The article deals with EU judicial rhetoric and aims to demonstrate how a selection of modal adverbs of certainty (indeed, clearly, (not) necessarily and of course) are used in the Opinions of the Advocates General at the European Court of Justice (ECJ). To this end, it focuses on the rhetorical functions of these adverbs, such as adding emphasis, showing a high degree of commitment and backgrounding alternative viewpoints. The study applies the notions of stance and engagement (Hyland, 2005) and builds on the research into modal adverbs of certainty reported in Simon-Vandenbergen and Aijmer (2007). In summary, the analysis sheds light on the rhetorical potential of modal adverbs, stressing the dialogic dimension of legal opinion writing.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
AIJMER K. 2007. Modal adverbs as discourse markers: A bilingual approach to the study of indeed. In: J. Rehbein Ch. Hohenstein and L. Pietsch eds. Connectivity in grammar and discourse. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins pp. 329-344.
ANSCOMBRE J.C. and DUCROT O. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Pierre Mardaga.
BARTH-WEINGARTEN D. 2003. Concession in spoken English. On the realisation of a discourse-pragmatic relation. Tübingen: Narr.
BAKHTIN M.M. 1981. The dialogic imagination. Four essays by M.M. Bakhtin. Edited by M. Holquist. Translated by Caryl Emerson and Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas Press.
BIBER D. et al. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Harlow: Longman.
CHAFE W.L. 1986. Evidentiality in English conversation and academic writing. In: W.L. Chafe and J. Nichols eds. Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Norwood: Ablex pp. 261-272.
COUPER-KUHLEN E. and THOMPSON S.A. 2000. Concessive patterns in conversation. In: E. Couper-Kuhlen and B. Kortmann eds. Cause condition concession contrast: Cognitive and discourse perspectives. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 381-410.
EDMONDSON W.J. 2014. The emergence of discourse analysis as a disciplinary field: philosophical pedagogic and linguistic approaches. In: K.P. Schneider and A. Barron eds. Pragmatics of discourse. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 65-95.
FETZER A. 2014. Conceptualising discourse. In: K.P. Schneider and A. Barron eds. Pragmatics of discourse. Berlin and Boston: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 35-61.
GEERAERTS D. 2006. Prospects and problems of prototype theory. In: D. Geeraerts ed. Cognitive linguistics: Basic readings. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter pp. 141-167.
HYLAND K. 2005. Stance and engagement: a model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies vol. 7 no. 2 pp. 173-192.
QUINTILIAN 1921‒1933.The institutio oratoria of Quintilian. New York: Putnam’s Sons.
SALMI-TOLONEN T. 2005. Persuasion in judicial argumentation: The opinions of the Advocates General at the European Court of Justice. In: H. Halmari and T. Virtanen eds. Persuasion across genres. A linguistic approach. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins pp. 59-101.
SCHWENTER S. and TRAUGOTT E.C. 2000. Invoking scalarity: The development of in fact. Journal of Historical Pragmatics vol. 1 pp. 7-25.
SIMON-VANDENBERGEN A.M. and AIJMER K. 2007. The semantic field of modal certainty. A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
SIMON-VANDENBERGEN A.M. WHITE P. and AIJMER K. 2007. Presupposition and ‘takingfor- granted’ in mass communicated political argument. An illustration from British Flemish and Swedish political colloquy. In: A. Fetzer and G.E. Lauerbach eds. Political discourse in the media. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins pp. 31-74.
SZCZYRBAK M. 2016. Concessive marking revisited: but in courtroom talk. Paper presented at 3rd International Conference on Linguistic and Psycholinguistic Approaches to Text Structuring. València Spain 24-35 January.
WHITE P. 2003. Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text vol. 23 no. 2 pp. 259-284.