APPLICATION OF TALMY'S THREE-STEP PROCESS FOR READING COMPREHENSION OF LEGAL TEXTS
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research aims to enhance comprehension of legal texts by applying Talmy's (2017) three-step process for identifying and integrating referents from contextual cues into linguistic forms. Drawing on pragmatics, discourse analysis, cognitive semantics, and Talmy's force dynamics notion, a qualitative content analysis investigates the cognitive processes readers use for cue detection, attention allocation, and semantic integration when reading court indictments. Data from 10 Vietnamese indictments covering various criminal charges allows analyzing the distribution and interaction of lexical, collateral, background, and temporal cue categories to understand how they facilitate or impede comprehension. The findings shed light on cognitive mechanisms underlying legal indictment comprehension and identify factors enhancing or hindering understanding. Ultimately, the study aims to improve legal professionals' ability to effectively utilize contextual cues when interpreting written legal processes, regulations, and arguments, thereby enhancing accuracy and efficiency in comprehending legal texts, particularly those in English or foreign languages.
Keywords
legal text, referent identification, cognitive semantics, force dynamics
Article Details
References
Ariel, M. (1990). Accessing noun-phrase antecedents. Routledge.
Bengtsson, M. (2016). How to plan and perform a qualitative study using content analysis. NursingPlus Open, 2, 8-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.npls.2016.01.001
Crain, S., & Steedman, M. (1985). On not being led up the garden path: The use of context by the psychological parser. In D. R. Dowty, L. Karttunen, & A. M. Zwicky (Eds.), Natural language parsing: Psychological, computational, and theoretical perspectives (pp. 320-358). Cambridge University Press.
Dahan, D., & Tanenhaus, M. K. (2005). Continuous mapping from sound to meaning in spoken-language comprehension: Immediate effects of verb-based thematic constraints. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31(1), 98-112. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.98
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: (Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.
Huang, Y. T., & Snedeker, J. (2009). Online interpretation of scalar quantifiers: Insight into the semantics pragmatics interface. Cognitive Psychology, 58(3), 376-415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.09.001
Novick, J. M., Trueswell, J. C., & Thompson-Schill, S. L. (2008). Cognitive control and parsing: Redefining the role of Broca's area. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(2), 307-324. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.06.006
Pickering, M. J., & Garrod, S. (2004). Toward a mechanistic psychology of dialogue. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 27(2), 169-190. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X04000056
Rohde, H., & Kehler, A. (2014). Grammatical and information-structural influences on pronoun production. Language, Cognition and Neuroscience, 29(8), 912-927. https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2014.971694
Rohde, H., Levy, R., & Kehler, A. (2011). Anticipating explanations in relative clause processing. Cognition, 118(3), 339-358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2010.10.013
Talmy, L. (2000). Toward a cognitive semantics: Vol. 1. Concept structuring systems. MIT Press.
Talmy. L. (2017). The targeting system of language. Cambridge: The MIT Press.
Traxler, M. J. (2012). Introduction to psycholinguistics: Understanding language science. John Wiley & Sons.