• More from M-W
  • To save this word, you'll need to log in. Log In

Definition of thesis

Did you know.

In high school, college, or graduate school, students often have to write a thesis on a topic in their major field of study. In many fields, a final thesis is the biggest challenge involved in getting a master's degree, and the same is true for students studying for a Ph.D. (a Ph.D. thesis is often called a dissertation ). But a thesis may also be an idea; so in the course of the paper the student may put forth several theses (notice the plural form) and attempt to prove them.

Examples of thesis in a Sentence

These examples are programmatically compiled from various online sources to illustrate current usage of the word 'thesis.' Any opinions expressed in the examples do not represent those of Merriam-Webster or its editors. Send us feedback about these examples.

Word History

in sense 3, Middle English, lowering of the voice, from Late Latin & Greek; Late Latin, from Greek, downbeat, more important part of a foot, literally, act of laying down; in other senses, Latin, from Greek, literally, act of laying down, from tithenai to put, lay down — more at do

14th century, in the meaning defined at sense 3a(1)

Dictionary Entries Near thesis

the sins of the fathers are visited upon the children

thesis novel

Cite this Entry

“Thesis.” Merriam-Webster.com Dictionary , Merriam-Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/thesis. Accessed 10 Mar. 2024.

Kids Definition

Kids definition of thesis, more from merriam-webster on thesis.

Nglish: Translation of thesis for Spanish Speakers

Britannica English: Translation of thesis for Arabic Speakers

Britannica.com: Encyclopedia article about thesis

Subscribe to America's largest dictionary and get thousands more definitions and advanced search—ad free!

Play Quordle: Guess all four words in a limited number of tries.  Each of your guesses must be a real 5-letter word.

Can you solve 4 words at once?

Word of the day.

See Definitions and Examples »

Get Word of the Day daily email!

Popular in Grammar & Usage

8 grammar terms you used to know, but forgot, homophones, homographs, and homonyms, your vs. you're: how to use them correctly, every letter is silent, sometimes: a-z list of examples, more commonly mispronounced words, popular in wordplay, 10 lesser-known reduplications, the words of the week - mar. 8, 10 scrabble words without any vowels, 12 more bird names that sound like insults (and sometimes are), 8 uncommon words related to love, games & quizzes.

Play Blossom: Solve today's spelling word game by finding as many words as you can using just 7 letters. Longer words score more points.

Your thesis is the central claim in your essay—your main insight or idea about your source or topic. Your thesis should appear early in an academic essay, followed by a logically constructed argument that supports this central claim. A strong thesis is arguable, which means a thoughtful reader could disagree with it and therefore needs your careful analysis of the evidence to understand how you arrived at this claim. You arrive at your thesis by examining and analyzing the evidence available to you, which might be text or other types of source material.

A thesis will generally respond to an analytical question or pose a solution to a problem that you have framed for your readers (and for yourself). When you frame that question or problem for your readers, you are telling them what is at stake in your argument—why your question matters and why they should care about the answer . If you can explain to your readers why a question or problem is worth addressing, then they will understand why it’s worth reading an essay that develops your thesis—and you will understand why it’s worth writing that essay.

A strong thesis will be arguable rather than descriptive , and it will be the right scope for the essay you are writing. If your thesis is descriptive, then you will not need to convince your readers of anything—you will be naming or summarizing something your readers can already see for themselves. If your thesis is too narrow, you won’t be able to explore your topic in enough depth to say something interesting about it. If your thesis is too broad, you may not be able to support it with evidence from the available sources.

When you are writing an essay for a course assignment, you should make sure you understand what type of claim you are being asked to make. Many of your assignments will be asking you to make analytical claims , which are based on interpretation of facts, data, or sources.

Some of your assignments may ask you to make normative claims. Normative claims are claims of value or evaluation rather than fact—claims about how things should be rather than how they are. A normative claim makes the case for the importance of something, the action that should be taken, or the way the world should be. When you are asked to write a policy memo, a proposal, or an essay based on your own opinion, you will be making normative claims.

Here are some examples of possible thesis statements for a student's analysis of the article “The Case Against Perfection” by Professor Michael Sandel.  

Descriptive thesis (not arguable) 

While Sandel argues that pursuing perfection through genetic engineering would decrease our sense of humility, he claims that the sense of solidarity we would lose is also important.

This thesis summarizes several points in Sandel’s argument, but it does not make a claim about how we should understand his argument. A reader who read Sandel’s argument would not also need to read an essay based on this descriptive thesis.  

Broad thesis (arguable, but difficult to support with evidence) 

Michael Sandel’s arguments about genetic engineering do not take into consideration all the relevant issues.

This is an arguable claim because it would be possible to argue against it by saying that Michael Sandel’s arguments do take all of the relevant issues into consideration. But the claim is too broad. Because the thesis does not specify which “issues” it is focused on—or why it matters if they are considered—readers won’t know what the rest of the essay will argue, and the writer won’t know what to focus on. If there is a particular issue that Sandel does not address, then a more specific version of the thesis would include that issue—hand an explanation of why it is important.  

Arguable thesis with analytical claim 

While Sandel argues persuasively that our instinct to “remake” (54) ourselves into something ever more perfect is a problem, his belief that we can always draw a line between what is medically necessary and what makes us simply “better than well” (51) is less convincing.

This is an arguable analytical claim. To argue for this claim, the essay writer will need to show how evidence from the article itself points to this interpretation. It’s also a reasonable scope for a thesis because it can be supported with evidence available in the text and is neither too broad nor too narrow.  

Arguable thesis with normative claim 

Given Sandel’s argument against genetic enhancement, we should not allow parents to decide on using Human Growth Hormone for their children.

This thesis tells us what we should do about a particular issue discussed in Sandel’s article, but it does not tell us how we should understand Sandel’s argument.  

Questions to ask about your thesis 

  • Is the thesis truly arguable? Does it speak to a genuine dilemma in the source, or would most readers automatically agree with it?  
  • Is the thesis too obvious? Again, would most or all readers agree with it without needing to see your argument?  
  • Is the thesis complex enough to require a whole essay's worth of argument?  
  • Is the thesis supportable with evidence from the text rather than with generalizations or outside research?  
  • Would anyone want to read a paper in which this thesis was developed? That is, can you explain what this paper is adding to our understanding of a problem, question, or topic?
  • picture_as_pdf Thesis

The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Thesis Statements

What this handout is about.

This handout describes what a thesis statement is, how thesis statements work in your writing, and how you can craft or refine one for your draft.

Introduction

Writing in college often takes the form of persuasion—convincing others that you have an interesting, logical point of view on the subject you are studying. Persuasion is a skill you practice regularly in your daily life. You persuade your roommate to clean up, your parents to let you borrow the car, your friend to vote for your favorite candidate or policy. In college, course assignments often ask you to make a persuasive case in writing. You are asked to convince your reader of your point of view. This form of persuasion, often called academic argument, follows a predictable pattern in writing. After a brief introduction of your topic, you state your point of view on the topic directly and often in one sentence. This sentence is the thesis statement, and it serves as a summary of the argument you’ll make in the rest of your paper.

What is a thesis statement?

A thesis statement:

  • tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion.
  • is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper.
  • directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself. The subject, or topic, of an essay might be World War II or Moby Dick; a thesis must then offer a way to understand the war or the novel.
  • makes a claim that others might dispute.
  • is usually a single sentence near the beginning of your paper (most often, at the end of the first paragraph) that presents your argument to the reader. The rest of the paper, the body of the essay, gathers and organizes evidence that will persuade the reader of the logic of your interpretation.

If your assignment asks you to take a position or develop a claim about a subject, you may need to convey that position or claim in a thesis statement near the beginning of your draft. The assignment may not explicitly state that you need a thesis statement because your instructor may assume you will include one. When in doubt, ask your instructor if the assignment requires a thesis statement. When an assignment asks you to analyze, to interpret, to compare and contrast, to demonstrate cause and effect, or to take a stand on an issue, it is likely that you are being asked to develop a thesis and to support it persuasively. (Check out our handout on understanding assignments for more information.)

How do I create a thesis?

A thesis is the result of a lengthy thinking process. Formulating a thesis is not the first thing you do after reading an essay assignment. Before you develop an argument on any topic, you have to collect and organize evidence, look for possible relationships between known facts (such as surprising contrasts or similarities), and think about the significance of these relationships. Once you do this thinking, you will probably have a “working thesis” that presents a basic or main idea and an argument that you think you can support with evidence. Both the argument and your thesis are likely to need adjustment along the way.

Writers use all kinds of techniques to stimulate their thinking and to help them clarify relationships or comprehend the broader significance of a topic and arrive at a thesis statement. For more ideas on how to get started, see our handout on brainstorming .

How do I know if my thesis is strong?

If there’s time, run it by your instructor or make an appointment at the Writing Center to get some feedback. Even if you do not have time to get advice elsewhere, you can do some thesis evaluation of your own. When reviewing your first draft and its working thesis, ask yourself the following :

  • Do I answer the question? Re-reading the question prompt after constructing a working thesis can help you fix an argument that misses the focus of the question. If the prompt isn’t phrased as a question, try to rephrase it. For example, “Discuss the effect of X on Y” can be rephrased as “What is the effect of X on Y?”
  • Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? If your thesis simply states facts that no one would, or even could, disagree with, it’s possible that you are simply providing a summary, rather than making an argument.
  • Is my thesis statement specific enough? Thesis statements that are too vague often do not have a strong argument. If your thesis contains words like “good” or “successful,” see if you could be more specific: why is something “good”; what specifically makes something “successful”?
  • Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? If a reader’s first response is likely to  be “So what?” then you need to clarify, to forge a relationship, or to connect to a larger issue.
  • Does my essay support my thesis specifically and without wandering? If your thesis and the body of your essay do not seem to go together, one of them has to change. It’s okay to change your working thesis to reflect things you have figured out in the course of writing your paper. Remember, always reassess and revise your writing as necessary.
  • Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? If a reader’s first response is “how?” or “why?” your thesis may be too open-ended and lack guidance for the reader. See what you can add to give the reader a better take on your position right from the beginning.

Suppose you are taking a course on contemporary communication, and the instructor hands out the following essay assignment: “Discuss the impact of social media on public awareness.” Looking back at your notes, you might start with this working thesis:

Social media impacts public awareness in both positive and negative ways.

You can use the questions above to help you revise this general statement into a stronger thesis.

  • Do I answer the question? You can analyze this if you rephrase “discuss the impact” as “what is the impact?” This way, you can see that you’ve answered the question only very generally with the vague “positive and negative ways.”
  • Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not likely. Only people who maintain that social media has a solely positive or solely negative impact could disagree.
  • Is my thesis statement specific enough? No. What are the positive effects? What are the negative effects?
  • Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? No. Why are they positive? How are they positive? What are their causes? Why are they negative? How are they negative? What are their causes?
  • Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? No. Why should anyone care about the positive and/or negative impact of social media?

After thinking about your answers to these questions, you decide to focus on the one impact you feel strongly about and have strong evidence for:

Because not every voice on social media is reliable, people have become much more critical consumers of information, and thus, more informed voters.

This version is a much stronger thesis! It answers the question, takes a specific position that others can challenge, and it gives a sense of why it matters.

Let’s try another. Suppose your literature professor hands out the following assignment in a class on the American novel: Write an analysis of some aspect of Mark Twain’s novel Huckleberry Finn. “This will be easy,” you think. “I loved Huckleberry Finn!” You grab a pad of paper and write:

Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn is a great American novel.

You begin to analyze your thesis:

  • Do I answer the question? No. The prompt asks you to analyze some aspect of the novel. Your working thesis is a statement of general appreciation for the entire novel.

Think about aspects of the novel that are important to its structure or meaning—for example, the role of storytelling, the contrasting scenes between the shore and the river, or the relationships between adults and children. Now you write:

In Huckleberry Finn, Mark Twain develops a contrast between life on the river and life on the shore.
  • Do I answer the question? Yes!
  • Have I taken a position that others might challenge or oppose? Not really. This contrast is well-known and accepted.
  • Is my thesis statement specific enough? It’s getting there–you have highlighted an important aspect of the novel for investigation. However, it’s still not clear what your analysis will reveal.
  • Does my thesis pass the “how and why?” test? Not yet. Compare scenes from the book and see what you discover. Free write, make lists, jot down Huck’s actions and reactions and anything else that seems interesting.
  • Does my thesis pass the “So what?” test? What’s the point of this contrast? What does it signify?”

After examining the evidence and considering your own insights, you write:

Through its contrasting river and shore scenes, Twain’s Huckleberry Finn suggests that to find the true expression of American democratic ideals, one must leave “civilized” society and go back to nature.

This final thesis statement presents an interpretation of a literary work based on an analysis of its content. Of course, for the essay itself to be successful, you must now present evidence from the novel that will convince the reader of your interpretation.

Works consulted

We consulted these works while writing this handout. This is not a comprehensive list of resources on the handout’s topic, and we encourage you to do your own research to find additional publications. Please do not use this list as a model for the format of your own reference list, as it may not match the citation style you are using. For guidance on formatting citations, please see the UNC Libraries citation tutorial . We revise these tips periodically and welcome feedback.

