DISCOURSE ANALYSIS OF NATIONAL PECULIARITIES OF JUDICIAL COMMUNICATION IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The English language is recognized as a polycentric language, which means that it is spoken in a number of countries. National variants of English have their own linguistic peculiarities manifested at the phonetic, lexical and grammatical levels. On the other hand, the English language has gained the reputation of a modern Lingua Franca, used as a means of communication in the fields of international business, trade, law, politics and culture. People learn English in order to be able to establish relations with foreign partners as this language opens the doors to transnational cooperation. However, there appear to be some questions concerning the choice of the national variant of English that must be taught to students. Traditionally the British and American variants were preferred to other national variants. The survey, carried out in major Russian universities, showed the tendency to teach above mentioned languages as models of English. It is quite understandable as the influence of the UK and especially the USA on the international community cannot be disputed. Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning that from pedagogical perspective attention should be paid to other national variants of English, for example, Canadian English. This approach may be justified by the fact that Canada is an active participant on the international arena and a fully-fledged member of various intergovernmental organizations. It is fair to say that if you acquire a good command of, for instance, American English you will be able to communicate successfully in such countries as Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. However, you may come across some problems when it comes to specific spheres such as legal communication, for example, judicial discourse. This obstacle may be explained by the fact that the communication in a courtroom is characterized by strict rules and rituals which have been established for centuries. They embedded national peculiarities conditioned by historical development and the culture. These specific features are reflected in the way lawyers and judges communicate, because the language is the basis of law and legal profession. It makes judicial discourse to a great degree a unique socio-linguistic phenomenon which is closely related to the given state. Hence, it can be presumed that the teaching of the English for specific purposes, legal English in particular, should be nationally oriented. The aim of this article is to examine the national peculiarities of courtroom communication in Canada by means of discourse analysis. The features which will be studied are the following:1) judicial concepts and terminology of Canadian Supreme Court discourse;2) grammatical peculiarities inherent in judicial communication in Canada;3) communicative strategies followed by Canadian Supreme Court judges and lawyers. The results of this research may be implemented in the process of teaching English language for specific purposes, for discourse analysis helps to reveal and interpret national linguistic characteristics of professionally-based communication.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,006 | 0,007 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,023 | 0,011 |
| Communication savante | 0,012 | 0,004 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,004 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».