The status of generic structure in expert opinions. Insights from a comparative analysis of American, Russian and Bulgarian documents
Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski
University of LodzJulia Mazurkiewicz-Sułkowska
University of LodzAbstract
This paper attempts to describe expert opinions from a comparative and genre-based perspective. It addresses the central question of whether expert opinions follow any specific rhetorical and organizational patterns and the extent to which these may have been imposed by the respective judicial institutions in Russia, Bulgaria and the USA. After reviewing the institutional contexts and constraints imposed on experts and their opinions, the analysis focuses on exploring the status of generic structure in three sets of documents: US common law opinions, Russian and Bulgarian civil law opinions. The concept of ‘generic model’ has been approached from the perspective of Genre Analysis using the model of ‘rhetorical moves’ (Swales 1990; Tardy & Swales 2014). The analyses have revealed that expert witnesses can be described in terms of individual text segments, each with distinct rhetorical or communicative purpose(s). While most identified text segments are shared by all the opinions, irrespective of the legal system, the major difference is that the generic structures of Russian and Bulgarian opinions are strictly regulated by law, which results in increased levels of detail and conventionality. In contrast, the discourse community of American experts has much more leeway in shaping the conventions of the genre, as long as the experts take account of the general standards contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence. American opinions reflect not only the expertise of their authors but also their individual style.
Keywords:
generic structure, expert opinion, US common law, adversarial system, Russian legal system, Bulgarian legal systemReferences
ANGELOV, A. (2007), Zhanroviyat model kato komponent ot kachestvenata hrakteristika na vestnika. Sofia. [Ангелов, А. (2007), Жанровият модел като компонент от качествената храктеристика на вестника. София.] Google Scholar
AVER'YANOVA, T. V./ROSSINSKAYA, YE. R. (1999), Entsiklopediya sudebnoy ekspertizy. Moskva. [Аверьянова, Т. В./Россинская, Е. Р. (1999), Энциклопедия судебной экспертизы. Москва.] Google Scholar
BHATIA, V. (1993), Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London. Google Scholar
BHATIA, V. (2004), Worlds of Written Discourse. Continuum. London. Google Scholar
BIBER, D./CONNOR, U./UPTON, T./KANOKSILAPATHAM, B. (2007), Introduction to move analysis. In: Biber, D./ Connor, U./Upton, T. (eds.), Discourse on the Move. Using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 23-41.
Crossref
Google Scholar
BOBEV, K. (1979), Formirane na ubezhdenieto na eksperta-kriminalist. Sofia. [Бобев, К. (1979), Формиране на убеждението на експерта-криминалист. София.] Google Scholar
BOBEV, K. (2013), Izpolzvane na spetsialni znania v nakazatelnoto i grazhdanskoto proizvodtstvo – sastoyanie i problemi. In: Yuridicheski sbornik. XX, 22-31. [Бобев, К. (2013), Използване на специални знания в наказателното и гражданското производтство – състояние и проблеми. В: Юридически сборник. XX, 22-31.] Google Scholar
BROMBY, M. C. (2002), The Role of and Responsibilities of the Expert Witness within the UK Judicial System, unpublished doctoral dissertation. Google Scholar
BUTYRIN, A. YU./DANILKIN, I. A. (2018), Vyvody v zaklyucheniyakh eksperta po ugolovnym delam o khishcheniyakh v stroitel'stve. In: Teoriyai praktika sudebnoy ekspertizy. 13 (1), 71-75. [Бутырин, А. Ю./Данилкин, И. А. (2018), Выводы в заключениях эксперта по уголовным делам о хищениях в строительстве. В: Теория и практика судебной экспертизы. 13 (1), 71-75.] Google Scholar
COULTHARD, M./JOHNSON, A. (2009), An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics. London. Google Scholar
CZABAŃSKI, J. (2006), Pozycja biegłych sądowych w wybranych krajach europejskich. Instytut Wymiaru Sprawiedliwości. W: https://iws.gov.pl/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/J-Czaba%C5%84ski-Pozycja-bieg%C5%82ych-s%C4%85dowych-w-wybranych-krajach-europejskich-2006.pdf [dostęp: 10.02.2022]. Google Scholar
GOŹDŹ-ROSZKOWSKI, S./MAZURKIEWICZ-SUŁKOWSKA, J. (forth. in 2022), Opinia biegłego jako gatunek specjalistyczny w sądowej praktyce zawodowej (w systemie prawnym anglosaskim i rosyjskim). W: Academic Journal of Modern Philology. Google Scholar
GROOM, N./GRIEVE, J. (2019), The evolution of a legal genre. Rhetorical moves in British patent specifications. In: Fanego, T./Rodriguez-Puente, P. (eds.), Corpus-based Research on Variation in English Legal Discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, 1711-1860.