Anson, Chris M., and Robert A. Schwegler. 2010. The Longman Handbook for Writers and Readers , 6th ed. New York: Longman.

Lunsford, Andrea A. 2015. The St. Martin’s Handbook , 8th ed. Boston: Bedford/St Martin’s.

Ramage, John D., John C. Bean, and June Johnson. 2018. The Allyn & Bacon Guide to Writing , 8th ed. New York: Pearson.

Ruszkiewicz, John J., Christy Friend, Daniel Seward, and Maxine Hairston. 2010. The Scott, Foresman Handbook for Writers , 9th ed. Boston: Pearson Education.

You may reproduce it for non-commercial use if you use the entire handout and attribute the source: The Writing Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Make a Gift

Thesis: Definition and Examples in Composition

Glossary of Grammatical and Rhetorical Terms

  • An Introduction to Punctuation
  • Ph.D., Rhetoric and English, University of Georgia
  • M.A., Modern English and American Literature, University of Leicester
  • B.A., English, State University of New York

A thesis ( THEE-ses ) is the main (or controlling) idea of an essay , report , speech , or research paper , sometimes written as a single declarative sentence known as a thesis statement . A thesis may be implied rather than stated directly. Plural: theses . It's also known as a thesis statement, thesis sentence, controlling idea.

In the classical rhetorical exercises known as the  progymnasmata , the  thesis is an exercise that requires a student to argue a case for one side or the other.

Etymology From the Greek, "to put"

Examples and Observations (Definition #1)

  • "My thesis is simple: in the next century mankind must harness the nuclear genie if our energy needs are to be met and our security preserved." (John B. Ritch, "Nuclear Green," Prospect Magazine , March 1999)
  • "We watch baseball: it's what we have always imagined life should be like. We play softball. It's sloppy--the way life really is." (from the introduction to Watching Baseball, Playing Softball)
  • "Through Mansfield's skillful handling of point of view, characterization, and plot development, Miss Brill comes across as a convincing character who evokes our sympathy." (thesis statement in Miss Brill's Fragile Fantasy )
  • "Suppose there were no critics to tell us how to react to a picture, a play, or a new composition of music. Suppose we wandered innocent as the dawn into an art exhibition of unsigned paintings. By what standards, by what values would we decide whether they were good or bad, talented or untalented, success or failures? How can we ever know that what we think is right?" (Marya Mannes, "How Do You Know It's Good?")
  • "I think people are disturbed by the discovery that no longer is a small town autonomous--it is a creature of the state and of the Federal Government. We have accepted money for our schools, our libraries, our hospitals, our winter roads. Now we face the inevitable consequence: the benefactor wants to call the turns." (E.B. White, "Letter from the East")
  • "It is possible to stop most drug addiction in the United States within a very short time. Simply make all drugs available and sell them at cost." (Gore Vidal, "Drugs")
  • The Two Parts of an Effective Thesis "An effective thesis is generally composed of two parts: a topic and the writer's attitude or opinion about or reaction to that topic." (William J. Kelly, Strategy and Structure . Allyn and Bacon, 1996)
  • Drafting and Revising a Thesis "It's a good idea to formulate a thesis early in the writing process , perhaps by jotting it on scratch paper, by putting it at the head of a rough outline , or by attempting to write an introductory paragraph that includes the thesis. Your tentative thesis will probably be less graceful than the thesis you include in the final version of your essay. Here, for example, is one student's early effort: Although they both play percussion instruments, drummers and percussionists are very different. The thesis that appeared in the final draft of the student's paper was more polished: Two types of musicians play percussion instruments--drummers and percussionists--and they are as different as Quiet Riot and the New York Philharmonic. Don't worry too soon about the exact wording of your thesis, however, because your main point may change as you refine your ideas." (Diana Hacker, The Bedford Handbook , 6th ed. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002)
  • A Good Thesis - "A good thesis tells the audience exactly what you want them to know, understand, and remember when your speech is done. Write it as a simple, declarative sentence (or two) that restates the speech purpose and states the main points that support the purpose. Although you may formulate a thesis statement early in the speech development process, you may revise and reword it as you research your topic.' (Sherwyn P. Morreale, Brian H. Spitzberg, and J. Kevin Barge, Human Communication: Motivation, Knowledge, and Skills , 2nd ed. Thomson Higher Education, 2007) - "An effective thesis statement singles out some aspect of a subject for attention and clearly defines your approach to it." (David Blakesley and Jeffrey L. Hoogeveen, Writing: A Manual for the Digital Age . Wadsworth, 2011)

Examples and Observations (Definition #2)

" Thesis . This advanced exercise [one of the progymnasmata] asks the student to write an answer to a 'general question' ( quaestio infina )--that is, a question not involving individuals. . . . Quintilian . . . notes that a general question can be made into a persuasive subject if names are added (II.4.25). That is, a Thesis would pose a general question such as 'Should a man marry?' or 'Should one fortify a city?' (A Special Question on the other hand would be 'Should Marcus marry Livia?' or 'Should Athens spend money to build a defensive wall?')" (James J. Murphy, A Short History of Writing Instruction: From Ancient Greece to Modern America , 2nd ed. Lawrence Erlbaum, 2001)

  • How to Write a Good Thesis Statement
  • Definition and Examples of Analysis in Composition
  • What an Essay Is and How to Write One
  • Definition and Examples of Body Paragraphs in Composition
  • An Introduction to Academic Writing
  • How to Write a Solid Thesis Statement
  • The Ultimate Guide to the 5-Paragraph Essay
  • Revising a Paper
  • The Introductory Paragraph: Start Your Paper Off Right
  • Understanding Organization in Composition and Speech
  • What Is a Written Summary?
  • Focusing in Composition
  • An Essay Revision Checklist
  • Topic In Composition and Speech
  • What Is a Compelling Introduction?
  • How To Write an Essay
  • Resources Home 🏠
  • Try SciSpace Copilot
  • Search research papers
  • Add Copilot Extension
  • Try AI Detector
  • Try Paraphraser
  • Try Citation Generator
  • April Papers
  • June Papers
  • July Papers

SciSpace Resources

What is a thesis | A Complete Guide with Examples

Madalsa

Table of Contents

A thesis is a comprehensive academic paper based on your original research that presents new findings, arguments, and ideas of your study. It’s typically submitted at the end of your master’s degree or as a capstone of your bachelor’s degree.

However, writing a thesis can be laborious, especially for beginners. From the initial challenge of pinpointing a compelling research topic to organizing and presenting findings, the process is filled with potential pitfalls.

Therefore, to help you, this guide talks about what is a thesis. Additionally, it offers revelations and methodologies to transform it from an overwhelming task to a manageable and rewarding academic milestone.

What is a thesis?

A thesis is an in-depth research study that identifies a particular topic of inquiry and presents a clear argument or perspective about that topic using evidence and logic.

Writing a thesis showcases your ability of critical thinking, gathering evidence, and making a compelling argument. Integral to these competencies is thorough research, which not only fortifies your propositions but also confers credibility to your entire study.

Furthermore, there's another phenomenon you might often confuse with the thesis: the ' working thesis .' However, they aren't similar and shouldn't be used interchangeably.

A working thesis, often referred to as a preliminary or tentative thesis, is an initial version of your thesis statement. It serves as a draft or a starting point that guides your research in its early stages.

As you research more and gather more evidence, your initial thesis (aka working thesis) might change. It's like a starting point that can be adjusted as you learn more. It's normal for your main topic to change a few times before you finalize it.

While a thesis identifies and provides an overarching argument, the key to clearly communicating the central point of that argument lies in writing a strong thesis statement.

What is a thesis statement?

A strong thesis statement (aka thesis sentence) is a concise summary of the main argument or claim of the paper. It serves as a critical anchor in any academic work, succinctly encapsulating the primary argument or main idea of the entire paper.

Typically found within the introductory section, a strong thesis statement acts as a roadmap of your thesis, directing readers through your arguments and findings. By delineating the core focus of your investigation, it offers readers an immediate understanding of the context and the gravity of your study.

Furthermore, an effectively crafted thesis statement can set forth the boundaries of your research, helping readers anticipate the specific areas of inquiry you are addressing.

Different types of thesis statements

A good thesis statement is clear, specific, and arguable. Therefore, it is necessary for you to choose the right type of thesis statement for your academic papers.

Thesis statements can be classified based on their purpose and structure. Here are the primary types of thesis statements:

Argumentative (or Persuasive) thesis statement

Purpose : To convince the reader of a particular stance or point of view by presenting evidence and formulating a compelling argument.

Example : Reducing plastic use in daily life is essential for environmental health.

Analytical thesis statement

Purpose : To break down an idea or issue into its components and evaluate it.

Example : By examining the long-term effects, social implications, and economic impact of climate change, it becomes evident that immediate global action is necessary.

Expository (or Descriptive) thesis statement

Purpose : To explain a topic or subject to the reader.

Example : The Great Depression, spanning the 1930s, was a severe worldwide economic downturn triggered by a stock market crash, bank failures, and reduced consumer spending.

Cause and effect thesis statement

Purpose : To demonstrate a cause and its resulting effect.

Example : Overuse of smartphones can lead to impaired sleep patterns, reduced face-to-face social interactions, and increased levels of anxiety.

Compare and contrast thesis statement

Purpose : To highlight similarities and differences between two subjects.

Example : "While both novels '1984' and 'Brave New World' delve into dystopian futures, they differ in their portrayal of individual freedom, societal control, and the role of technology."

When you write a thesis statement , it's important to ensure clarity and precision, so the reader immediately understands the central focus of your work.

What is the difference between a thesis and a thesis statement?

While both terms are frequently used interchangeably, they have distinct meanings.

A thesis refers to the entire research document, encompassing all its chapters and sections. In contrast, a thesis statement is a brief assertion that encapsulates the central argument of the research.

Here’s an in-depth differentiation table of a thesis and a thesis statement.

Now, to craft a compelling thesis, it's crucial to adhere to a specific structure. Let’s break down these essential components that make up a thesis structure

15 components of a thesis structure

Navigating a thesis can be daunting. However, understanding its structure can make the process more manageable.

Here are the key components or different sections of a thesis structure:

Your thesis begins with the title page. It's not just a formality but the gateway to your research.

title-page-of-a-thesis

Here, you'll prominently display the necessary information about you (the author) and your institutional details.

  • Title of your thesis
  • Your full name
  • Your department
  • Your institution and degree program
  • Your submission date
  • Your Supervisor's name (in some cases)
  • Your Department or faculty (in some cases)
  • Your University's logo (in some cases)
  • Your Student ID (in some cases)

In a concise manner, you'll have to summarize the critical aspects of your research in typically no more than 200-300 words.

Abstract-section-of-a-thesis

This includes the problem statement, methodology, key findings, and conclusions. For many, the abstract will determine if they delve deeper into your work, so ensure it's clear and compelling.

Acknowledgments

Research is rarely a solitary endeavor. In the acknowledgments section, you have the chance to express gratitude to those who've supported your journey.

Acknowledgement-section-of-a-thesis

This might include advisors, peers, institutions, or even personal sources of inspiration and support. It's a personal touch, reflecting the humanity behind the academic rigor.

Table of contents

A roadmap for your readers, the table of contents lists the chapters, sections, and subsections of your thesis.

Table-of-contents-of-a-thesis

By providing page numbers, you allow readers to navigate your work easily, jumping to sections that pique their interest.

List of figures and tables

Research often involves data, and presenting this data visually can enhance understanding. This section provides an organized listing of all figures and tables in your thesis.

List-of-tables-and-figures-in-a-thesis

It's a visual index, ensuring that readers can quickly locate and reference your graphical data.

Introduction

Here's where you introduce your research topic, articulate the research question or objective, and outline the significance of your study.

Introduction-section-of-a-thesis

  • Present the research topic : Clearly articulate the central theme or subject of your research.
  • Background information : Ground your research topic, providing any necessary context or background information your readers might need to understand the significance of your study.
  • Define the scope : Clearly delineate the boundaries of your research, indicating what will and won't be covered.
  • Literature review : Introduce any relevant existing research on your topic, situating your work within the broader academic conversation and highlighting where your research fits in.
  • State the research Question(s) or objective(s) : Clearly articulate the primary questions or objectives your research aims to address.
  • Outline the study's structure : Give a brief overview of how the subsequent sections of your work will unfold, guiding your readers through the journey ahead.

The introduction should captivate your readers, making them eager to delve deeper into your research journey.

Literature review section

Your study correlates with existing research. Therefore, in the literature review section, you'll engage in a dialogue with existing knowledge, highlighting relevant studies, theories, and findings.

Literature-review-section-thesis

It's here that you identify gaps in the current knowledge, positioning your research as a bridge to new insights.

To streamline this process, consider leveraging AI tools. For example, the SciSpace literature review tool enables you to efficiently explore and delve into research papers, simplifying your literature review journey.

Methodology

In the research methodology section, you’ll detail the tools, techniques, and processes you employed to gather and analyze data. This section will inform the readers about how you approached your research questions and ensures the reproducibility of your study.

