Epistemological stance and passive reporting verbs in judicial opinions: the case of BE expected to and BE supposed to

References

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199263882.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. & Robert M. W. Dixon. 2014. The grammar of knowledge: A cross-linguistic typology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198701316.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Alcaraz Varó, Enrique & Brian Hughes. 2002. Legal translation explained. Manchester: St Jerome Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Alexy, Robert. 2009. The reasonableness of law. In Giorgio Bongiovanni, Giovanni Sartor & Chiara Valentini (eds.), Reasonableness and law. (Law and Philosophy Library 86), 5–15. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-8500-0_1Search in Google Scholar

Bednarek, Monika. 2006. Epistemological positioning and evidentiality in English news discourse: A text-driven approach. Text & Talk 26(6). 635–660. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2006.027.Search in Google Scholar

Bongiovanni, Giorgio, Giovanni Sartor & Chiara Valentini (eds.). 2009. Reasonableness and law. (Law and Philosophy Library 86). Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-8500-0Search in Google Scholar

Breeze, Ruth. 2011. Disciplinary values in legal discourse: A corpus study. Ibérica 21. 93–116.Search in Google Scholar

Breeze, Ruth. 2017. Exploring evidential uses of the passive of reporting verbs through corpus analysis. In Juana I. Marín-Arrese, Gerda Haßler & Marta Carretero (eds.), Evidentiality revisited: Cognitive grammar, functional and discourse-pragmatic perspectives, 297–313. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.271.13breSearch in Google Scholar

Breeze, Ruth. 2018. Giving voice to the law: Speech act verbs in legal academic writing. In Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski & Gianluca Pontrandolfo (eds.), Phraseology in legal and institutional settings. A corpus-based interdisciplinary perspective, 221–239. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315445724-13Search in Google Scholar

Charles, Maggie. 2006. The construction of stance in reporting clauses: A cross-disciplinary study of theses. Applied Linguistics 27. 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml021.Search in Google Scholar

Cornillie, Bert. 2009. Evidentiality and epistemic modality: On the close relationship of two different categories. Functions of Language 16(1). 32–44. https://doi.org/10.1075/fol.16.1.04cor.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2009. The corpus of historical American English (COHA): 400 million words, 1810s–2009. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coha/.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2017. The corpus of US Supreme Court opinions (SCOTUS): 130 million words, 1790s–2017. Available at: http://www.english-corpora.org/scotus/.Search in Google Scholar

Davies, Mark. 2019. The corpus of contemporary American English (COCA): 2 billion words, 1990–2019. Available at: https://www.english-corpora.org/coca/.Search in Google Scholar

Feteris, Eveline T. 1999. Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Dordrecht: Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht.Search in Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward. 2010. Legal writing: Attitude and emphasis. Corpus linguistic approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. In Malcolm Coulthard & Alison Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 65–77. Abingdon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Garner, Bryan A. 1995. A dictionary of modern legal usage, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2018. Facts in law: A comparative study of fact that and its phraseologies in American and Polish judicial discourse. In Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski & Gianluca Pontrandolfo (eds.), Phraseology in legal and institutional settings. A corpus-based interdisciplinary perspective, 143–159. London/New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315445724-9Search in Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław & Gianluca Pontrandolfo. 2013. Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments. International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse 13(2). 9–69.Search in Google Scholar

Harwood, Nigel. 2009. An interview-based study of the functions of citations in academic writing across two disciplines. Journal of Pragmatics 41(3). 497–518. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.001.Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan & Gill Francis. 1998. Verbs observed: A corpus driven pedagogic grammar. Applied Linguistics 19(1). 45–72. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/19.1.45.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Carmen Sancho Guinda. 2012. Stance and voice in written academic genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9781137030825Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Feng K. Jiang. 2016a. Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication 33(3). 251–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Feng K. Jiang. 2016b. Points of reference: Changing patterns of academic citation. Applied Linguistics 2017. 1–23.10.1093/applin/amx012Search in Google Scholar

Kelsh, John P. 1999. The opinion delivery practices of the United States Supreme Court 1790–1945. Washington University Law Review 77(1). 137–182.Search in Google Scholar

Krugman Ray, Laura. 2002. Judicial personality: Rhetoric and emotion in Supreme Court opinions. Washington and Lee Law Review 59(1). 193–234.Search in Google Scholar

MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the rule of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571246.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Marko, Karoline. 2019. The presentation of voices, evidence, and participant roles in Austrian courts: A case study on a record of court proceedings. International Journal of Language & Law 8. 12–33.Search in Google Scholar

Mazzi, Davide. 2005. Grounds and reasons: Argumentative signals in judicial texts. Linguistica e Filologia 20. 157–178.Search in Google Scholar

Mazzi, Davide. 2010. “This argument fails for two reasons …”: A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in US Supreme Court judgments. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique 23(4). 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0.Search in Google Scholar

Mushin, Ilana. 2001. Evidentiality and epistemological stance. Narrative retelling. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.87Search in Google Scholar

Partington, Alan, Alison Duguid & Charlotte Taylor. 2013. Patterns and meanings in discourse. Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/scl.55Search in Google Scholar

Poole, Robert. 2021. A corpus-aided study of stance adverbs in judicial opinions and the implications for English for legal purposes instruction. English for Specific Purposes 62. 117–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.01.002.Search in Google Scholar

Porto, Brian L. 2020. Rhetoric, persuasion and modern legal writing. The pen is mightier. London: Lexington Books.Search in Google Scholar

Sartor, Giovanni. 2009. A sufficientist approach to reasonableness in legal decision-making and judicial review. In Giorgio Bongiovanni, Giovanni Sartor & Chiara Valentini (eds.), Reasonableness and law. (Law and Philosophy Library 86), 6–68. Dordrecht/Heidelberg/London/New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4020-8500-0_2Search in Google Scholar

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2014a. Of course, indeed or clearly? The interactional potential of modal adverbs in legal genres. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics 11(2). 90–102.Search in Google Scholar

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2014b. Stancetaking strategies in judicial discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court opinions. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 131(2014). 91–120.Search in Google Scholar

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2021. Evidentiality in US Supreme Court opinions: Focus on passive structures with say and tell. In Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski & Gianluca Pontrandolfo (eds.), Law, language and the courtroom. Legal linguistics and the discourse of judges, 26–38. London/New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003153771-3Search in Google Scholar

Wierzbicka, Anna. 2006. English: Meaning and culture. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195174748.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Linxiu. 2013. Evaluative functions of reporting evidentials in English research articles of applied linguistics. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics 3(2). 119–126. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojml.2013.32016.Search in Google Scholar

Yu, Wei. 2020. Reporting verbs in court judgements of the common law system: A corpus-based study. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law – Revue international de Sémiotique juridique 34. 525–560. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09740-7.Search in Google Scholar