Advertisement

A Corpus-Based Study of Modal Verbs in the Uniform Commercial Code of the USA

  • Xinyu Wu
  • Jian LiEmail author
Article
  • 122 Downloads

Abstract

Since the bilateral commerce between the USA and China changes greatly and Chinese government continues to reform and delegate power in the economic field, it is of importance to study the Uniform Commercial Code of the USA (hereinafter referred to as the UCC). The study specifically studies the features of modal verbs in the UCC through the comparison with the United States Code (hereinafter referred to as the USC) and Frown. With the help of Antconc, the distribution of modal verbs, the modal value of the three sets of corpora are examined and analyzed based on the theory of Halliday’s systemic-functional grammar. The results show that there are significant differences between the three sets of corpora and the three main features of modal verbs in the UCC are: the high frequency use of may, the relatively lower frequency use of legal modal verb shall, and the much higher frequency of must and may not. The seemingly contrary usages within the UCC are discussed and explained with the background of the legislation and the legal thoughts of the major legislator in a sociosemiotic approach. With both the quantitative and qualitative analysis combining the examples, the study hopes to shed light on the related legal translation and further enhance the understanding of the modal verbs in the UCC as well as legal discourse in a more general context.

Keywords

The UCC Modal verbs Corpus Sociosemiotics 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Andersson, D. 2007. Deontic modal verbs in EU legislation: A comparative study of documents in four germanic languages. Stockholm: MA Study, Stockholm University.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anthony, L. 2005. AntConc: Design and development of a freeware corpus analysis toolkit for the technical writing classroom. In International professional communication conference, 729–737.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bellis, D. 2016. The illusion of clarity: A critique of ‘Pure’ clarity using examples drawn from judicial interpretations of the constitution of the United States. In Obscurity and clarity in the law: Prospects and challenges, ed. A. Wagner and C.F. Sophie, 197–219. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cai, H., and X.G. Wu. 2014. American uniform commercial code: Innovation, achievement and enlightenment to China. International Economics and Trade Research 30 (2): 85–99.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao, D. 1999. “Ought to” as a Chinese legal performative? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 12: 153–169.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cao, D. 2009. Illocutionary acts of Chinese legislative language. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 1329–1340.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Carlo, G.S. 2017. Linguistic patterns of modality in UN resolutions: The role of shall, should, and may in security council resolutions relating to the Second Gulf War. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 30 (2): 223–244.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheng, L. 2010. A semiotic interpretation of genre: Court judgements as an example. Semiotica 182: 89–113.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheng, L., and W. Cheng. 2010. Language modeling for legal proof. In Intelligent systems and knowledge engineering (ISKE2010), Hangzhou, China, 15–16 November 2010, ed. X.G. Jin, Y.G. Liu, T.R. Li, and D. Ruan, 533–537. Beijing: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheng, L., and W. Cheng. 2012. Legal interpretation: Meaning as social construction. Semiotica 192: 427–448.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheng, L., and W. Cheng. 2016. Defamation case law in Hang Kong: A corpus-based study. Semiotica 208: 203–222.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheng, L., M. Gong, and J. Li. 2017. Conceptualizing culture discrepencies in legal translation: A case-based study. Semiotica 216: 131–149.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheng, L., S. Ni, K.K. Sin, and W. Cheng. 2012. A sociosemiotic approach to fundamental rights in China. Semiotica 190: 41–55.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheng, L., and K.K. Sin. 2011. A sociosemiotic interpretation of linguistic modality in legal settings. Semiotica 185 (1/4): 123–146.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheng, L., K.K. Sin, and W. Cheng. 2014. Legal translation: A sociosemiotic approach. Semiotica 220: 165–184.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheng, L., K.K. Sin, and W. Cheng. 2014. Revisiting legal terms: A semiotic perspective. Semiotica 202: 167–182.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cheng, L., and X. Wang. 2017. Modals and modality in legal discourse: A corpus-based sociosemiotic interpretation. International Journal of Semiotics and Visual Rhetoric 1 (1): 19–29.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cheng, W., and L. Cheng. 2014. Epistemic modality in court judgments: A corpus-driven comparison of civil cases in Hong Kong and Scotland. English for Specific Purposes 33: 15–26.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clermont, K.M. 2009. Standards of proof revisited. Vermont Law Review 33: 469–487.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diani, G. 2001. Modality and speech acts in English acts of parliament. In Modality in specialized translation, ed. M. Gotti and M. Dossena, 175–191. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Faulks, K. 2000. Citizenship. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Garzone, G. 2013. Variation in the use of modality in legislative texts: Focus on shall. Journal of Pragmatics 57: 68–81.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Gotti, M. 2001. Semantic and pragmatic values of shall and will in early modern English Statutes. In Modality in specialized translation, ed. M. Gotti and M. Dossena, 89–111. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gotti, M. 2014. Linguistic insights into legislative drafting. The Theory and Practice of Legislation 2 (2): 123–143.