Methodology-section-thesis

Here's a breakdown of what it should encompass:

  • Research Design : Describe the overall structure and approach of your research. Are you conducting a qualitative study with in-depth interviews? Or is it a quantitative study using statistical analysis? Perhaps it's a mixed-methods approach?
  • Data Collection : Detail the methods you used to gather data. This could include surveys, experiments, observations, interviews, archival research, etc. Mention where you sourced your data, the duration of data collection, and any tools or instruments used.
  • Sampling : If applicable, explain how you selected participants or data sources for your study. Discuss the size of your sample and the rationale behind choosing it.
  • Data Analysis : Describe the techniques and tools you used to process and analyze the data. This could range from statistical tests in quantitative research to thematic analysis in qualitative research.
  • Validity and Reliability : Address the steps you took to ensure the validity and reliability of your findings to ensure that your results are both accurate and consistent.
  • Ethical Considerations : Highlight any ethical issues related to your research and the measures you took to address them, including — informed consent, confidentiality, and data storage and protection measures.

Moreover, different research questions necessitate different types of methodologies. For instance:

  • Experimental methodology : Often used in sciences, this involves a controlled experiment to discern causality.
  • Qualitative methodology : Employed when exploring patterns or phenomena without numerical data. Methods can include interviews, focus groups, or content analysis.
  • Quantitative methodology : Concerned with measurable data and often involves statistical analysis. Surveys and structured observations are common tools here.
  • Mixed methods : As the name implies, this combines both qualitative and quantitative methodologies.

The Methodology section isn’t just about detailing the methods but also justifying why they were chosen. The appropriateness of the methods in addressing your research question can significantly impact the credibility of your findings.

Results (or Findings)

This section presents the outcomes of your research. It's crucial to note that the nature of your results may vary; they could be quantitative, qualitative, or a mix of both.

Results-section-thesis

Quantitative results often present statistical data, showcasing measurable outcomes, and they benefit from tables, graphs, and figures to depict these data points.

Qualitative results , on the other hand, might delve into patterns, themes, or narratives derived from non-numerical data, such as interviews or observations.

Regardless of the nature of your results, clarity is essential. This section is purely about presenting the data without offering interpretations — that comes later in the discussion.

In the discussion section, the raw data transforms into valuable insights.

Start by revisiting your research question and contrast it with the findings. How do your results expand, constrict, or challenge current academic conversations?

Dive into the intricacies of the data, guiding the reader through its implications. Detail potential limitations transparently, signaling your awareness of the research's boundaries. This is where your academic voice should be resonant and confident.

Practical implications (Recommendation) section

Based on the insights derived from your research, this section provides actionable suggestions or proposed solutions.

Whether aimed at industry professionals or the general public, recommendations translate your academic findings into potential real-world actions. They help readers understand the practical implications of your work and how it can be applied to effect change or improvement in a given field.

When crafting recommendations, it's essential to ensure they're feasible and rooted in the evidence provided by your research. They shouldn't merely be aspirational but should offer a clear path forward, grounded in your findings.

The conclusion provides closure to your research narrative.

It's not merely a recap but a synthesis of your main findings and their broader implications. Reconnect with the research questions or hypotheses posited at the beginning, offering clear answers based on your findings.

Conclusion-section-thesis

Reflect on the broader contributions of your study, considering its impact on the academic community and potential real-world applications.

Lastly, the conclusion should leave your readers with a clear understanding of the value and impact of your study.

References (or Bibliography)

Every theory you've expounded upon, every data point you've cited, and every methodological precedent you've followed finds its acknowledgment here.

References-section-thesis

In references, it's crucial to ensure meticulous consistency in formatting, mirroring the specific guidelines of the chosen citation style .

Proper referencing helps to avoid plagiarism , gives credit to original ideas, and allows readers to explore topics of interest. Moreover, it situates your work within the continuum of academic knowledge.

To properly cite the sources used in the study, you can rely on online citation generator tools  to generate accurate citations!

Here’s more on how you can cite your sources.

Often, the depth of research produces a wealth of material that, while crucial, can make the core content of the thesis cumbersome. The appendix is where you mention extra information that supports your research but isn't central to the main text.

Appendices-section-thesis

Whether it's raw datasets, detailed procedural methodologies, extended case studies, or any other ancillary material, the appendices ensure that these elements are archived for reference without breaking the main narrative's flow.

For thorough researchers and readers keen on meticulous details, the appendices provide a treasure trove of insights.

Glossary (optional)

In academics, specialized terminologies, and jargon are inevitable. However, not every reader is versed in every term.

The glossary, while optional, is a critical tool for accessibility. It's a bridge ensuring that even readers from outside the discipline can access, understand, and appreciate your work.

Glossary-section-of-a-thesis

By defining complex terms and providing context, you're inviting a wider audience to engage with your research, enhancing its reach and impact.

Remember, while these components provide a structured framework, the essence of your thesis lies in the originality of your ideas, the rigor of your research, and the clarity of your presentation.

As you craft each section, keep your readers in mind, ensuring that your passion and dedication shine through every page.

Thesis examples

To further elucidate the concept of a thesis, here are illustrative examples from various fields:

Example 1 (History): Abolition, Africans, and Abstraction: the Influence of the ‘Noble Savage’ on British and French Antislavery Thought, 1787-1807 by Suchait Kahlon.
Example 2 (Climate Dynamics): Influence of external forcings on abrupt millennial-scale climate changes: a statistical modelling study by Takahito Mitsui · Michel Crucifix

Checklist for your thesis evaluation

Evaluating your thesis ensures that your research meets the standards of academia. Here's an elaborate checklist to guide you through this critical process.

Content and structure

  • Is the thesis statement clear, concise, and debatable?
  • Does the introduction provide sufficient background and context?
  • Is the literature review comprehensive, relevant, and well-organized?
  • Does the methodology section clearly describe and justify the research methods?
  • Are the results/findings presented clearly and logically?
  • Does the discussion interpret the results in light of the research question and existing literature?
  • Is the conclusion summarizing the research and suggesting future directions or implications?

Clarity and coherence

  • Is the writing clear and free of jargon?
  • Are ideas and sections logically connected and flowing?
  • Is there a clear narrative or argument throughout the thesis?

Research quality

  • Is the research question significant and relevant?
  • Are the research methods appropriate for the question?
  • Is the sample size (if applicable) adequate?
  • Are the data analysis techniques appropriate and correctly applied?
  • Are potential biases or limitations addressed?

Originality and significance

  • Does the thesis contribute new knowledge or insights to the field?
  • Is the research grounded in existing literature while offering fresh perspectives?

Formatting and presentation

  • Is the thesis formatted according to institutional guidelines?
  • Are figures, tables, and charts clear, labeled, and referenced in the text?
  • Is the bibliography or reference list complete and consistently formatted?
  • Are appendices relevant and appropriately referenced in the main text?

Grammar and language

  • Is the thesis free of grammatical and spelling errors?
  • Is the language professional, consistent, and appropriate for an academic audience?
  • Are quotations and paraphrased material correctly cited?

Feedback and revision

  • Have you sought feedback from peers, advisors, or experts in the field?
  • Have you addressed the feedback and made the necessary revisions?

Overall assessment

  • Does the thesis as a whole feel cohesive and comprehensive?
  • Would the thesis be understandable and valuable to someone in your field?

Ensure to use this checklist to leave no ground for doubt or missed information in your thesis.

After writing your thesis, the next step is to discuss and defend your findings verbally in front of a knowledgeable panel. You’ve to be well prepared as your professors may grade your presentation abilities.

Preparing your thesis defense

A thesis defense, also known as "defending the thesis," is the culmination of a scholar's research journey. It's the final frontier, where you’ll present their findings and face scrutiny from a panel of experts.

Typically, the defense involves a public presentation where you’ll have to outline your study, followed by a question-and-answer session with a committee of experts. This committee assesses the validity, originality, and significance of the research.

The defense serves as a rite of passage for scholars. It's an opportunity to showcase expertise, address criticisms, and refine arguments. A successful defense not only validates the research but also establishes your authority as a researcher in your field.

Here’s how you can effectively prepare for your thesis defense .

Now, having touched upon the process of defending a thesis, it's worth noting that scholarly work can take various forms, depending on academic and regional practices.

One such form, often paralleled with the thesis, is the 'dissertation.' But what differentiates the two?

Dissertation vs. Thesis

Often used interchangeably in casual discourse, they refer to distinct research projects undertaken at different levels of higher education.

To the uninitiated, understanding their meaning might be elusive. So, let's demystify these terms and delve into their core differences.

Here's a table differentiating between the two.

Wrapping up

From understanding the foundational concept of a thesis to navigating its various components, differentiating it from a dissertation, and recognizing the importance of proper citation — this guide covers it all.

As scholars and readers, understanding these nuances not only aids in academic pursuits but also fosters a deeper appreciation for the relentless quest for knowledge that drives academia.

It’s important to remember that every thesis is a testament to curiosity, dedication, and the indomitable spirit of discovery.

Good luck with your thesis writing!

Frequently Asked Questions

A thesis typically ranges between 40-80 pages, but its length can vary based on the research topic, institution guidelines, and level of study.

A PhD thesis usually spans 200-300 pages, though this can vary based on the discipline, complexity of the research, and institutional requirements.

To identify a thesis topic, consider current trends in your field, gaps in existing literature, personal interests, and discussions with advisors or mentors. Additionally, reviewing related journals and conference proceedings can provide insights into potential areas of exploration.

The conceptual framework is often situated in the literature review or theoretical framework section of a thesis. It helps set the stage by providing the context, defining key concepts, and explaining the relationships between variables.

A thesis statement should be concise, clear, and specific. It should state the main argument or point of your research. Start by pinpointing the central question or issue your research addresses, then condense that into a single statement, ensuring it reflects the essence of your paper.

You might also like

Beyond Google Scholar: Why SciSpace is the best alternative

Beyond Google Scholar: Why SciSpace is the best alternative

Monali Ghosh

Types of Literature Review — A Guide for Researchers

Sumalatha G

SciSpace or Connected Papers: An in-depth analysis

  • Daily Crossword
  • Word Puzzle
  • Word Finder
  • Word of the Day
  • Synonym of the Day
  • Word of the Year
  • Language stories
  • All featured
  • Gender and sexuality
  • All pop culture
  • Grammar Coach ™
  • Writing hub
  • Grammar essentials
  • Commonly confused
  • All writing tips
  • Pop culture
  • Writing tips

a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections: He vigorously defended his thesis on the causes of war.

a subject for a composition or essay.

a dissertation on a particular subject in which one has done original research, as one presented by a candidate for a diploma or degree.

Music . the downward stroke in conducting; downbeat. : Compare arsis (def. 1) .

a part of a metrical foot that does not bear the ictus or stress.

(less commonly) the part of a metrical foot that bears the ictus. : Compare arsis (def. 2) .

Philosophy . See under Hegelian dialectic .

Origin of thesis

Word story for thesis, other words for thesis, words that may be confused with thesis.

  • 1. antithesis , synthesis , thesis
  • 2. dissertation , thesis

Words Nearby thesis

  • shit will hit the fan, the
  • shoe is on the other foot, the
  • short end of the stick, the
  • The show must go on
  • thesis play
  • thesis statement
  • Sketch Book, The
  • Skin of Our Teeth, The
  • sky's the limit, the

Dictionary.com Unabridged Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2024

How to use thesis in a sentence

“The Saudis have been proving the thesis of the film — they do in fact have an army,” said Thor Halvorssen, founder and chief executive of the nonprofit Human Rights Foundation, which funded the movie.

It’s a hypothesis that Bush pursued in her master’s thesis , and last year she began attending virtual Goth parties in a final round of field work before defending her doctoral thesis later this year.

While this partnership was planned prior to the coronavirus outbreak, co-founder Jordana Kier said the pandemic instantly proved out the expansion thesis .

They’ve had to defend that thesis for a very, very long time in front of a variety of different customers and different people.

Over the past decade, In-Q-Tel has been one of the most active investors in the commercial space sector, with a broad investment thesis that touches many aspects of the sector.

In “Back Home,” Gil also revisits the nostalgia for the South explored in his Johns Hopkins thesis , “Circle of Stone.”

At least father and son were in alignment on this central thesis : acting “gay”—bad; being thought of as gay—bad.

Her doctoral thesis , says Ramin Takloo at the University of Illinois, was simply outstanding.

Marshall McLuhan long ago argued the now accepted thesis that different mediums have different influences on thinking.

He wrote his Master's thesis  on the underrepresentation of young people in Congress.

And indeed for most young men a college thesis is but an exercise for sharpening the wits, rarely dangerous in its later effects.

It will be for the reader to determine whether the main thesis of the book has gained or lost by the new evidence.

But the word thesis , when applied to Systems, does not mean the 'position' of single notes, but of groups of notes.

This conclusion, it need hardly be said, is in entire agreement with the main thesis of the preceding pages.

Sundry outlying Indians, with ammunition to waste, took belly and knee rests and strengthened the thesis to the contrary.

