科研之友
微信
新浪微博
Facebook
分享链接
摘要
Professional genres are better understood and analysed in terms of the professional practices that they invariably co-construct in specific contexts; however, in ESP literature genres are often analysed in isolation, thus undervaluing the role and function of interdiscursivity in professional genres. This paper compares two legal genres that are the ultimate outcomes of litigation and arbitration (judgments and arbitrations awards), considering text-external factors, such as the traditional legal role of judges and the newer alternative role of arbitrators. Following Bhatia's (2004, 2008) multidimensional and multi-perspective model of analysis, we argue that both genres can best be described and explained in terms of judges' and arbitrators' institutional positioning, constituted by their linguistic and discursive practices, and distinguished in terms of the degree of authoritative stance, and the kinds of directness and indirectness expressed. This final aspect is investigated by highlighting the frequency of use and function of interactional devices (hedges and boosters), in an arbitration awards and judgments small sample.
- 出版日期2013