Crossref
Google Scholar
KASABOVA, I./MIHAYLOVA, G. (2018), Narachnik za veshti litsa. Vratsa. [Kacабова, И./Михайлова, Г. (2018), Наръчник за вещи лица. Враца.] Google Scholar
KREDENS, K. (2021), Biegły językoznawca w systemie kontradyktoryjnym. W: Iustitia. 4, 217-221. Google Scholar
KRESTOVNIKOV, O. A. (2018), K voprosu o razvitii yazyka obshchey teorii sudebnoy ekspertizy. In: Teoriya i praktika sudebnoy·ekspertizy. 13(4), 24-27. [Крестовников, О. А. (2018), К вопросу о развитии языка общей теории судебной экспертизы. В: Теория и практика судебной экспертизы. 13(4), 24-27.] Google Scholar
KUZNETSOV, A. A. (2014), Ponyatiye, vidy i naznacheniye sudebnykh ekspertiz v Rossiyskoy Federatsii. Omsk. [Кузнецов, А. А. (2014), Понятие, виды и назначение судебных экспертиз в Российской Федерации. Омск.] Google Scholar
LESNYAK, V. V. Sudebnaya ekonomicheskaya ekspertiza. In: https://studfile.net/preview/6335263/ [accessed: 11.03.2022]. [Лесняк, В. В. Судебная экономическая экспертиза. В: https://studfile.net/preview/6335263/ [доступ: 11.03.2022].]
Crossref
Google Scholar
MCMENAMIN, G. (2002), Forensic Linguistics. Advances in forensic stylistics. London.
Crossref
Google Scholar
ORLOV, YU. K. (2004), Ispol'zovaniye spetsial'nykh znaniy v ugolovnom sudoproizvodstve. Moskva. [Орлов, Ю. К. (2004), Использование специальных знаний в уголовном судопроизводстве. Москва.] Google Scholar
PANARINA, D. V. (1), Sovremennyye problemy i tendentsii razvitiya yazyka obshchey teorii sudebnoy ekspertizy. In: https://www.dissercat.com/content/sovremennye-problemy-i-tendentsii-razvitiya-yazyka-obshchei-teorii-sudebnoi-ekspertizy [accessed: 11.03.2022]. [Панарина, Д. В. (1), Современные проблемы и тенденции развития языка общей теории судебной экспертизы. В: https://www.dissercat.com/content/sovremennye-problemy-i-tendentsii-razvitiya-yazyka-obshchei-teorii-sudebnoi-ekspertizy [доступ: 11.03.2022].] Google Scholar
PANARINA, D. V. (2), Sovremennyye terminologicheskiye problemy metodologii sudebnoy ekspertizy. In: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sovremennye-terminologicheskie-problemy-metodologii-sudebnoy-ekspertizy [accessed: 11.03.2022]. [Панарина, Д. В. (2), Современные терминологические проблемы методологии судебной экспертизы. В: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/sovremennye-terminologicheskie-problemy-metodologii-sudebnoy-ekspertizy [доступ: 11.03.2022].] Google Scholar
PANARINA, D. V. (3), Yazyk kriminalistiki i sudebnoy ekspertizy v strukture nauchnogo znaniya. In: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/yazyk-kriminalistiki-i-sudebnoy-ekspertizy-v-strukture-nauchnogo-znaniya [accessed: 11.03.2022]. [Панарина, Д. В. (3), Язык криминалистики и судебной экспертизы в структуре научного знания. В: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/yazyk-kriminalistiki-i-sudebnoy-ekspertizy-v-strukture-nauchnogo-znaniya [доступ: 11.03.2022].] Google Scholar
RADBIL', T. B./YUMATOV, V. A. (2014), Yazyk sudebnoy ekspertizy: tendentsii formirovaniya i razvitiya. In: Vestnik Nizhegorodskogo universiteta im. N. I. Lobachevskogo. 3 (2), 185-190. [Радбиль, Т. Б./Юматов, В. А. (2014), Язык судебной экспертизы: тенденции формирования и развития. В: Вестник Нижегородского университета им. Н. И. Лобачевского. 3 (2), 185-190.] Google Scholar
SOLAN, L. (2010), The forensic linguist. The expert linguist meets the adversarial system. In: Coulthard, M./Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London/New York, 395-407.
