

Passives without auxiliary: pieces of iron left in the rain become rusty

Passives changed into premodification: compressed air can be used for several purposes

whereby – by means of Elliptical forms: an engine which is driven by diesel

oil a diesel engine

Expressive conciseness

8

Shift from postmodification to premodification/nominal adjectivation: paper tape, access arm, flowchart

Higher percentage of compounds Maximum number of constituents is generally

six (limited short-term memorisation capacity) it’s more difficult to process long nominal groups

May introduce ambiguity (small car factory) Greater textual conciseness versus loss of

conceptual clarity

Premodification

9

Greater conciseness Thematization of verbal action (emphasis):

◦ Discharge of the contents of the tank is effected by a pump (=The contents of the tank are discharged by a pump)

Easier flow of information from new to given Greater objectivity to the author’s views

◦ Consequence: loss of verbal value, weak verbs used as copula, link between complex noun phrases; high occurrence of to be

Nominalisation

10

an efficient way of limiting explicit communication (Katan 1999: 113).

Agent defocusing: the defendant injured the girl at 5:30 P.M. the girl’s injury happened at 5:30 p.m. the injury happened at 5:30

Drafters are advised to avoid nominalizations:◦ the text is longer and less dynamic (Haigh 2004: 44); “draining a

sentence of vitality”, ‘abstract blandness’◦ obligations referred to in the text will also be made to seem abstract and

lacking in force (Haigh 2004: 44) ◦ when a sentence has more than 3 nouns in a row, readability is reduced

(Garner 1987: 601) PL style highly nominalised analytic constructions (similar tendencies

noted in French and German, Delise et al.)◦ makes it possible to condense the text (Grybosiowa 2003: 158) ◦ reduces multi-subordinated clauses (Wilkoń 2000: 60)◦ reduces readability (Bajerowa 2003: 74)

Nominalisation

11

Percentage of content words within a text High lexical density typical of written texts

(Chafe), spoken language is more explicit Lower lexical density in translations (one of

translation universals)

Lexical density

12

Average sentence length in English scientific writing: 27.6 words (Barber)

Average for legal texts – 55 words (Gustafsson)/ 45 (Hiltunen)

Consequence: ◦ more complex relations inside the sentence◦ Legal discourse: rare occurrence of condensing

devices◦ Highly fragmented sentence structure; higher

depth of embedding (one degree of subordination more)

Sentence length

13

High frequency of Present Simple (Barber 89%), but depends on text type and rhetorical factors

Non-finite forms: - ing forms, infinitive, past participle (When inserted, the data will appear on the screen)

Verb tenses

14

“Lawyers tend to write in the passive instinctively” (Butt & Castle) the unmarked voice in legal language (Kurzon 1985). Ca. 26% of passive forms in specialised texts versus 3% in general texts; frequency will depend on text type: Hiltunen 76 passives for every hundred active constructions in a traditional statute (1990: 110); ¼ in prescriptive texts according to Williams (2005: 35); lower frequency for contracts.

Depersonalising device: emphasises the effect or outcome of an action rather than its cause or originator

No need to mention the agent or agent is unknown strategic imprecision (Tiersma 1999: 76) e.g. used by

lawyers to obscure or downplay their client’s role in a wrongful act: there was negligence Ronald Reagan: Mistakes were made.

Passive

15

To suppress the identity of the agent When the actor is irrelevant, anonymous (the vehicle was

wrecked) or difficult to identify McKay & Charlton (2005: 53)

when the implied subject is too obvious: Payment must be made within seven days (Alcaraz & Hughes 2002: 20)

When the import of the statement is universal: No submissions will be accepted after the date stated.

To focus attention on the object: Legal proceedings were served yesterday.

To create an ‘authoritative and impersonal’ tone the active may sound ‘too personal, perhaps even vindicative’ (Tiersma 1999:76): Those who skateboard on sidewalks shall be punished vs. We shall punish those who skateboard on sidewalks.

Function of passives in legal discourse

16

may lead to lack of clarity (Haigh 2004: 37); vagueness (Garner 1987: 643), imprecise and ambiguous because does not clearly identify participants (Sarcevic 1997: 177).

A federal judge: “The statute is not particularly helpful, since it speaks in the passive voice (‘suits … may be brought’), and does not identify who can bring suit” Adkins v. General Motors Corp., 556 F. Supp. 452, 455 (S.D. Ohio 1983) (qtd. in Garner 2002: 41)

more complicated and more difficult to understand (Sarcevic 1997: 177); “the active voice communicates more effectively. The active is more direct, driving home the message. The passive is less direct, muddying the message.” (Butt & Castle 2006: 153)

active voice animates style (Garner 2002: 42) The dishonest passive: a negligence case where the

plaintiff accused the retailer defendant of negligence in selling lighter fluid to the minor: The minor plaintiff attempted to fill said lighter and was caused to set himself on fire” by whom? (1987: 644)

Drafters are advised to avoid the passive:

17

Connected with passives Omission of the subject-speaker + direct

references to the interlocutor To avoid accountability: stało się

Depersonalisation