The Syntax-Semantics-Prosody Interface in Legislative Language

Hongli Shi^*

China University of Political Science and Law, Beijing, China.

DOI: 10.4236/blr.2014.53021                

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.

Keywords

The Syntax-Semantics Interface, The Syntax-Prosody Interface, Legislative Language

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Bhatia, V. K. (2010). Legal Writing: Specificity. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 37-50). New York: Routledge.
[2]	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
[3]	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
[4]	Chomsky, Norm. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
[5]	Chomsky, Norm. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Massachusetts: MIT Press.
[6]	Coode, G. (1845). On Legislative Expression, or the Language of the Written Law. London.
[7]	Crandall, J., & Charrow, V. R. (1990). Linguistic Aspects of Legal Language, 1-23. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED318248
[8]	Dikken, den. M., & Lahne, A. (2013). The Locality of Syntactic Dependencies. In The Cambridge Handbook of Generative Syntax (pp. 655-697). Cambridge, England: CUP.
[9]	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
[10]	Feng, S. L. (2007). Theory of Prosodic Grammar and Chinese Linguistics. Linguistic Sciences, 2, 48-59.
[11]	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
[12]	Hart, H. L. A. (1983). Essay in Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford: OUP. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198253884.001.0001
[13]	Hutton, C. (2009). Language, Meaning and the Law. Edinbergh: Edinbergh University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.3366/edinburgh/9780748633500.001.0001
[14]	Ji, G. (1998). Falv Yingyu de Wenti Tedian ji Yingyi Jiqiao. Chinese Translators Journal, 5, 31-34.
[15]	Johnson, A., & Coulthard, M. (2010). Introduction: Current Debates in Forensic Linguistics. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 1-15). New York: Routledge.
[16]	Maat, E. et al. (2009). Making Sense of Legal Texts. In Formal Linguitics and Law (pp. 225-255). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[17]	Maley, Y. (1987). The Language of Legislation. Language in Society, 16, 25-48. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500012112
[18]	Mei, D. (2008). Modern Syntax. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
[19]	Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
[20]	Quirk et al. (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Pearson Longman.
[21]	Salmi-Tolonen, T. (2004). Legal Linguistic Knowledge and Creating and Interpreting Law in Multilingual Environments. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 29, 1167-1191.
[22]	Solan, L. M. (1993).The Language of Judges. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001
[23]	Song, B., & Chen, Y. (2009). Yuyan Zhexue Yu Falv Yuyan Guifanhua Yanjiu. Tsinghua Law Review, 3, 150-160.
[24]	Van Valin, R. D. (2005). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: CUP. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610578
[25]	Venturi, G. (2010). Legal Language and Legal Knowledge Management Application. Semantic Processing of Legal Texts. (pp. 3-26). Berlin: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-12837-0_1
[26]	Vogel, C. (2009). Law Matters, Syntax Matters and Semantics Matters. In E. Francesconi, S. Montemagni, W. Peters, & D. Tiscornia (Eds.), Formal Linguistics and Law (pp. 25-54). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
[27]	Woodbine, G. E. (1943). The Language of English Law. Speculum, 18, 395-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2853661
[28]	Xiao, Y. (2007). Falv Yingyu Juzi Jiegou Tedian Jiqi Fanyi. Journal of Ningxia University, 29, 179-182.
[29]	Zhang, X. (2005). Text Types and Legal Texts. Modern Foreign Language, 24, 192-200.