A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS OF DEONTIC AND EPISTEMIC VALUES OF THE MODAL SHALL IN LEGAL TEXTS
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT. research conducted in this paper involves domains such as semantics, functional linguistics, translation studies, pragmatics and examines the values and functions of as they appear in the chosen legal corpus concerning its deontic and epistemic meanings. corpus is based on legal texts selected from the electronic database EUR-lex and it consists of a 29,900 word text. qualitative analysis carried out in this study is complemented by a quantitative approach in search of deontic and epistemic values of the modal verb shall.Keywords: deontic meaning, epistemic meaning, modal verbs, modality, semanticsThe fundamental problem of is that it can take on a number of meanings. In legal texts it is generally expected that when a word is repeatedly used in the text, it the same meaning throughout the text in most of its occurrences. In the corpus of this analysis is mostly used with three meanings: to describe a status, to impose an obligation and to describe future actions where it may be replaced by will.In using the same word repeatedly in a text many drafters of legal documents go wrong. According to Bryan Garner (2009), as many as eight senses in legal documents and he suggests three solutions to this problem. The first one is called 'American Rule' and it suggests that should be restricted to only one sense - has a duty to. This rule applies when the subject of the sentence is animate, otherwise the modal verb must to be used. second solution is what Garner calls the 'ABC Rule.' abbreviation comes from the capitals of nationalities of the drafters, who in 1980s advocated this rule - American, British and Canadian, whereby the use of is prohibited altogether. Garner says that according to the ABC-rule instead of using shall legal drafters must choose a more adequate option. And the third alternative is to keep on using regardless of the problem it poses.1The excessive and inconsistent using of in legal texts not only sustains the myth of precision in legal language, but also perpetuates a style and language that differentiates the genre from that of other professions and, by extension, general usage (Bhatia 1993:101-2)2. Although legal texts are predominantly written by experts for other experts, not all of them are aimed that way, but they are also addressed to non-experts and that is why a semantic analysis of will lead to a better understanding of its use making the legal instruments of the European Union more readable for the average citizen.Adopting one of the theories put forward in the article Shall vs. Will by Wayne Schiess, we may find out that, in the corpus I have used, is incorrectly used to describe a status3. Let us take a look at the following example:'Tor the purposes of this Regulation, the following terms have the meanings assigned to them here:Operational program': document submitted by a Member State and adopted by the Commission setting out a development strategy. . .'priority axis': one of the priorities of the strategy in an operational program comprising a group of operations which are related and have specific measurable goals.Since the performing time for a legal action is not set and the legal action will happen at some time, drafters often choose to use the future tense or future perfect tense instead of present tense simple. This is also the case here where the correct sentence would be:'Tor the purposes of this Regulation, the following terms have the meanings assigned to them here:. . .We may also notice that the text is about certain terms that are already set, this resulting from the title of the Article, which is Definitions so it is not the case of discussing the value of obligation or necessity of shall.A similar occurrence of with the same meaning is the following:The national strategic reference framework contain the following elements:-an analysis of development disparities, weaknesses and potential. …
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 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 découle