British Dictionary definitions for thesis

/ ( ˈθiːsɪs ) /

a dissertation resulting from original research, esp when submitted by a candidate for a degree or diploma

a doctrine maintained or promoted in argument

a subject for a discussion or essay

an unproved statement, esp one put forward as a premise in an argument

music the downbeat of a bar, as indicated in conducting

(in classical prosody) the syllable or part of a metrical foot not receiving the ictus : Compare arsis

philosophy the first stage in the Hegelian dialectic, that is challenged by the antithesis

Collins English Dictionary - Complete & Unabridged 2012 Digital Edition © William Collins Sons & Co. Ltd. 1979, 1986 © HarperCollins Publishers 1998, 2000, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2012

Cultural definitions for thesis

The central idea in a piece of writing, sometimes contained in a topic sentence .

The New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. All rights reserved.

  • Dictionaries home
  • American English
  • Collocations
  • German-English
  • Grammar home
  • Practical English Usage
  • Learn & Practise Grammar (Beta)
  • Word Lists home
  • My Word Lists
  • Recent additions
  • Resources home
  • Text Checker

Definition of thesis noun from the Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary

  • Students must submit a thesis on an agreed subject within four years.
  • He presented this thesis for his PhD.
  • a thesis for a master's degree
  • He's doing a doctoral thesis on the early works of Shostakovich.
  • Many departments require their students to do a thesis defense.
  • She completed an MSc by thesis.
  • her thesis adviser at MIT
  • in a/​the thesis
  • thesis about

Take your English to the next level

The Oxford Learner’s Thesaurus explains the difference between groups of similar words. Try it for free as part of the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary app

definition of language thesis

  • Cambridge Dictionary +Plus

Meaning of thesis in English

Your browser doesn't support HTML5 audio

  • I wrote my thesis on literacy strategies for boys .
  • Her main thesis is that children need a lot of verbal stimulation .
  • boilerplate
  • composition
  • dissertation
  • essay question
  • peer review

You can also find related words, phrases, and synonyms in the topics:

thesis | Intermediate English

Examples of thesis, collocations with thesis.

These are words often used in combination with thesis .

Click on a collocation to see more examples of it.

Translations of thesis

Get a quick, free translation!

{{randomImageQuizHook.quizId}}

Word of the Day

someone's way of living; the things that a person or particular group of people usually do

Forget doing it or forget to do it? Avoiding common mistakes with verb patterns (2)

Forget doing it or forget to do it? Avoiding common mistakes with verb patterns (2)

definition of language thesis

Learn more with +Plus

  • Recent and Recommended {{#preferredDictionaries}} {{name}} {{/preferredDictionaries}}
  • Definitions Clear explanations of natural written and spoken English English Learner’s Dictionary Essential British English Essential American English
  • Grammar and thesaurus Usage explanations of natural written and spoken English Grammar Thesaurus
  • Pronunciation British and American pronunciations with audio English Pronunciation
  • English–Chinese (Simplified) Chinese (Simplified)–English
  • English–Chinese (Traditional) Chinese (Traditional)–English
  • English–Dutch Dutch–English
  • English–French French–English
  • English–German German–English
  • English–Indonesian Indonesian–English
  • English–Italian Italian–English
  • English–Japanese Japanese–English
  • English–Norwegian Norwegian–English
  • English–Polish Polish–English
  • English–Portuguese Portuguese–English
  • English–Spanish Spanish–English
  • English–Swedish Swedish–English
  • Dictionary +Plus Word Lists
  • English    Noun
  • Intermediate    Noun
  • Collocations
  • Translations
  • All translations

Add thesis to one of your lists below, or create a new one.

{{message}}

Something went wrong.

There was a problem sending your report.

  • Tools and Resources
  • Customer Services
  • Communication and Culture
  • Communication and Social Change
  • Communication and Technology
  • Communication Theory
  • Critical/Cultural Studies
  • Gender (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Studies)
  • Health and Risk Communication
  • Intergroup Communication
  • International/Global Communication
  • Interpersonal Communication
  • Journalism Studies
  • Language and Social Interaction
  • Mass Communication
  • Media and Communication Policy
  • Organizational Communication
  • Political Communication
  • Rhetorical Theory
  • Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Language and power.

  • Sik Hung Ng Sik Hung Ng Department of Psychology, Renmin University of China
  •  and  Fei Deng Fei Deng School of Foreign Studies, South China Agricultural University
  • https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228613.013.436
  • Published online: 22 August 2017

Five dynamic language–power relationships in communication have emerged from critical language studies, sociolinguistics, conversation analysis, and the social psychology of language and communication. Two of them stem from preexisting powers behind language that it reveals and reflects, thereby transferring the extralinguistic powers to the communication context. Such powers exist at both the micro and macro levels. At the micro level, the power behind language is a speaker’s possession of a weapon, money, high social status, or other attractive personal qualities—by revealing them in convincing language, the speaker influences the hearer. At the macro level, the power behind language is the collective power (ethnolinguistic vitality) of the communities that speak the language. The dominance of English as a global language and international lingua franca, for example, has less to do with its linguistic quality and more to do with the ethnolinguistic vitality of English-speakers worldwide that it reflects. The other three language–power relationships refer to the powers of language that are based on a language’s communicative versatility and its broad range of cognitive, communicative, social, and identity functions in meaning-making, social interaction, and language policies. Such language powers include, first, the power of language to maintain existing dominance in legal, sexist, racist, and ageist discourses that favor particular groups of language users over others. Another language power is its immense impact on national unity and discord. The third language power is its ability to create influence through single words (e.g., metaphors), oratories, conversations and narratives in political campaigns, emergence of leaders, terrorist narratives, and so forth.

  • power behind language
  • power of language
  • intergroup communication
  • World Englishes
  • oratorical power
  • conversational power
  • leader emergence
  • al-Qaeda narrative
  • social identity approach

Introduction

Language is for communication and power.

Language is a natural human system of conventionalized symbols that have understood meanings. Through it humans express and communicate their private thoughts and feelings as well as enact various social functions. The social functions include co-constructing social reality between and among individuals, performing and coordinating social actions such as conversing, arguing, cheating, and telling people what they should or should not do. Language is also a public marker of ethnolinguistic, national, or religious identity, so strong that people are willing to go to war for its defense, just as they would defend other markers of social identity, such as their national flag. These cognitive, communicative, social, and identity functions make language a fundamental medium of human communication. Language is also a versatile communication medium, often and widely used in tandem with music, pictures, and actions to amplify its power. Silence, too, adds to the force of speech when it is used strategically to speak louder than words. The wide range of language functions and its versatility combine to make language powerful. Even so, this is only one part of what is in fact a dynamic relationship between language and power. The other part is that there is preexisting power behind language which it reveals and reflects, thereby transferring extralinguistic power to the communication context. It is thus important to delineate the language–power relationships and their implications for human communication.

This chapter provides a systematic account of the dynamic interrelationships between language and power, not comprehensively for lack of space, but sufficiently focused so as to align with the intergroup communication theme of the present volume. The term “intergroup communication” will be used herein to refer to an intergroup perspective on communication, which stresses intergroup processes underlying communication and is not restricted to any particular form of intergroup communication such as interethnic or intergender communication, important though they are. It echoes the pioneering attempts to develop an intergroup perspective on the social psychology of language and communication behavior made by pioneers drawn from communication, social psychology, and cognate fields (see Harwood et al., 2005 ). This intergroup perspective has fostered the development of intergroup communication as a discipline distinct from and complementing the discipline of interpersonal communication. One of its insights is that apparently interpersonal communication is in fact dynamically intergroup (Dragojevic & Giles, 2014 ). For this and other reasons, an intergroup perspective on language and communication behavior has proved surprisingly useful in revealing intergroup processes in health communication (Jones & Watson, 2012 ), media communication (Harwood & Roy, 2005 ), and communication in a variety of organizational contexts (Giles, 2012 ).

The major theoretical foundation that has underpinned the intergroup perspective is social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982 ), which continues to service the field as a metatheory (Abrams & Hogg, 2004 ) alongside relatively more specialized theories such as ethnolinguistic identity theory (Harwood et al., 1994 ), communication accommodation theory (Palomares et al., 2016 ), and self-categorization theory applied to intergroup communication (Reid et al., 2005 ). Against this backdrop, this chapter will be less concerned with any particular social category of intergroup communication or variant of social identity theory, and more with developing a conceptual framework of looking at the language–power relationships and their implications for understanding intergroup communication. Readers interested in an intra- or interpersonal perspective may refer to the volume edited by Holtgraves ( 2014a ).

Conceptual Approaches to Power

Bertrand Russell, logician cum philosopher and social activist, published a relatively little-known book on power when World War II was looming large in Europe (Russell, 2004 ). In it he asserted the fundamental importance of the concept of power in the social sciences and likened its importance to the concept of energy in the physical sciences. But unlike physical energy, which can be defined in a formula (e.g., E=MC 2 ), social power has defied any such definition. This state of affairs is not unexpected because the very nature of (social) power is elusive. Foucault ( 1979 , p. 92) has put it this way: “Power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” This view is not beyond criticism but it does highlight the elusiveness of power. Power is also a value-laden concept meaning different things to different people. To functional theorists and power-wielders, power is “power to,” a responsibility to unite people and do good for all. To conflict theorists and those who are dominated, power is “power over,” which corrupts and is a source of social conflict rather than integration (Lenski, 1966 ; Sassenberg et al., 2014 ). These entrenched views surface in management–labor negotiations and political debates between government and opposition. Management and government would try to frame the negotiation in terms of “power to,” whereas labor and opposition would try to frame the same in “power over” in a clash of power discourses. The two discourses also interchange when the same speakers reverse their power relations: While in opposition, politicians adhere to “power over” rhetorics, once in government, they talk “power to.” And vice versa.

The elusive and value-laden nature of power has led to a plurality of theoretical and conceptual approaches. Five approaches that are particularly pertinent to the language–power relationships will be discussed, and briefly so because of space limitation. One approach views power in terms of structural dominance in society by groups who own and/or control the economy, the government, and other social institutions. Another approach views power as the production of intended effects by overcoming resistance that arises from objective conflict of interests or from psychological reactance to being coerced, manipulated, or unfairly treated. A complementary approach, represented by Kurt Lewin’s field theory, takes the view that power is not the actual production of effects but the potential for doing this. It looks behind power to find out the sources or bases of this potential, which may stem from the power-wielders’ access to the means of punishment, reward, and information, as well as from their perceived expertise and legitimacy (Raven, 2008 ). A fourth approach views power in terms of the balance of control/dependence in the ongoing social exchange between two actors that takes place either in the absence or presence of third parties. It provides a structural account of power-balancing mechanisms in social networking (Emerson, 1962 ), and forms the basis for combining with symbolic interaction theory, which brings in subjective factors such as shared social cognition and affects for the analysis of power in interpersonal and intergroup negotiation (Stolte, 1987 ). The fifth, social identity approach digs behind the social exchange account, which has started from control/dependence as a given but has left it unexplained, to propose a three-process model of power emergence (Turner, 2005 ). According to this model, it is psychological group formation and associated group-based social identity that produce influence; influence then cumulates to form the basis of power, which in turn leads to the control of resources.

Common to the five approaches above is the recognition that power is dynamic in its usage and can transform from one form of power to another. Lukes ( 2005 ) has attempted to articulate three different forms or faces of power called “dimensions.” The first, behavioral dimension of power refers to decision-making power that is manifest in the open contest for dominance in situations of objective conflict of interests. Non-decision-making power, the second dimension, is power behind the scene. It involves the mobilization of organizational bias (e.g., agenda fixing) to keep conflict of interests from surfacing to become public issues and to deprive oppositions of a communication platform to raise their voices, thereby limiting the scope of decision-making to only “safe” issues that would not challenge the interests of the power-wielder. The third dimension is ideological and works by socializing people’s needs and values so that they want the wants and do the things wanted by the power-wielders, willingly as their own. Conflict of interests, opposition, and resistance would be absent from this form of power, not because they have been maneuvered out of the contest as in the case of non-decision-making power, but because the people who are subject to power are no longer aware of any conflict of interest in the power relationship, which may otherwise ferment opposition and resistance. Power in this form can be exercised without the application of coercion or reward, and without arousing perceived manipulation or conflict of interests.

Language–Power Relationships

As indicated in the chapter title, discussion will focus on the language–power relationships, and not on language alone or power alone, in intergroup communication. It draws from all the five approaches to power and can be grouped for discussion under the power behind language and the power of language. In the former, language is viewed as having no power of its own and yet can produce influence and control by revealing the power behind the speaker. Language also reflects the collective/historical power of the language community that uses it. In the case of modern English, its preeminent status as a global language and international lingua franca has shaped the communication between native and nonnative English speakers because of the power of the English-speaking world that it reflects, rather than because of its linguistic superiority. In both cases, language provides a widely used conventional means to transfer extralinguistic power to the communication context. Research on the power of language takes the view that language has power of its own. This power allows a language to maintain the power behind it, unite or divide a nation, and create influence.

