Individual Conceptual Structure and Legal Experts’ Efficient Communication

Article

Abstract

The article investigates characteristics of legal concepts as found in academic articles, focusing upon the knowledge base of legal experts. It is a cognitively oriented study of one of the semiotic basics of communication for academic legal purposes. The purpose is to study the structure of knowledge elements connected to the concept of “Criminal liability of corporations” from US law in and across individual experts in order to look for individual differences and similarities. The central concern is to investigate the conditions for the observable efficiency of semiosis in academic discourse. In a first basic section I discuss aspects relevant for a cognitively oriented study of academic discourse. The empirical part of the article consists of an analysis of text passages from two articles in American law journals. The results of the study support the assumption that high efficiency and precision of semiosis is due rather to the use of specific cognitive processing skills than to total identity of cognitive structures across individual experts.

References

  1. 1.
    Ahmad, K., and M.T. Musacchio. 2003. Enrico Fermi and the making of the language of nuclear physics. Fachsprache 25(3–4): 120–140.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Arntz, R., H. Picht, and F. Mayer. 2004. Einführung in die Terminologiearbeit. Hildesheim: Olms.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bazerman, C. 1999. The languages of Edison’s light. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Becker, B.R. 1992. Corporate successor criminal liability: The real crime. American Journal of Criminal Law 19(3): 435–483.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bucy, P.H. 1991. Corporate ethos: A standard for imposing corporate criminal liability. Minnesota Law Review 75(4): 1095–1184.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Candlin, C.N. 2002. Alterity, perspective and mutuality in LSP research and practice. In Conflict and negotiation in specialized texts, ed. M. Gotti, D. Heller, and M. Dossena, 20–40. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Christensen, R. 2005. Die Paradoxie richterlicher Gesetzgebung. In Recht verhandeln. Argumentieren, Begründen und Entscheiden im Diskurs des Rechts, ed. K.D. Lerch. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dam, H.V., J. Engberg, and A. Schjoldager. 2005. Modelling semantic networks on source and target texts in consecutive interpreting: a contribution to the study of interpreters’ notes. In Knowledge and translation—Systemic approaches and methodological issues, ed. H.V. Dam, J. Engberg, and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 227–254. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Engberg, J. 2008. Begriffsdynamik im Recht—Monitoring eines möglichen Verständlichkeitsproblems. In Profession & Kommunikation. Ausgewählte Beiträge zur GAL-Jahrestagung Koblenz 2005, ed. H. Diekmannshenke and S. Niemeier, 75–95. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Engberg, J. 2009. Inhaltsvergleich von Gebrauchsanleitungen über Sprachgrenzen hinweg. In The instructive text, ed. M.G. Ditlevsen, P. Kastberg, and C. Pankow, in press. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Engelkamp, J. 1994. Episodisches Gedächtnis: Von Speichern zu Prozessen und Informationen. Psychologische Rundschau 45: 195–210.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Engelkamp, J. 2000. Fortschritte bei der Erforschung des episodischen Gedächtnisses. Zeitschrift für Psychologie 208: 91–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fodor, J.A. 1975. The language of thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fodor, J.A. 2001. The mind doesn’t work that way: The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Fodor, J.A., and E. Lepore. 1999. All at sea in semantic space: Churchland on meaning similarity. The Journal of Philosophy 96(8): 381–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. 1994. Übersetzungswissenschaftliches Propädeutikum. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. 1996. Termini im Kontext: Verfahren zur Erschließung und Übersetzung der textspezifischen Bedeutung von fachlichen Ausdrücken. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H. 1999. Kohärenz und Übersetzung: Wissenssysteme, ihre Repräsentation und Konkretisierung in Original und Übersetzung. In Wege der Übersetzungs- und Dolmetschforschung, ed. H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast, 77–106. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gerzymisch-Arbogast, H., and K. Mudersbach. 1998. Methoden des wissenschaftlichen Übersetzens. Tübingen: Francke.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gillam, L., and K. Ahmad. 2002. Sharing the knowledge of experts. Fachsprache 24(1/2): 2–19.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hanauer, D.I. 2006. Scientific discourse. Multiliteracy in the classroom. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Harder, P. 1999. Partial autonomy, ontology and methodology in cognitive linguistics. In Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology, ed. T. Janssen, 195–222. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hodge, R., and G. Kress. 1988. Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Horn, D. 1966. Rechtssprache und Kommunikation. Grundlegung einer semantischen Kommunikationstheorie. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kuhn, T.S. 1970. The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Laurén, C. 2001. Fiktion und Wirklichkeit in einem schwedischen soziologischen Text. In Language for special purposes: Perspectives for the new millennium, ed. F. Mayer, 524–528. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    McCabe, D.P., and D.A. Balota. 2007. Context effects on remembering and knowing: The expectancy heuristic. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning Memory & Cognition 33(1): 536–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Millikan, R.G. 1998. A common structure for concepts of individuals, stuffs, and real kinds: More Mama, more milk, and more mouse. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21: 55–100.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mudersbach, K., and H. Gerzymisch-Arbogast. 1989. Isotopy and translation. In Translator and interpreter training and foreign language pedagogy, ed. P.W. Krawutschke, 147–170. New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Müller, F. 1997. Rechtstext und Textarbeit in der Strukturierenden Rechtslehre. In Methodik, Theorie, Linguistik des Rechts. Neue Aufsätze (1995–1997), ed. R. Christensen, 71–92. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Nordman, M. 2001. Die Person hinter dem Text. Über die Soziologin Rita Liljeström. In Language for special purposes: Perspectives for the new millennium, ed. F. Mayer, 529–536. Tübingen: Narr.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Papafragou, A. 2002. Mindreading and verbal communication. Mind & Language 17(1–2): 55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Premack, D., and G. Woodruff. 1978. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind? The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 4: 515–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Riegler, A. 2005. Constructive memory. Kybernetes 34(1): 89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Roelcke, T. 1999. Fachsprachen. Berlin: Schmidt.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Roelcke, T. 2004. Stabilität statt Flexibilität? Kritische Anmerkungen zu den semantischen Grundlagen der modernen Terminologielehre. In Stabilität und Flexibilität in der Semantik, ed. I. Pohl, and K.-P. Konerding, 137–150. Frankfurt am Main: Lang.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Schroeder, T. 2007. A recipe for concept similarity. Mind & Language 22(1): 68–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Searle, J. 1995. The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Sinha, C. 1999. Grounding, mapping, and acts of meaning. In Cognitive linguistics: Foundations, scope, and methodology, ed. T. Janssen, 223–255. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Sowa, J.F. 2006. Semantic network. http://www.jfsowa.com/pubs/semnet.htm. Accessed 9 Sept 2009.
  41. 41.
    Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 1988. Relevance—Communication and cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sperber, D., and D. Wilson. 2002. Pragmatics, modularity and mind-reading. Mind & Language 17(1–2): 3–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Temmerman, R. 2000. Towards new ways of terminology description. The sociocognitive approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Thibault, P.J. 2000. The dialogical integration of the brain in social semiosis: Edelman and the case for downward causation. Mind Culture and Activity 7(4): 291–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tulving, E. 1972. Episodic and semantic memory. In Organization of memory, ed. E. Tulving, and W. Donaldson, 381–403. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tulving, E. 2002. Episodic memory: From mind to brain. Annual Review: Psychology 53: 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    van Leeuwen, T. 2005. Introducing social semiotics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Wierzbicka, A. 1996. Semantics: Primes and universals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Aarhus School of BusinessUniversity of AarhusAarhus VDenmark

Personalised recommendations