FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2093369874> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2093369874 endingPage "391" @default.
• W2093369874 startingPage "390" @default.
• W2093369874 abstract "390 LANGUAGE, VOLUME 67, NUMBER 2 (1991) also identified. Aspect is discussed in Ch. 6, following a similar format; here B identifies two principal aspectual forms, the perfective and the imperfective. In Ch. 7 B attempts a discourse analysis of tense and aspect, examining 'historical ' and 'personal' narrative. The selection of a specific tense/aspect is governed by the speaker 's perspective on the reference point(s). B's monograph is a valuable contribution to the linguistic study ofBantu languages. An issue raised here that is worth developing further is the role of tone in the distribution of tense/aspect . It is unfortunate that the roles of discourse and pragmatics are not fully developed. Their implications in the distribution of tense/aspect forms, and the role of 'focus' mentioned in the discussion of past tense forms (182), are potential research foci. Discourse/pragmatic factors would help to explain the tense/aspect ordering paradigms (64), and to distinguish the perfective , the imperfective, and the present progressive aspects (274). The theory that the form positionally closer to the verb is also closer in meaning to that verb (Joan Bybee, Morphology, Amsterdam: Benjamins , 1985) may partially explain the tense/ aspect ordering paradigms. It is probable that speakers use a right-to-left interpretation rule in multiple use of tense and/or aspect forms. [Lioba Moshi, University of Georgia.) Linguistic aspects of legislative expression . By Frederick Bowers. Vancouver : University of British Columbia Press, 1989. Pp. xiv, 378. $39.95. Legal language comes in many different forms: the boilerplate language of contracts and other instruments; the sometimes eloquent language ofjudicial opinions; the language of statutes and regulations. Commentators on legal language sometimes fail to appreciate such distinctions . Frederick Bowers, who has written extensively on legal language, is one who does understand the difference, and in Linguistic aspects of legislative expression he illuminates principles of legislative expression developed in the history ofEnglish law, presenting a balanced and very comprehensive survey of Canadian statutory language. The book is divided into four main parts, covering situational, lexical, syntactic, and stylistic aspects of legislative language. Each part includes a summary of the linguistic background followed by discussion and exemplification of principles of legal composition and interpretation —based on those of Elmer Driedger (to whom the book is dedicated). Reed Dickerson, George Coode, and Lord Thring, among others. Part 1 (17-89) treats speech-act theory and associational meaning, drawing primarily on the work of Searle and Halliday. Part 2 (90-211) covers lexical semantics, touching on problems of ambiguity, vagueness, literalness, and range of meaning that arise in legal writing. Part 3 (212-328) deals with syntax, using Fillmore's case grammar, Aspects-slyle syntax, and the notions of theme and rheme. Part 4 (329-52) takes up problems of legal style in terms of accessibility , readability, and iconism. The overall claim—that statutory language exhibits practical language functions and neither uses nor needs obscurity—is one with which a reader may or may not agree, but no one can fail to be impressed by B's comprehensive survey of drafting. In describing the implicit and explicit rules of legal composition and interpretation , B brings forth a number of observations about (and in some cases prescriptions for) language use in drafting. For example, he comments on the potential ambiguity of tense and aspect forms in expressions like 'any person who is driving' or 'any person who attempts to save his own life' . He also discusses distinctions in the use of modal and nonmodal expressions, showing how legislative language can be infelicitous : thus, in the expression the licence shall be in the prescribed form and shall expire on the 31st December in each year, shall, which best occurs with agent subjects and action verbs, is instead used with a stative verb and an essive subject. B shows that it would be more straightforward to say simply, A valid licence is in the form prescribed in Schedule N and expires on the 31st December in each year. Similarly , in The trustee may prior to the first meeting of creditors obtain such legal advice and take such proceedings as he may consider necessary ... , B notes that having both deontic and epistemic may..." @default.
• W2093369874 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2093369874 creator A5037115047 @default.
• W2093369874 date "1991-01-01" @default.
• W2093369874 modified "2023-10-17" @default.
• W2093369874 title "Linguistic aspects of legislative expression By Frederick Bowers" @default.
• W2093369874 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1991.0058" @default.
• W2093369874 hasPublicationYear "1991" @default.
• W2093369874 type Work @default.
• W2093369874 sameAs 2093369874 @default.
• W2093369874 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2093369874 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2093369874 hasAuthorship W2093369874A5037115047 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C11693617 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C120665830 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C165297611 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C192209626 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C199360897 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C2776397901 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C2776626494 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C2777983431 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C2779281236 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConcept C90559484 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C11693617 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C120665830 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C121332964 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C138885662 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C144024400 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C15744967 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C165297611 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C192209626 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C199360897 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C2776397901 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C2776626494 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C2777983431 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C2779281236 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C41008148 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C41895202 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C527412718 @default.
• W2093369874 hasConceptScore W2093369874C90559484 @default.
• W2093369874 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2093369874 hasLocation W20933698741 @default.
• W2093369874 hasOpenAccess W2093369874 @default.
• W2093369874 hasPrimaryLocation W20933698741 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W1969441654 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W2093369874 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W2099277026 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W2230793319 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W2502429904 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W2541485259 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W2886801877 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W2947095367 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W3151267020 @default.
• W2093369874 hasRelatedWork W4231026625 @default.
• W2093369874 hasVolume "67" @default.
• W2093369874 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2093369874 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2093369874 magId "2093369874" @default.
• W2093369874 workType "article" @default.