Kravchenko, N., & Pozhar, A.
(2023).
Directive acts in international legal discourse: Scale of ilocutionary force intensity.
International Journal of Philology,
14(2),
13-22.
https://doi.org/10.31548/philolog14(2).2023.02
The article introduces an eight-component taxonomy of directives in international legal discourse, depending on the degree of illocutionary force, based on the criteria of illocutionary markers, directive force mitigators and modifications of the prototypical structure of directives. The research integrates the methods of speech act analysis, tools of the theory of mitigation and discourse analysis. An eight-point degree of intensity distinguishes directives with the verbs "shall" and "must" to indicate obligations in the performative part of the prototypical structure of directives. The seventh-point degree is marked by “should” to designate recommendation. Explicit directives extended with hedges specifying possibilities of the norm adaptation in favor of the capabilities of states fall under the sixth position. The fifth degree of intensity is typical for acts marked with adjectives indicating the urgency of action. The fourth position on the scale of deintensification pertains to directives with obligative verbs in the passive construction of the propositional component, with the performative component being omitted. Directives occupying the third position on the scale of illocutionary force intensity are marked, in addition to the omitted performative component, with hedges that allow for deviation from the norm in application. A two-point degree of intensity distinguishes acts with an omitted performative component in which the position of the phrasal subject is taken by nominations of the object of obligations, instead of legal subjects. Directives with an omitted performative component, where the legal subject is replaced by the designation of the object of the directive action and the performative verb is replaced by an indirect marker of obligation, occupy the first position in terms of de-intensified illocutionary force level
degree of illocutionary force; taxonomy of directives; international legal discourse; mitigation; hedges
[1] Alston, W. (2000). Illocutionary acts and sentence meaning. New York: Cornell University Press.
[2] Blum-Kulka, S. (1985). Modifiers as indicating devices: The case of requests. Theoretical Linguistics, 12, 213-229. doi: 10.1515/thli.1985.12.2-3.213.
[3] Caffi, C. (1999). On mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 881-909. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(98)00098-8.
[4] Caffi, C. (2006). Mitigation. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopedia of language and linguistics (pp. 171-175). Oxford: Elsevier.
[5] Cap, P. (2019). Discourse studies: Between social constructionism and linguistics. A critical overview. Topics in Linguistics, 20(2). doi: 10.2478/topling-2019-0006.
[6] Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. London: Routledge.
[7] Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. (2006). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html.
[8] Convention on the Rights of the Child. (1989). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child.
[9] Declaration of Ethical Principles in relation to Climate Change. (2017). Retrieved from https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000260889.page=127.
[10] Declaration of Principles on Tolerance. (1995). Retrieved from https://tolerance.tavaana.org/en/content/declaration-principles-tolerance.
[11] Demir, C. (2018). Hedging and academic writing: An analysis of lexical hedges. Journal of Language and Linguistic Studies, 14(4), 74-92.
[12] Dunn, K.C., & Neumann, I.B. (2016). Undertaking discourse analysis for social research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
[13] English Style Guide. (2021). A handbook for authors and translators in the European Commission. Retrieved from https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2023-11/styleguide_english_dgt_en.pdf.
[14] Fairclough, N. (2003). Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research. London: Routledge.
[15] Fraser, B. (1980). Conversational mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics, 4(4), 341-350. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(80)90029-6.
[16] Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. (1949). Retrieved from https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/geneva-convention-relative-treatment-prisoners-war.
[17] Gmerek, K. (2021). Procedural acts as double-conventionalized acts: Considerations on conventional acts performed in a courtroom discourse. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 34, 473-495. doi: 10.1007/s11196-020-09681-1.
[18] Green, M. (2020). The philosophy of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[19] Haverkate, H. (2010). Deictic categories as mitigating devices. Pragmatics, 2(4), 505-522. doi: 10.1075/prag.2.4.03hav.
[20] Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 8(3), 345-365. doi: 10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6.
[21] Ibanez, C.V. (2020). Recognising mitigation: Three tests for its identification. Journal of Pragmatics, 167, 68-79. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2020.06.015.
[22] International convention for the suppression of the financing of terrorism. (1999). Retrieved from https://treaties.un.org/doc/db/terrorism/english-18-11.pdf.