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Halliday, M.A.K. 1987. Language as social semiotic—The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Halliday, M.A.K. 2000. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd ed. Shanghai: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Halliday, M.A.K., and M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd ed. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hawkland, W. 1995. Uniform commercial code and the civil codes. Louisiana Law Review 56 (1): 231–247.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hodge, R., and G. Kress. 1988. Social semiotics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jiang, J.R. 2017. Cooperation and conflict: Study on the development of Sino-US trade relations. Ph.D. study, Jilin University.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Knežević, B., and B. Irena. 2012. Deontic possibility and necessity: A case study based on two parallel legislative texts. Linguistics Journal 6 (1): 34–58.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Leech, G., and N. Smith. 2006. Recent grammatical change in written English 1961–1992: Some preliminary findings of a comparison of American with British English. Language & Computers 55: 185–204.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Leiter, B. 1997. Rethinking legal realism: Toward a naturalized jurisprudence. Texas Law Review 76: 267–268.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lewis, F.P. 2009. Tolerance, pluralism, and “ghting faiths”: Seeking the sources of U.S. constitutional meaning. In Diversity and tolerance in socio-legal context: Explorations in the semiotics of law, ed. A. Wagner and V.K. Bhatia, 11–20. Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li, J., L. Cheng, and W. Cheng. 2016. Deontic meaning making in legislative discourse. Semiotica 209: 323–340.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Li, K.X. 2007. The function and translation of the central modal verbs in English legal texts. Chinese Translators Journal 6: 54–60.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Llewellyn, K. 1953. Why a commercial code? Tennessee Law Review 22: 779–782.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Maggs, G.E. 2000. Karl Llewellyn’s fading imprint on the jurisprudence of the uniform commercial code. University of Colorado Law Review 71: 541.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Mellinkoff, D. 2013. The language of the law (M. Liao, Trans.). Beijing, China: Law Press.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Ni, S.F., L. Cheng, and K.K. Sin. 2010. Who are Chinese citizens? A legislative language inquiry. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23: 475–494.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ni, S.F., and K.K. Sin. 2011. A matrix of legislative speech acts for Chinese and British statutes. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 375–384.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Opeibi, T. 2016. Between obscurity and clarity in nigerian legal discourse: Aspects of language use in selected written texts. In Obscurity and clarity in the law: Prospects and challenges, ed. A. Wagner and C.F. Sophie, 221–234. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Palmer, F.R. 2001. Mood and modality, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Palmer, F.R. 2003. Modality in English: Theoretical, descriptive and typological issues. In Modality in contemporary English, ed. R. Facchinnetti, M. Krug, and F.R. Palmer, 1–17. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Radden, G. 2007. Interaction of modality and negation. In Cognition in language: Volume in honour of Professor Elżbieta Tabakowska, ed. W. Chłopicki, A. Pawelec, and A. Pokojska, 224–254. Kraków: Tertium.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Sun, X.Q. 2005. The study of the legal thoughts of the Uniform Commercial Code of the USA. Ph.D. study, Shandong University.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Teubert, W., and R. Krishnamurthy. 2007. Corpus linguistics (critical concepts in linguistics). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tognini-Bonelli, E. 2001. Corpus linguistics at work. Amsterdam: Benjamins.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    United States Code. Official of the Law Revision Counsel. Download branch web sites. Retrieved December 1, 2017, from http://uscode.house.gov/download/download.shtml.
  51. 51.
    Uniform Commercial Code. Retrieved November 1, 2018, from https://law.duke.edu/lib/researchguides/ucc/.
  52. 52.
    U.C.C. art. 5 pref. note (1999).Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wagner, A. 2002. La Langue de la Common Law. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Wagner, A. 2005. Semiotics analysis of the multistage dynamic at the core of the indeterminacy in legal language. In Vagueness in normative texts, ed. V. Bhatia, J. Engberg, M. Gotti, and D. Heller, 173–200. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Wagner, A. 2009. The European cultural ecumene, legal pluralism. In Multicentrism as an emerging paradigm in legal theory, ed. B. Wojciechowski, M. Zirk-Sadowski, and M. Golecki, 29–50. London: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Wagner, A. 2009. Mapping legal knowledge. Language and the Law: International Outlooks 16: 241–267.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Wagner, A., L. Cheng, and J.X. Pang. 2012. Nation, identity and multiculturalism: A socio-semiotic perspective. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 25 (2): 1–3.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Wagner, A., T. Summerfield, and F.S.B. Vanegas. 2005. Contemporary issues of the semiotics of law. London: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Wang, Z.Y. 2013. A comparative study of modal verbs shall and may’s translation in legal texts. Shanghai Journal of Translators 4: 52–57.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Yang, X.Z. 2006. English modality and text types. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching 1: 1–4.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of International StudiesZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.School of Foreign LanguagesZhejiang Gongshang UniversityHangzhouChina

Personalised recommendations