Crossref
Google Scholar
SVETLICHNYY, A. A./PANARINA, D. V. K voprosu o teoreticheskikh i prakticheskikh problemakh, vyzvannykh diskussionnost'yu termina «sudebnaya ekspertiza». In: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/k-voprosu-o-teoreticheskih-i-prakticheskih-problemah-vyzvannyh-diskussionnostyu-termina-sudebnaya-ekspertiza/viewer [accessed: 11.03.2022]. [Светличный, А. А./Панарина, Д. В. К вопросу о теоретических и практических проблемах, вызванных дискуссионностью термина «судебная экспертиза». В: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/k-voprosu-o-teoreticheskih-i-prakticheskih-problemah-vyzvannyh-diskussionnostyu-termina-sudebnaya-ekspertiza/viewer [доступ: 11.03.2022].] Google Scholar
SWALES, J. (1990), Genre Analysis: English for Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge. Google Scholar
SZCZYRBAK, M. (2022), Interacting with the expert witness: Courtroom epistemics under a discourse analyst’s lens. In: Dieter/Nieto, G. V. (eds.), Language as evidence. Doing forensic linguistics. London.
Crossref
Google Scholar
TARDY, CH. M./SWALES, J. (2014), Genre analysis. In: Schneider, K. P./Barron, A. (eds.), Pragmatics in discourse. Berlin,165–187.
Crossref
Google Scholar
TIERSMA, P./SOLAN, L. (2002), The linguist on the witness stand: forensic linguistics in American courts”. In: Language. 78, 221-39.
Crossref
Google Scholar
TIKHOMIROV, M. YU. (eds.) (2009), Yuridicheskaya entsiklopediya. Moskva. [Тихомиров, М. Ю. (ред.) (2009), Юридическая энциклопедия. Москва.] Google Scholar
TREUSHNIKOV, M. K. (2005), Sudebnyye dokazatel'stva. Moskva. [Треушников, М. К. (2005), Судебные доказательства. Москва.] Google Scholar
TSETSKOV, TS. (1998), Sadebni ekspertizi. Sofia. [Цецков, Ц. (1998), Съдебни експертизи. София.] Google Scholar
TSETSKOV, TS. (1994), Organizatsiya na sadebna ekspertiza v Bulgaria. Sofia. [Цецков, Ц. (1994), Организация на съдебна експертиза в България. София.] Google Scholar
VLADIMIROVA, S. B. (2021), Sudebnoye ekspertnoye zaklyucheniye kak rechevoy zhanr (na materiale sudebno-meditsinskoy·ekspertizy). In: Zhanry rechi. Speech Genres. 1 (29), 41–48. [Владимирова, С. Б. (2021), Судебное экспертное заключение как речевой жанр (на материале судебно-медицинской экспертизы). В: Жанры речи. Speech Genres. 1 (29), 41–48.]
Crossref
Google Scholar
WOJTAK, M. (2008), Wzorce gatunkowe wypowiedzi a realizacje tekstowe. W: Ostaszewska, D./Cudak, R. (red.), Polska genologia lingwistyczna. Warszawa, 353−360. Google Scholar
ZAŚKO-ZIELIŃSKA, M. (2019), Pytania stawiane biegłemu. W: Zaśko-Zielińska, M./Kredens, K. (red.), Lingwistyka kryminalistyczna. Teoria i praktyka. Wrocław, 17-19. Google Scholar
Laws and cases cited Google Scholar
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). Google Scholar
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 702 (US). Google Scholar
University of Lodz
University of Lodz
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Julia Mazurkiewicz-Sułkowska, Agnieszka Zatorska, The predicate-argument structure of Polish and Bulgarian verbs of emotion and their analytical equivalents , Przegląd Wschodnioeuropejski: Vol. 9 No. 1 (2018): East European Review
- Aleksander Kiklewicz, Julia Mazurkiewicz-Sułkowska, Helena Pociechina, Art in protest discourses – on the example of the Belarusian anti-government protest movement , Przegląd Wschodnioeuropejski: Vol. 14 No. 2 (2023): East European Review