A Contrastive Study of Deontic Modality in Parallel Texts

Abstract

This article is a contrastive study of deontic modal markers in three parallel texts. It analyses the modality system in the English, Russian and French texts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights accounting for the ambiguity of some English modal verbs in legal texts and the difficulty in rendering them into a different language. The research reveals modal markers used to express deontic permission, deontic obligation and deontic prohibition in the three parallel texts; semantic similarities and discrepancies between these modal markers; and translation strategies employed to render the English modal markers into Russian and French. The article responds to the need for a systematic analysis of deontic modal markers in English, Russian and French due to the semantic and syntactic differences among the German, Romance and Slavic languages. The article concludes that French and Russian have more in common than French and English or Russian and English in terms of the deontic modality.

A Comparative Study of the Novel Beloved and its Film Adaptation: A Multimodal Perspective

“…"analysis of text, (ii) analysis of processes of text production, and (iii) sociocultural analysis of the discursive event as a whole". Boginskaya (2021) agreed with Halliday (2014) who claimed that in Systemic Functional Linguistics, language "is considered to be a semantic system performing three functions: ideational, textual, and interpersonal which served as an interactive form between speakers and listeners". Rui and Jingxia (2018) claimed that with the interpersonal function language "is used to establish and maintain appropriate relationships among people".…”

Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse

“…Courtroom discourse has been explored from a variety of perspectives over the last twenty years. Studies on discursive practices that occur in the courtroom have involved analyses of legal language (Breeze, 2013;Chaemsaithong, 2014;Gotti, 2014;Hansen, 2016;Li & Sun, 2018;Szczyrbak, 2021;Tiersma, 1999;Tracy & Hodge, 2018;Yang & Wang, 2021), legal genres (Boginskaya, 2022a(Boginskaya, , 2022b(Boginskaya, , 2002cCohen de Chervonagura, 2011;Cotterill, 2003;Finegan, 2010;Hernandez, 2017;Gozdz-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo, 2013;Lee, 2015;Mazzi, 2010;Heffer, 2008;Rosulek, 2015;Shatin & Silantev, 2020;Tanford, 2002;Tiersma, 2008), legal translation (Boginskaya, 2021;Cao, 2013;Hu & Cheng, 2016;Sarčević, 1997;Sandrini, 1999), and legal semiotics (Cheng et al, 2009;Cheng & Sin, 2008), etc. Althoguh these studies are valuable, few works (Cavalieri, 2011;Chaemsaithong, 2017;Mortensen & Mortensen, 2017;Toska, 2012) appear to have analyzed metadiscourse resources, even though they play an important role in building relationships with an audience and producing persuasive arguments. The interactional aspect of legal discourse is of particular importance bearing in mind that trials are interpersonal events, in which how it is said is no less important than what is said (Mortensen & Mortensen, 2017), and courtroom discourse is considered to be interactional, unveiling how attorneys intervene in their texts to build solidarity with the jury …”