In Figure 1 we have grouped the five language–power relationships into five boxes. Note that the boundary between any two boxes is not meant to be rigid but permeable. For example, by revealing the power behind a message (box 1), a message can create influence (box 5). As another example, language does not passively reflect the power of the language community that uses it (box 2), but also, through its spread to other language communities, generates power to maintain its preeminence among languages (box 3). This expansive process of language power can be seen in the rise of English to global language status. A similar expansive process also applies to a particular language style that first reflects the power of the language subcommunity who uses the style, and then, through its common acceptance and usage by other subcommunities in the country, maintains the power of the subcommunity concerned. A prime example of this type of expansive process is linguistic sexism, which reflects preexisting male dominance in society and then, through its common usage by both sexes, contributes to the maintenance of male dominance. Other examples are linguistic racism and the language style of the legal profession, each of which, like linguistic sexism and the preeminence of the English language worldwide, has considerable impact on individuals and society at large.

Space precludes a full discussion of all five language–power relationships. Instead, some of them will warrant only a brief mention, whereas others will be presented in greater detail. The complexity of the language–power relations and their cross-disciplinary ramifications will be evident in the multiple sets of interrelated literatures that we cite from. These include the social psychology of language and communication, critical language studies (Fairclough, 1989 ), sociolinguistics (Kachru, 1992 ), and conversation analysis (Sacks et al., 1974 ).

Figure 1. Power behind language and power of language.

Power Behind Language

Language reveals power.

When negotiating with police, a gang may issue the threatening message, “Meet our demands, or we will shoot the hostages!” The threatening message may succeed in coercing the police to submit; its power, however, is more apparent than real because it is based on the guns gangsters posses. The message merely reveals the power of a weapon in their possession. Apart from revealing power, the gangsters may also cheat. As long as the message comes across as credible and convincing enough to arouse overwhelming fear, it would allow them to get away with their demands without actually possessing any weapon. In this case, language is used to produce an intended effect despite resistance by deceptively revealing a nonexisting power base and planting it in the mind of the message recipient. The literature on linguistic deception illustrates the widespread deceptive use of language-reveals-power to produce intended effects despite resistance (Robinson, 1996 ).

Language Reflects Power

Ethnolinguistic vitality.

The language that a person uses reflects the language community’s power. A useful way to think about a language community’s linguistic power is through the ethnolinguistic vitality model (Bourhis et al., 1981 ; Harwood et al., 1994 ). Language communities in a country vary in absolute size overall and, just as important, a relative numeric concentration in particular regions. Francophone Canadians, though fewer than Anglophone Canadians overall, are concentrated in Quebec to give them the power of numbers there. Similarly, ethnic minorities in mainland China have considerable power of numbers in those autonomous regions where they are concentrated, such as Inner Mongolia, Tibet, and Xinjiang. Collectively, these factors form the demographic base of the language community’s ethnolinguistic vitality, an index of the community’s relative linguistic dominance. Another base of ethnolinguistic vitality is institutional representations of the language community in government, legislatures, education, religion, the media, and so forth, which afford its members institutional leadership, influence, and control. Such institutional representation is often reinforced by a language policy that installs the language as the nation’s sole official language. The third base of ethnolinguistic vitality comprises sociohistorical and cultural status of the language community inside the nation and internationally. In short, the dominant language of a nation is one that comes from and reflects the high ethnolinguistic vitality of its language community.

An important finding of ethnolinguistic vitality research is that it is perceived vitality, and not so much its objective demographic-institutional-cultural strengths, that influences language behavior in interpersonal and intergroup contexts. Interestingly, the visibility and salience of languages shown on public and commercial signs, referred to as the “linguistic landscape,” serve important informational and symbolic functions as a marker of their relative vitality, which in turn affects the use of in-group language in institutional settings (Cenoz & Gorter, 2006 ; Landry & Bourhis, 1997 ).

World Englishes and Lingua Franca English

Another field of research on the power behind and reflected in language is “World Englishes.” At the height of the British Empire English spread on the back of the Industrial Revolution and through large-scale migrations of Britons to the “New World,” which has since become the core of an “inner circle” of traditional native English-speaking nations now led by the United States (Kachru, 1992 ). The emergent wealth and power of these nations has maintained English despite the decline of the British Empire after World War II. In the post-War era, English has become internationalized with the support of an “outer circle” nations and, later, through its spread to “expanding circle” nations. Outer circle nations are made up mostly of former British colonies such as India, Pakistan, and Nigeria. In compliance with colonial language policies that institutionalized English as the new colonial national language, a sizeable proportion of the colonial populations has learned and continued using English over generations, thereby vastly increasing the number of English speakers over and above those in the inner circle nations. The expanding circle encompasses nations where English has played no historical government roles, but which are keen to appropriate English as the preeminent foreign language for local purposes such as national development, internationalization of higher education, and participation in globalization (e.g., China, Indonesia, South Korea, Japan, Egypt, Israel, and continental Europe).

English is becoming a global language with official or special status in at least 75 countries (British Council, n.d. ). It is also the language choice in international organizations and companies, as well as academia, and is commonly used in trade, international mass media, and entertainment, and over the Internet as the main source of information. English native speakers can now follow the worldwide English language track to find jobs overseas without having to learn the local language and may instead enjoy a competitive language advantage where the job requires English proficiency. This situation is a far cry from the colonial era when similar advantages had to come under political patronage. Alongside English native speakers who work overseas benefitting from the preeminence of English over other languages, a new phenomenon of outsourcing international call centers away from the United Kingdom and the United States has emerged (Friginal, 2007 ). Callers can find the information or help they need from people stationed in remote places such as India or the Philippines where English has penetrated.

As English spreads worldwide, it has also become the major international lingua franca, serving some 800 million multilinguals in Asia alone, and numerous others elsewhere (Bolton, 2008 ). The practical importance of this phenomenon and its impact on English vocabulary, grammar, and accent have led to the emergence of a new field of research called “English as a lingua franca” (Brosch, 2015 ). The twin developments of World Englishes and lingua franca English raise interesting and important research questions. A vast area of research lies in waiting.

Several lines of research suggest themselves from an intergroup communication perspective. How communicatively effective are English native speakers who are international civil servants in organizations such as the UN and WTO, where they habitually speak as if they were addressing their fellow natives without accommodating to the international audience? Another line of research is lingua franca English communication between two English nonnative speakers. Their common use of English signals a joint willingness of linguistic accommodation, motivated more by communication efficiency of getting messages across and less by concerns of their respective ethnolinguistic identities. An intergroup communication perspective, however, would sensitize researchers to social identity processes and nonaccommodation behaviors underneath lingua franca communication. For example, two nationals from two different countries, X and Y, communicating with each other in English are accommodating on the language level; at the same time they may, according to communication accommodation theory, use their respective X English and Y English for asserting their ethnolinguistic distinctiveness whilst maintaining a surface appearance of accommodation. There are other possibilities. According to a survey of attitudes toward English accents, attachment to “standard” native speaker models remains strong among nonnative English speakers in many countries (Jenkins, 2009 ). This suggests that our hypothetical X and Y may, in addition to asserting their respective Englishes, try to outperform one another in speaking with overcorrect standard English accents, not so much because they want to assert their respective ethnolinguistic identities, but because they want to project a common in-group identity for positive social comparison—“We are all English-speakers but I am a better one than you!”

Many countries in the expanding circle nations are keen to appropriate English for local purposes, encouraging their students and especially their educational elites to learn English as a foreign language. A prime example is the Learn-English Movement in China. It has affected generations of students and teachers over the past 30 years and consumed a vast amount of resources. The results are mixed. Even more disturbing, discontents and backlashes have emerged from anti-English Chinese motivated to protect the vitality and cultural values of the Chinese language (Sun et al., 2016 ). The power behind and reflected in modern English has widespread and far-reaching consequences in need of more systematic research.

Power of Language

Language maintains existing dominance.

Language maintains and reproduces existing dominance in three different ways represented respectively by the ascent of English, linguistic sexism, and legal language style. For reasons already noted, English has become a global language, an international lingua franca, and an indispensable medium for nonnative English speaking countries to participate in the globalized world. Phillipson ( 2009 ) referred to this phenomenon as “linguistic imperialism.” It is ironic that as the spread of English has increased the extent of multilingualism of non-English-speaking nations, English native speakers in the inner circle of nations have largely remained English-only. This puts pressure on the rest of the world to accommodate them in English, the widespread use of which maintains its preeminence among languages.

A language evolves and changes to adapt to socially accepted word meanings, grammatical rules, accents, and other manners of speaking. What is acceptable or unacceptable reflects common usage and hence the numerical influence of users, but also the elites’ particular language preferences and communication styles. Research on linguistic sexism has shown, for example, a man-made language such as English (there are many others) is imbued with sexist words and grammatical rules that reflect historical male dominance in society. Its uncritical usage routinely by both sexes in daily life has in turn naturalized male dominance and associated sexist inequalities (Spender, 1998 ). Similar other examples are racist (Reisigl & Wodak, 2005 ) and ageist (Ryan et al., 1995 ) language styles.

Professional languages are made by and for particular professions such as the legal profession (Danet, 1980 ; Mertz et al., 2016 ; O’Barr, 1982 ). The legal language is used not only among members of the profession, but also with the general public, who may know each and every word in a legal document but are still unable to decipher its meaning. Through its language, the legal profession maintains its professional dominance with the complicity of the general public, who submits to the use of the language and accedes to the profession’s authority in interpreting its meanings in matters relating to their legal rights and obligations. Communication between lawyers and their “clients” is not only problematic, but the public’s continual dependence on the legal language contributes to the maintenance of the dominance of the profession.

Language Unites and Divides a Nation

A nation of many peoples who, despite their diverse cultural and ethnic background, all speak in the same tongue and write in the same script would reap the benefit of the unifying power of a common language. The power of the language to unite peoples would be stronger if it has become part of their common national identity and contributed to its vitality and psychological distinctiveness. Such power has often been seized upon by national leaders and intellectuals to unify their countries and serve other nationalistic purposes (Patten, 2006 ). In China, for example, Emperor Qin Shi Huang standardized the Chinese script ( hanzi ) as an important part of the reforms to unify the country after he had defeated the other states and brought the Warring States Period ( 475–221 bc ) to an end. A similar reform of language standardization was set in motion soon after the overthrow of the Qing Dynasty ( ad 1644–1911 ), by simplifying some of the hanzi and promoting Putonghua as the national standard oral language. In the postcolonial part of the world, language is often used to service nationalism by restoring the official status of their indigenous language as the national language whilst retaining the colonial language or, in more radical cases of decolonization, relegating the latter to nonofficial status. Yet language is a two-edged sword: It can also divide a nation. The tension can be seen in competing claims to official-language status made by minority language communities, protest over maintenance of minority languages, language rights at schools and in courts of law, bilingual education, and outright language wars (Calvet, 1998 ; DeVotta, 2004 ).

Language Creates Influence

In this section we discuss the power of language to create influence through single words and more complex linguistic structures ranging from oratories and conversations to narratives/stories.

Power of Single Words

Learning a language empowers humans to master an elaborate system of conventions and the associations between words and their sounds on the one hand, and on the other hand, categories of objects and relations to which they refer. After mastering the referential meanings of words, a person can mentally access the objects and relations simply by hearing or reading the words. Apart from their referential meanings, words also have connotative meanings with their own social-cognitive consequences. Together, these social-cognitive functions underpin the power of single words that has been extensively studied in metaphors, which is a huge research area that crosses disciplinary boundaries and probes into the inner workings of the brain (Benedek et al., 2014 ; Landau et al., 2014 ; Marshal et al., 2007 ). The power of single words extends beyond metaphors. It can be seen in misleading words in leading questions (Loftus, 1975 ), concessive connectives that reverse expectations from real-world knowledge (Xiang & Kuperberg, 2014 ), verbs that attribute implicit causality to either verb subject or object (Hartshorne & Snedeker, 2013 ), “uncertainty terms” that hedge potentially face-threatening messages (Holtgraves, 2014b ), and abstract words that signal power (Wakslak et al., 2014 ).

The literature on the power of single words has rarely been applied to intergroup communication, with the exception of research arising from the linguistic category model (e.g., Semin & Fiedler, 1991 ). The model distinguishes among descriptive action verbs (e.g., “hits”), interpretative action verbs (e.g., “hurts”) and state verbs (e.g., “hates”), which increase in abstraction in that order. Sentences made up of abstract verbs convey more information about the protagonist, imply greater temporal and cross-situational stability, and are more difficult to disconfirm. The use of abstract language to represent a particular behavior will attribute the behavior to the protagonist rather than the situation and the resulting image of the protagonist will persist despite disconfirming information, whereas the use of concrete language will attribute the same behavior more to the situation and the resulting image of the protagonist will be easier to change. According to the linguistic intergroup bias model (Maass, 1999 ), abstract language will be used to represent positive in-group and negative out-group behaviors, whereas concrete language will be used to represent negative in-group and positive out-group behaviors. The combined effects of the differential use of abstract and concrete language would, first, lead to biased attribution (explanation) of behavior privileging the in-group over the out-group, and second, perpetuate the prejudiced intergroup stereotypes. More recent research has shown that linguistic intergroup bias varies with the power differential between groups—it is stronger in high and low power groups than in equal power groups (Rubini et al., 2007 ).

