A CORPUS-BASED ANALYSIS OF DEONTIC AND EPISTEMIC VALUES OF THE MODAL SHALL IN LEGAL TEXTS
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it