[23] ISO (2021). Principles and rules for the structure and drafting of ISO and IEC documents. Retrieved from https://www.iso.org/sites/directives/current/part2/index.xhtml#_idTextAnchor090.
[24] Kone, N. (2020). Speech acts in UN treaties: A pragmatic perspective. Open Journal of Modern Linguistics, 10(6), 813-827. doi: 10.4236/ojml.2020.106051.
[25] Kravchenko, N., Blidchenko-Naiko, V., & Yudenko, O. (2023). Discursive pragmatics via classical rhetoric in the European discourse of assistance to Ukraine" (based on English-language speeches of German politicians). Cogito, 15(2), 194-214.
[26] Kravchenko, N., Prokopchuk, M., Pozhar, A., Rozhkov, Y., & Kozyarevych-Zozulya, L. (2022а). Illocutionary pragmatic adaptation challenge: Ukrainian translations of English-language soft law texts. Amazonia Investiga, 11(49), 267-276.
[27] Kravchenko, N., Yudenko, O., Chaika, O., Kryknitska, I., & Letunovska, I. (2022). Commissive modality of international legal discourse: An implicit mitigation of the bindingness. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 12(6), 1039-1047. doi: 10.17507/tpls.1206.03.
[28] Langshaw, A.J. (1970). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[29] Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[30] Nartey, M., & Mwinlaaru, I.N. (2019) Towards a decade of synergising corpus linguistics and critical discourse analysis: A meta-analysis. Corpora, 14(2), 203-235. doi: 10.3366/cor.2019.0169.
[31] Pablos-Ortega, C. (2020). Directive speech acts in English and Spanish filmspeak. Sociocultural Pragmatics, 8(1), 105-125. doi: 10.1515/soprag-2020-0001.
[32] Reynolds, C. (2019). Building theory from media ideology: Coding for power in journalistic discourse. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 43(1), 47-69. doi: 10.1177/019685991877479.
[33] Rio Declaration on Environment and Development. (1992). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/migration/generalassembly/docs/globalcompact/A_CONF.151_26_Vol.I_Declaration.pdf.
[34] Sbisa, M. (2001). Illocutionary force and degrees of strength in language use. Journal of Pragmatics, 33, 1791-1814. doi: 10.1016/S0378-2166(00)00060-6.
[35] Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438.
[36] Searle, J.R. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press. doi: 10.1086/233794.
[37] Searle, J.R., & Vanderveken, D. (1985). Foundations of illocutionary logic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[38] Slomanson, W.R. (2011). Fundamental perspectives on international law. Boston: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
[39] Stoffel, C. (2007). Intensives and down-toners: A study in English adverbs. Heidelberg: C. Winter.
[40] Thaler, V. (2012). Mitigation as modification of illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(6-7), 907-919. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.04.001.
[41] Tiersma, P. (2010). Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
[42] Tran, T.Q., & Tang, T.B. (2022). Hedging in the results and discussion section of English applied linguistics. Research articles by Vietnamese and foreign writers. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 1(13), 119-124. doi: 10.17507/jltr.1301.14.
[43] United Nations Declaration against Corruption and Bribery in International Commercial Transactions. (1997). Retrieved from https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/233080.
[44] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. (1992). Retrieved from https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
[45] Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Retrieved from https://www.un.org/en/aboutus/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
[46] Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. (1961). Retrieved from https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/9_1_1961.pdf.
[47] Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis. A cross-theoretical inquiry. Pragmatics and Cognition, 15(1), 203-234. doi: 10.1075/z.184.711wod.
[48] WTO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. (2003). Retrieved from https://fctc.who.int/.
[49] Zappettini, F., & Krzyżanowski, M. (2019). The critical juncture of Brexit in media & political discourses: From national-populist imaginary to cross-national social and political crisis. Critical Discourse Studies, 16(4), 381-388. doi: 10.1080/17405904.2019.1592767.
[50] Zuhrotunnisa, E.I.K., & Zuliati, R. (2021). Directive acts in onward film by Dan Scanlon. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 3(2), 161-177. doi: 10.15575/call.v3i2.14878.