Oratorical Power

A charismatic speaker may, by the sheer force of oratory, buoy up people’s hopes, convert their hearts from hatred to forgiveness, or embolden them to take up arms for a cause. One may recall moving speeches (in English) such as Susan B. Anthony’s “On Women’s Right to Vote,” Winston Churchill’s “We Shall Fight on the Beaches,” Mahatma Gandhi’s “Quit India,” or Martin Luther King, Jr.’s “I Have a Dream.” The speech may be delivered face-to-face to an audience, or broadcast over the media. The discussion below focuses on face-to-face oratories in political meetings.

Oratorical power may be measured in terms of money donated or pledged to the speaker’s cause, or, in a religious sermon, the number of converts made. Not much research has been reported on these topics. Another measurement approach is to count the frequency of online audience responses that a speech has generated, usually but not exclusively in the form of applause. Audience applause can be measured fairly objectively in terms of frequency, length, or loudness, and collected nonobtrusively from a public recording of the meeting. Audience applause affords researchers the opportunity to explore communicative and social psychological processes that underpin some aspects of the power of rhetorical formats. Note, however, that not all incidences of audience applause are valid measures of the power of rhetoric. A valid incidence should be one that is invited by the speaker and synchronized with the flow of the speech, occurring at the appropriate time and place as indicated by the rhetorical format. Thus, an uninvited incidence of applause would not count, nor is one that is invited but has occurred “out of place” (too soon or too late). Furthermore, not all valid incidences are theoretically informative to the same degree. An isolated applause from just a handful of the audience, though valid and in the right place, has relatively little theoretical import for understanding the power of rhetoric compared to one that is made by many acting in unison as a group. When the latter occurs, it would be a clear indication of the power of rhetorically formulated speech. Such positive audience response constitutes the most direct and immediate means by which an audience can display its collective support for the speaker, something which they would not otherwise show to a speech of less power. To influence and orchestrate hundreds and thousands of people in the audience to precisely coordinate their response to applaud (and cheer) together as a group at the right time and place is no mean feat. Such a feat also influences the wider society through broadcast on television and other news and social media. The combined effect could be enormous there and then, and its downstream influence far-reaching, crossing country boarders and inspiring generations to come.

To accomplish the feat, an orator has to excite the audience to applaud, build up the excitement to a crescendo, and simultaneously cue the audience to synchronize their outburst of stored-up applause with the ongoing speech. Rhetorical formats that aid the orator to accomplish the dual functions include contrast, list, puzzle solution, headline-punchline, position-taking, and pursuit (Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986 ). To illustrate, we cite the contrast and list formats.

A contrast, or antithesis, is made up of binary schemata such as “too much” and “too little.” Heritage and Greatbatch ( 1986 , p. 123) reported the following example:

Governments will argue that resources are not available to help disabled people. The fact is that too much is spent on the munitions of war, and too little is spent on the munitions of peace [italics added]. As the audience is familiar with the binary schema of “too much” and “too little” they can habitually match the second half of the contrast against the first half. This decoding process reinforces message comprehension and helps them to correctly anticipate and applaud at the completion point of the contrast. In the example quoted above, the speaker micropaused for 0.2 seconds after the second word “spent,” at which point the audience began to applaud in anticipation of the completion point of the contrast, and applauded more excitedly upon hearing “. . . on the munitions of peace.” The applause continued and lasted for 9.2 long seconds.

A list is usually made up of a series of three parallel words, phrases or clauses. “Government of the people, by the people, for the people” is a fine example, as is Obama’s “It’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day , in this election , at this defining moment , change has come to America!” (italics added) The three parts in the list echo one another, step up the argument and its corresponding excitement in the audience as they move from one part to the next. The third part projects a completion point to cue the audience to get themselves ready to display their support via applause, cheers, and so forth. In a real conversation this juncture is called a “transition-relevance place,” at which point a conversational partner (hearer) may take up a turn to speak. A skilful orator will micropause at that juncture to create a conversational space for the audience to take up their turn in applauding and cheering as a group.

As illustrated by the two examples above, speaker and audience collaborate to transform an otherwise monological speech into a quasiconversation, turning a passive audience into an active supportive “conversational” partner who, by their synchronized responses, reduces the psychological separation from the speaker and emboldens the latter’s self-confidence. Through such enjoyable and emotional participation collectively, an audience made up of formerly unconnected individuals with no strong common group identity may henceforth begin to feel “we are all one.” According to social identity theory and related theories (van Zomeren et al., 2008 ), the emergent group identity, politicized in the process, will in turn provide a social psychological base for collective social action. This process of identity making in the audience is further strengthened by the speaker’s frequent use of “we” as a first person, plural personal pronoun.

Conversational Power

A conversation is a speech exchange system in which the length and order of speaking turns have not been preassigned but require coordination on an utterance-by-utterance basis between two or more individuals. It differs from other speech exchange systems in which speaking turns have been preassigned and/or monitored by a third party, for example, job interviews and debate contests. Turn-taking, because of its centrality to conversations and the important theoretical issues that it raises for social coordination and implicit conversational conventions, has been the subject of extensive research and theorizing (Goodwin & Heritage, 1990 ; Grice, 1975 ; Sacks et al., 1974 ). Success at turn-taking is a key part of the conversational process leading to influence. A person who cannot do this is in no position to influence others in and through conversations, which are probably the most common and ubiquitous form of human social interaction. Below we discuss studies of conversational power based on conversational turns and applied to leader emergence in group and intergroup settings. These studies, as they unfold, link conversation analysis with social identity theory and expectation states theory (Berger et al., 1974 ).

A conversational turn in hand allows the speaker to influence others in two important ways. First, through current-speaker-selects-next the speaker can influence who will speak next and, indirectly, increases the probability that he or she will regain the turn after the next. A common method for selecting the next speaker is through tag questions. The current speaker (A) may direct a tag question such as “Ya know?” or “Don’t you agree?” to a particular hearer (B), which carries the illocutionary force of selecting the addressee to be the next speaker and, simultaneously, restraining others from self-selecting. The A 1 B 1 sequence of exchange has been found to have a high probability of extending into A 1 B 1 A 2 in the next round of exchange, followed by its continuation in the form of A 1 B 1 A 2 B 2 . For example, in a six-member group, the A 1 B 1 →A 1 B 1 A 2 sequence of exchange has more than 50% chance of extending to the A 1 B 1 A 2 B 2 sequence, which is well above chance level, considering that there are four other hearers who could intrude at either the A 2 or B 2 slot of turn (Stasser & Taylor, 1991 ). Thus speakership not only offers the current speaker the power to select the next speaker twice, but also to indirectly regain a turn.

Second, a turn in hand provides the speaker with an opportunity to exercise topic control. He or she can exercise non-decision-making power by changing an unfavorable or embarrassing topic to a safer one, thereby silencing or preventing it from reaching the “floor.” Conversely, he or she can exercise decision-making power by continuing or raising a topic that is favorable to self. Or the speaker can move on to talk about an innocuous topic to ease tension in the group.

Bales ( 1950 ) has studied leader emergence in groups made up of unacquainted individuals in situations where they have to bid or compete for speaking turns. Results show that individuals who talk the most have a much better chance of becoming leaders. Depending on the social orientations of their talk, they would be recognized as a task or relational leader. Subsequent research on leader emergence has shown that an even better behavioral predictor than volume of talk is the number of speaking turns. An obvious reason for this is that the volume of talk depends on the number of turns—it usually accumulates across turns, rather than being the result of a single extraordinary long turn of talk. Another reason is that more turns afford the speaker more opportunities to realize the powers of turns that have been explicated above. Group members who become leaders are the ones who can penetrate the complex, on-line conversational system to obtain a disproportionately large number of speaking turns by perfect timing at “transition-relevance places” to self-select as the next speaker or, paradoxical as it may seem, constructive interruptions (Ng et al., 1995 ).

More recent research has extended the experimental study of group leadership to intergroup contexts, where members belonging to two groups who hold opposing stances on a social or political issue interact within and also between groups. The results showed, first, that speaking turns remain important in leader emergence, but the intergroup context now generates social identity and self-categorization processes that selectively privilege particular forms of speech. What potential leaders say, and not only how many speaking turns they have gained, becomes crucial in conveying to group members that they are prototypical members of their group. Prototypical communication is enacted by adopting an accent, choosing code words, and speaking in a tone that characterize the in-group; above all, it is enacted through the content of utterances to represent or exemplify the in-group position. Such prototypical utterances that are directed successfully at the out-group correlate strongly with leader emergence (Reid & Ng, 2000 ). These out-group-directed prototypical utterances project an in-group identity that is psychologically distinctive from the out-group for in-group members to feel proud of and to rally together when debating with the out-group.

Building on these experimental results Reid and Ng ( 2003 ) developed a social identity theory of leadership to account for the emergence and maintenance of intergroup leadership, grounding it in case studies of the intergroup communication strategies that brought Ariel Sharon and John Howard to power in Israel and Australia, respectively. In a later development, the social identity account was fused with expectation states theory to explain how group processes collectively shape the behavior of in-group members to augment the prototypical communication behavior of the emergent leader (Reid & Ng, 2006 ). Specifically, when conversational influence gained through prototypical utterances culminates to form an incipient power hierarchy, group members develop expectations of who is and will be leading the group. Acting on these tacit expectations they collectively coordinate the behavior of each other to conform with the expectations by granting incipient leaders more speaking turns and supporting them with positive audience responses. In this way, group members collectively amplify the influence of incipient leaders and jointly propel them to leadership roles (see also Correll & Ridgeway, 2006 ). In short, the emergence of intergroup leaders is a joint process of what they do individually and what group members do collectively, enabled by speaking turns and mediated by social identity and expectation states processes. In a similar vein, Hogg ( 2014 ) has developed a social identity account of leadership in intergroup settings.

Narrative Power

Narratives and stories are closely related and are sometimes used interchangeably. However, it is useful to distinguish a narrative from a story and from other related terms such as discourse and frames. A story is a sequence of related events in the past recounted for rhetorical or ideological purposes, whereas a narrative is a coherent system of interrelated and sequentially organized stories formed by incorporating new stories and relating them to others so as to provide an ongoing basis for interpreting events, envisioning an ideal future, and motivating and justifying collective actions (Halverson et al., 2011 ). The temporal dimension and sense of movement in a narrative also distinguish it from discourse and frames. According to Miskimmon, O’Loughlin, and Roselle ( 2013 ), discourses are the raw material of communication that actors plot into a narrative, and frames are the acts of selecting and highlighting some events or issues to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and solution. Both discourse and frame lack the temporal and causal transformation of a narrative.

Pitching narratives at the suprastory level and stressing their temporal and transformational movements allows researchers to take a structurally more systemic and temporally more expansive view than traditional research on propaganda wars between nations, religions, or political systems (Halverson et al., 2011 ; Miskimmon et al., 2013 ). Schmid ( 2014 ) has provided an analysis of al-Qaeda’s “compelling narrative that authorizes its strategy, justifies its violent tactics, propagates its ideology and wins new recruits.” According to this analysis, the chief message of the narrative is “the West is at war with Islam,” a strategic communication that is fundamentally intergroup in both structure and content. The intergroup structure of al-Qaeda narrative includes the rhetorical constructions that there are a group grievance inflicted on Muslims by a Zionist–Christian alliance, a vision of the good society (under the Caliphate and sharia), and a path from grievance to the realization of the vision led by al-Qaeda in a violent jihad to eradicate Western influence in the Muslim world. The al-Qaeda narrative draws support not only from traditional Arab and Muslim cultural narratives interpreted to justify its unorthodox means (such as attacks against women and children), but also from pre-existing anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism propagated by some Arab governments, Soviet Cold War propaganda, anti-Western sermons by Muslim clerics, and the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians. It is deeply embedded in culture and history, and has reached out to numerous Muslims who have emigrated to the West.

The intergroup content of al-Qaeda narrative was shown in a computer-aided content analysis of 18 representative transcripts of propaganda speeches released between 2006–2011 by al-Qaeda leaders, totaling over 66,000 words (Cohen et al., 2016 ). As part of the study, an “Ideology Extraction using Linguistic Extremization” (IELEX) categorization scheme was developed for mapping the content of the corpus, which revealed 19 IELEX rhetorical categories referring to either the out-group/enemy or the in-group/enemy victims. The out-group/enemy was represented by four categories such as “The enemy is extremely negative (bloodthirsty, vengeful, brainwashed, etc.)”; whereas the in-group/enemy victims were represented by more categories such as “we are entirely innocent/good/virtuous.” The content of polarized intergroup stereotypes, demonizing “them” and glorifying “us,” echoes other similar findings (Smith et al., 2008 ), as well as the general finding of intergroup stereotyping in social psychology (Yzerbyt, 2016 ).

The success of the al-Qaeda narrative has alarmed various international agencies, individual governments, think tanks, and religious groups to spend huge sums of money on developing counternarratives that are, according to Schmid ( 2014 ), largely feeble. The so-called “global war on terror” has failed in its effort to construct effective counternarratives although al-Qaeda’s finance, personnel, and infrastructure have been much weakened. Ironically, it has developed into a narrative of its own, not so much for countering external extremism, but for promoting and justifying internal nationalistic extremist policies and influencing national elections. This reactive coradicalization phenomenon is spreading (Mink, 2015 ; Pratt, 2015 ; Reicher & Haslam, 2016 ).

Discussion and Future Directions

This chapter provides a systematic framework for understanding five language–power relationships, namely, language reveals power, reflects power, maintains existing dominance, unites and divides a nation, and creates influence. The first two relationships are derived from the power behind language and the last three from the power of language. Collectively they provide a relatively comprehensible framework for understanding the relationships between language and power, and not simply for understanding language alone or power alone separated from one another. The language–power relationships are dynamically interrelated, one influencing the other, and each can draw from an array of the cognitive, communicative, social, and identity functions of language. The framework is applicable to both interpersonal and intergroup contexts of communication, although for present purposes the latter has been highlighted. Among the substantive issues discussed in this chapter, English as a global language, oratorical and narrative power, and intergroup leadership stand out as particularly important for political and theoretical reasons.

In closing, we note some of the gaps that need to be filled and directions for further research. When discussing the powers of language to maintain and reflect existing dominance, we have omitted the countervailing power of language to resist or subvert existing dominance and, importantly, to create social change for the collective good. Furthermore, in this age of globalization and its discontents, English as a global language will increasingly be resented for its excessive unaccommodating power despite tangible lingua franca English benefits, and challenged by the expanding ethnolinguistic vitality of peoples who speak Arabic, Chinese, or Spanish. Internet communication is no longer predominantly in English, but is rapidly diversifying to become the modern Tower of Babel. And yet we have barely scratched the surface of these issues. Other glaring gaps include the omission of media discourse and recent developments in Corpus-based Critical Discourse Analysis (Loring, 2016 ), as well as the lack of reference to languages other than English that may cast one or more of the language–power relationships in a different light.

One of the main themes of this chapter—that the diverse language–power relationships are dynamically interrelated—clearly points to the need for greater theoretical fertilization across cognate disciplines. Our discussion of the three powers of language (boxes 3–5 in Figure 1 ) clearly points in this direction, most notably in the case of the powers of language to create influence through single words, oratories, conversations, and narratives, but much more needs to be done. The social identity approach will continue to serve as a meta theory of intergroup communication. To the extent that intergroup communication takes place in an existing power relation and that the changes that it seeks are not simply a more positive or psychologically distinctive social identity but greater group power and a more powerful social identity, the social identity approach has to incorporate power in its application to intergroup communication.

Further Reading

  • Austin, J. L. (1975). How to do things with words . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Billig, M. (1991). Ideology and opinions: Studies in rhetorical psychology . Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
  • Crystal, D. (2012). English as a global language , 2d ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  • Culpeper, J. (2011). Impoliteness . New York: John Wiley.
  • Holtgraves, T. M. (2010). Social psychology and language: Words, utterances, and conversations. In S. Fiske , D. Gilbert , & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 1386–1422). New York: John Wiley.
  • Mumby, D. K. (Ed.). (1993). Narrative and social control: Critical perspectives (Vol. 21). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
  • Ng, S. H. , & Bradac, J. J. (1993). Power in language: Verbal communication and social influence . Newbury Park, CA: SAGE. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781412994088.n202 .
  • Abrams, D. , & Hogg, M. A. (2004). Metatheory: Lessons from social identity research. Personality and Social Psychology Review , 8 , 98–106.
  • Bales, R. F. (1950). Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups . Oxford: Addison-Wesley.
  • Benedek, M. , Beaty, R. , Jauk, E. , Koschutnig, K. , Fink, A. , Silvia, P. J. , . . . & Neubauer, A. C. (2014). Creating metaphors: The neural basis of figurative language production. NeuroImage , 90 , 99–106.
  • Berger, J. , Conner, T. L. , & Fisek, M. H. (Eds.). (1974). Expectation states theory: A theoretical research program . Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
  • Bolton, K. (2008). World Englishes today. In B. B. Kachru , Y. Kachru , & C. L. Nelson (Eds.), The handbook of world Englishes (pp. 240–269). Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Bourhis, R. Y. , Giles, H. , & Rosenthal, D. (1981). Notes on the construction of a “Subjective vitality questionnaire” for ethnolinguistic groups. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development , 2 , 145–155.
  • British Council . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.britishcouncil.org/learning-faq-the-english-language.htm .
  • Brosch, C. (2015). On the conceptual history of the term Lingua Franca . Apples . Journal of Applied Language Studies , 9 (1), 71–85.
  • Calvet, J. (1998). Language wars and linguistic politics . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Cenoz, J. , & Gorter, D. (2006). Linguistic landscape and minority languages. International Journal of Multilingualism , 3 , 67–80.
  • Cohen, S. J. , Kruglanski, A. , Gelfand, M. J. , Webber, D. , & Gunaratna, R. (2016). Al-Qaeda’s propaganda decoded: A psycholinguistic system for detecting variations in terrorism ideology . Terrorism and Political Violence , 1–30.
  • Correll, S. J. , & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Expectation states theory . In L. DeLamater (Ed.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 29–51). Hoboken, NJ: Springer.
  • Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review , 14 , 445–564.
  • DeVotta, N. (2004). Blowback: Linguistic nationalism, institutional decay, and ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka . Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Dragojevic, M. , & Giles, H. (2014). Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics. In C. R. Berger (Ed.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 29–51). Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power–Dependence Relations. American Sociological Review , 27 , 31–41.
  • Fairclough, N. L. (1989). Language and power . London: Longman.
  • Foucault, M. (1979). The history of sexuality volume 1: An introduction . London: Allen Lane.
  • Friginal, E. (2007). Outsourced call centers and English in the Philippines. World Englishes , 26 , 331–345.
  • Giles, H. (Ed.) (2012). The handbook of intergroup communication . New York: Routledge.
  • Goodwin, C. , & Heritage, J. (1990). Conversation analysis. Annual review of anthropology , 19 , 283–307.
  • Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
  • Halverson, J. R. , Goodall H. L., Jr. , & Corman, S. R. (2011). Master narratives of Islamist extremism . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  • Hartshorne, J. K. , & Snedeker, J. (2013). Verb argument structure predicts implicit causality: The advantages of finer-grained semantics. Language and Cognitive Processes , 28 , 1474–1508.
  • Harwood, J. , Giles, H. , & Bourhis, R. Y. (1994). The genesis of vitality theory: Historical patterns and discoursal dimensions. International Journal of the Sociology of Language , 108 , 167–206.
  • Harwood, J. , Giles, H. , & Palomares, N. A. (2005). Intergroup theory and communication processes. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 1–20). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Harwood, J. , & Roy, A. (2005). Social identity theory and mass communication research. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 189–212). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Heritage, J. , & Greatbatch, D. (1986). Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology , 92 , 110–157.
  • Hogg, M. A. (2014). From uncertainty to extremism: Social categorization and identity processes. Current Directions in Psychological Science , 23 , 338–342.
  • Holtgraves, T. M. (Ed.). (2014a). The Oxford handbook of language and social psychology . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Holtgraves, T. M. (2014b). Interpreting uncertainty terms. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 107 , 219–228.
  • Jenkins, J. (2009). English as a lingua franca: interpretations and attitudes. World Englishes , 28 , 200–207.
  • Jones, L. , & Watson, B. M. (2012). Developments in health communication in the 21st century. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 31 , 415–436.
  • Kachru, B. B. (1992). The other tongue: English across cultures . Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
  • Landau, M. J. , Robinson, M. D. , & Meier, B. P. (Eds.). (2014). The power of metaphor: Examining its influence on social life . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
  • Landry, R. , & Bourhis, R. Y. (1997). Linguistic landscape and ethnolinguistic vitality an empirical study. Journal of language and social psychology , 16 , 23–49.
  • Lenski, G. (1966). Power and privilege: A theory of social stratification . New York: McGraw-Hill.
  • Loftus, E. F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology , 7 , 560–572.
  • Loring, A. (2016). Ideologies and collocations of “Citizenship” in media discourse: A corpus-based critical discourse analysis. In A. Loring & V. Ramanathan (Eds.), Language, immigration and naturalization: Legal and linguistic issues (chapter 9). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.
  • Lukes, S. (2005). Power: A radical view , 2d ed. New York: Palgrave.
  • Maass, A. (1999). Linguistic intergroup bias: Stereotype perpetuation through language. Advances in experimental social psychology , 31 , 79–121.
  • Marshal, N. , Faust, M. , Hendler, T. , & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). An fMRI investigation of the neural correlates underlying the processing of novel metaphoric expressions. Brain and language , 100 , 115–126.
  • Mertz, E. , Ford, W. K. , & Matoesian, G. (Eds.). (2016). Translating the social world for law: Linguistic tools for a new legal realism . New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Mink, C. (2015). It’s about the group, not god: Social causes and cures for terrorism. Journal for Deradicalization , 5 , 63–91.
  • Miskimmon, A. , O’Loughlin, B. , & Roselle, L. (2013). Strategic narratives: Communicating power and the New World Order . New York: Routledge.
  • Ng, S. H. , Brooke, M. & Dunne, M. (1995). Interruptions and influence in discussion groups. Journal of Language & Social Psychology , 14 , 369–381.
  • O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom . London: Academic Press.
  • Palomares, N. A. , Giles, H. , Soliz, J. , & Gallois, C. (2016). Intergroup accommodation, social categories, and identities. In H. Giles (Ed.), Communication accommodation theory: Negotiating personal relationships and social identities across contexts (pp. 123–151). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  • Patten, A. (2006). The humanist roots of linguistic nationalism. History of Political Thought , 27 , 221–262.
  • Phillipson, R. (2009). Linguistic imperialism continued . New York: Routledge.
  • Pratt, D. (2015). Reactive co-radicalization: Religious extremism as mutual discontent. Journal for the Academic Study of Religion , 28 , 3–23.
  • Raven, B. H. (2008). The bases of power and the power/interaction model of interpersonal influence. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy , 8 , 1–22.
  • Reicher, S. D. , & Haslam, S. A. (2016). Fueling extremes. Scientific American Mind , 27 , 34–39.
  • Reid, S. A. , Giles, H. , & Harwood, J. (2005). A self-categorization perspective on communication and intergroup relations. In J. Harwood & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup communication: Multiple perspectives (pp. 241–264). New York: Peter Lang.
  • Reid, S. A. , & Ng, S. H. (2000). Conversation as a resource for influence: Evidence for prototypical arguments and social identification processes. European Journal of Social Psychology , 30 , 83–100.
  • Reid, S. A. , & Ng, S. H. (2003). Identity, power, and strategic social categorisations: Theorising the language of leadership. In P. van Knippenberg & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Leadership and power: Identity processes in groups and organizations (pp. 210–223). London: SAGE.
  • Reid, S. A. , & Ng, S. H. (2006). The dynamics of intragroup differentiation in an intergroup social context. Human Communication Research , 32 , 504–525.
  • Reisigl, M. , & Wodak, R. (2005). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism . London: Routledge.
  • Robinson, W. P. (1996). Deceit, delusion, and detection . Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
  • Rubini, M. , Moscatelli, S. , Albarello, F. , & Palmonari, A. (2007). Group power as a determinant of interdependence and intergroup discrimination. European Journal of Social Psychology , 37 (6), 1203–1221.
  • Russell, B. (2004). Power: A new social analysis . Originally published in 1938. London: Routledge.
  • Ryan, E. B. , Hummert, M. L. , & Boich, L. H. (1995). Communication predicaments of aging patronizing behavior toward older adults. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 14 (1–2), 144–166.
  • Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E. A. , & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. L anguage , 50 , 696–735.
  • Sassenberg, K. , Ellemers, N. , Scheepers, D. , & Scholl, A. (2014). “Power corrupts” revisited: The role of construal of power as opportunity or responsibility. In J. -W. van Prooijen & P. A. M. van Lange (Eds.), Power, politics, and paranoia: Why people are suspicious of their leaders (pp. 73–87). Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.
  • Schmid, A. P. (2014). Al-Qaeda’s “single narrative” and attempts to develop counter-narratives: The state of knowledge . The Hague, The Netherlands: International Centre for Counter-Terrorism, 26. Available at https://www.icct.nl/download/file/A-Schmid-Al-Qaedas-Single-Narrative-January-2014.pdf .
  • Semin, G. R. , & Fiedler, K. (1991). The linguistic category model, its bases, applications and range. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 1–50). Chichester, U.K.: John Wiley.
  • Smith, A. G. , Suedfeld, P. , Conway, L. G. , IIl, & Winter, D. G. (2008). The language of violence: Distinguishing terrorist from non-terrorist groups by thematic content analysis. Dynamics of Asymmetric Conflict , 1 (2), 142–163.
  • Spender, D. (1998). Man made language , 4th ed. London: Pandora.
  • Stasser, G. , & Taylor, L. (1991). Speaking turns in face-to-face discussions. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , 60 , 675–684.
  • Stolte, J. (1987). The formation of justice norms. American Sociological Review , 52 (6), 774–784.
  • Sun, J. J. M. , Hu, P. , & Ng, S. H. (2016). Impact of English on education reforms in China: With reference to the learn-English movement, the internationalisation of universities and the English language requirement in college entrance examinations . Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development , 1–14 (Published online January 22, 2016).
  • Tajfel, H. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology , 33 , 1–39.
  • Turner, J. C. (2005). Explaining the nature of power: A three—process theory. European Journal of Social Psychology , 35 , 1–22.
  • Van Zomeren, M. , Postmes, T. , & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives. Psychological Bulletin , 134 (4), 504–535.
  • Wakslak, C. J. , Smith, P. K. , & Han, A. (2014). Using abstract language signals power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 107 (1), 41–55.
  • Xiang, M. , & Kuperberg, A. (2014). Reversing expectations during discourse comprehension . Language, Cognition and Neuroscience , 30 , 648–672.
  • Yzerbyt, V. (2016). Intergroup stereotyping. Current Opinion in Psychology , 11 , 90–95.

Related Articles

  • Language Attitudes
  • Vitality Theory
  • The Politics of Translation and Interpretation in International Communication

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Communication. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 10 March 2024

  • Cookie Policy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Legal Notice
  • Accessibility
  • [66.249.64.20|185.66.15.189]
  • 185.66.15.189

Character limit 500 /500

Have a language expert improve your writing

Run a free plagiarism check in 10 minutes, generate accurate citations for free.

  • Knowledge Base
  • How to write an argumentative essay | Examples & tips

How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips

Published on July 24, 2020 by Jack Caulfield . Revised on July 23, 2023.

An argumentative essay expresses an extended argument for a particular thesis statement . The author takes a clearly defined stance on their subject and builds up an evidence-based case for it.

Instantly correct all language mistakes in your text

Upload your document to correct all your mistakes in minutes

upload-your-document-ai-proofreader

Table of contents

When do you write an argumentative essay, approaches to argumentative essays, introducing your argument, the body: developing your argument, concluding your argument, other interesting articles, frequently asked questions about argumentative essays.

You might be assigned an argumentative essay as a writing exercise in high school or in a composition class. The prompt will often ask you to argue for one of two positions, and may include terms like “argue” or “argument.” It will frequently take the form of a question.

The prompt may also be more open-ended in terms of the possible arguments you could make.

Argumentative writing at college level

At university, the vast majority of essays or papers you write will involve some form of argumentation. For example, both rhetorical analysis and literary analysis essays involve making arguments about texts.

In this context, you won’t necessarily be told to write an argumentative essay—but making an evidence-based argument is an essential goal of most academic writing, and this should be your default approach unless you’re told otherwise.

Examples of argumentative essay prompts

At a university level, all the prompts below imply an argumentative essay as the appropriate response.

Your research should lead you to develop a specific position on the topic. The essay then argues for that position and aims to convince the reader by presenting your evidence, evaluation and analysis.

  • Don’t just list all the effects you can think of.
  • Do develop a focused argument about the overall effect and why it matters, backed up by evidence from sources.
  • Don’t just provide a selection of data on the measures’ effectiveness.
  • Do build up your own argument about which kinds of measures have been most or least effective, and why.
  • Don’t just analyze a random selection of doppelgänger characters.
  • Do form an argument about specific texts, comparing and contrasting how they express their thematic concerns through doppelgänger characters.

Here's why students love Scribbr's proofreading services

Discover proofreading & editing

An argumentative essay should be objective in its approach; your arguments should rely on logic and evidence, not on exaggeration or appeals to emotion.

There are many possible approaches to argumentative essays, but there are two common models that can help you start outlining your arguments: The Toulmin model and the Rogerian model.

Toulmin arguments

The Toulmin model consists of four steps, which may be repeated as many times as necessary for the argument:

  • Make a claim
  • Provide the grounds (evidence) for the claim
  • Explain the warrant (how the grounds support the claim)
  • Discuss possible rebuttals to the claim, identifying the limits of the argument and showing that you have considered alternative perspectives

The Toulmin model is a common approach in academic essays. You don’t have to use these specific terms (grounds, warrants, rebuttals), but establishing a clear connection between your claims and the evidence supporting them is crucial in an argumentative essay.

Say you’re making an argument about the effectiveness of workplace anti-discrimination measures. You might:

  • Claim that unconscious bias training does not have the desired results, and resources would be better spent on other approaches
  • Cite data to support your claim
  • Explain how the data indicates that the method is ineffective
  • Anticipate objections to your claim based on other data, indicating whether these objections are valid, and if not, why not.

Rogerian arguments

The Rogerian model also consists of four steps you might repeat throughout your essay:

  • Discuss what the opposing position gets right and why people might hold this position
  • Highlight the problems with this position
  • Present your own position , showing how it addresses these problems
  • Suggest a possible compromise —what elements of your position would proponents of the opposing position benefit from adopting?

This model builds up a clear picture of both sides of an argument and seeks a compromise. It is particularly useful when people tend to disagree strongly on the issue discussed, allowing you to approach opposing arguments in good faith.

Say you want to argue that the internet has had a positive impact on education. You might:

  • Acknowledge that students rely too much on websites like Wikipedia
  • Argue that teachers view Wikipedia as more unreliable than it really is
  • Suggest that Wikipedia’s system of citations can actually teach students about referencing
  • Suggest critical engagement with Wikipedia as a possible assignment for teachers who are skeptical of its usefulness.

You don’t necessarily have to pick one of these models—you may even use elements of both in different parts of your essay—but it’s worth considering them if you struggle to structure your arguments.

Regardless of which approach you take, your essay should always be structured using an introduction , a body , and a conclusion .

Like other academic essays, an argumentative essay begins with an introduction . The introduction serves to capture the reader’s interest, provide background information, present your thesis statement , and (in longer essays) to summarize the structure of the body.

Hover over different parts of the example below to see how a typical introduction works.

The spread of the internet has had a world-changing effect, not least on the world of education. The use of the internet in academic contexts is on the rise, and its role in learning is hotly debated. For many teachers who did not grow up with this technology, its effects seem alarming and potentially harmful. This concern, while understandable, is misguided. The negatives of internet use are outweighed by its critical benefits for students and educators—as a uniquely comprehensive and accessible information source; a means of exposure to and engagement with different perspectives; and a highly flexible learning environment.

The body of an argumentative essay is where you develop your arguments in detail. Here you’ll present evidence, analysis, and reasoning to convince the reader that your thesis statement is true.

In the standard five-paragraph format for short essays, the body takes up three of your five paragraphs. In longer essays, it will be more paragraphs, and might be divided into sections with headings.

Each paragraph covers its own topic, introduced with a topic sentence . Each of these topics must contribute to your overall argument; don’t include irrelevant information.

This example paragraph takes a Rogerian approach: It first acknowledges the merits of the opposing position and then highlights problems with that position.

Hover over different parts of the example to see how a body paragraph is constructed.

A common frustration for teachers is students’ use of Wikipedia as a source in their writing. Its prevalence among students is not exaggerated; a survey found that the vast majority of the students surveyed used Wikipedia (Head & Eisenberg, 2010). An article in The Guardian stresses a common objection to its use: “a reliance on Wikipedia can discourage students from engaging with genuine academic writing” (Coomer, 2013). Teachers are clearly not mistaken in viewing Wikipedia usage as ubiquitous among their students; but the claim that it discourages engagement with academic sources requires further investigation. This point is treated as self-evident by many teachers, but Wikipedia itself explicitly encourages students to look into other sources. Its articles often provide references to academic publications and include warning notes where citations are missing; the site’s own guidelines for research make clear that it should be used as a starting point, emphasizing that users should always “read the references and check whether they really do support what the article says” (“Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia,” 2020). Indeed, for many students, Wikipedia is their first encounter with the concepts of citation and referencing. The use of Wikipedia therefore has a positive side that merits deeper consideration than it often receives.

An argumentative essay ends with a conclusion that summarizes and reflects on the arguments made in the body.

No new arguments or evidence appear here, but in longer essays you may discuss the strengths and weaknesses of your argument and suggest topics for future research. In all conclusions, you should stress the relevance and importance of your argument.

Hover over the following example to see the typical elements of a conclusion.

The internet has had a major positive impact on the world of education; occasional pitfalls aside, its value is evident in numerous applications. The future of teaching lies in the possibilities the internet opens up for communication, research, and interactivity. As the popularity of distance learning shows, students value the flexibility and accessibility offered by digital education, and educators should fully embrace these advantages. The internet’s dangers, real and imaginary, have been documented exhaustively by skeptics, but the internet is here to stay; it is time to focus seriously on its potential for good.

If you want to know more about AI tools , college essays , or fallacies make sure to check out some of our other articles with explanations and examples or go directly to our tools!

  • Ad hominem fallacy
  • Post hoc fallacy
  • Appeal to authority fallacy
  • False cause fallacy
  • Sunk cost fallacy

College essays

  • Choosing Essay Topic
  • Write a College Essay
  • Write a Diversity Essay
  • College Essay Format & Structure
  • Comparing and Contrasting in an Essay

 (AI) Tools

  • Grammar Checker
  • Paraphrasing Tool
  • Text Summarizer
  • AI Detector
  • Plagiarism Checker
  • Citation Generator

An argumentative essay tends to be a longer essay involving independent research, and aims to make an original argument about a topic. Its thesis statement makes a contentious claim that must be supported in an objective, evidence-based way.

An expository essay also aims to be objective, but it doesn’t have to make an original argument. Rather, it aims to explain something (e.g., a process or idea) in a clear, concise way. Expository essays are often shorter assignments and rely less on research.

At college level, you must properly cite your sources in all essays , research papers , and other academic texts (except exams and in-class exercises).

Add a citation whenever you quote , paraphrase , or summarize information or ideas from a source. You should also give full source details in a bibliography or reference list at the end of your text.

The exact format of your citations depends on which citation style you are instructed to use. The most common styles are APA , MLA , and Chicago .

The majority of the essays written at university are some sort of argumentative essay . Unless otherwise specified, you can assume that the goal of any essay you’re asked to write is argumentative: To convince the reader of your position using evidence and reasoning.

In composition classes you might be given assignments that specifically test your ability to write an argumentative essay. Look out for prompts including instructions like “argue,” “assess,” or “discuss” to see if this is the goal.

Cite this Scribbr article

If you want to cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator.

Caulfield, J. (2023, July 23). How to Write an Argumentative Essay | Examples & Tips. Scribbr. Retrieved March 8, 2024, from https://www.scribbr.com/academic-essay/argumentative-essay/

Is this article helpful?

Jack Caulfield

Jack Caulfield

Other students also liked, how to write a thesis statement | 4 steps & examples, how to write topic sentences | 4 steps, examples & purpose, how to write an expository essay, what is your plagiarism score.

The Concept of Legal Language: What Makes Legal Language ‘Legal‘?

  • Open access
  • Published: 03 May 2023
  • Volume 36 , pages 1081–1107, ( 2023 )

Cite this article

You have full access to this open access article

  • Ondřej Glogar   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0962-8139 1  

9755 Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Many legal theorists and linguists have addressed the notion of legal language from different perspectives. Despite that, the definitions of legal language vary. Almost all of the approaches conclude that legal language entails several types of communication. Nevertheless, not all of these categories are sufficiently researched. Some types of legal communication seem to be neglected. This lack of interest might be rooted in the uncertainty of whether these texts or utterances even fall under the scope of the concept of legal language. In order to avoid this superficiality in subsequent research, it is first necessary to come to a clear determination of which communicative acts can be considered a part of legal language and which cannot. Accordingly, in this search for the definition of legal language, we should not neglect the fact that language is executed in concrete communicative acts, and the only means to grasp the language is through communication. The aim of this article is therefore to clearly delineate the boundaries of this concept. Based on analysis of how the given term is currently defined, I draw out the common features and trace the characteristics in which they differ. Taking into account these findings, I propose a novel comprehensive demarcation of legal language. This concept argues that the ‘legal’ nature of language should be determined by the context and function of the particular statement or exchange, in connection with the role of participants in the communication. This means that a particular act may be considered a part of legal language not in accordance with a certain form or lexicon used, but mainly by extralinguistic circumstances in the context of which it is being performed.

Similar content being viewed by others

definition of language thesis

Lying, Misleading, and Dishonesty

Alex Barber

definition of language thesis

The Discursive Construction of Antisemitism in Nazi Children’s Books: Elvira Bauer’s Trust No Fox (1936) and Ernst Hiemer’s The Poisonous Mushroom (1938)

Daniel Green

African American Enslavement, Speech Act Theory, and the Law

Alexander Brown

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

1 Introduction

“Our law is a law of words. Words are also a lawyer’s most essential tools.” [ 1 p. 1] These sentences can be found at the very beginning of Peter M. Tiersma’s extraordinary book exploring legal language. There can be no doubt about their accuracy. Recently, it has become clearer how apt these statements are, and how the study of language is playing an increasingly important role in law and jurisprudence. Language is not only essential for understanding the law and comprehending its content, it is the very foundation for the existence of law [ 2 ]. Despite that, approaches to the description of legal language vary [ 3 , p. 273] and research often focuses only on a selected segment of legal language. Footnote 1 In order to determine what should be within the scope of our examination, we need to find out first what are the borders and limits of legal language, i.e. which speech acts should be the subject of our interest and taken into account. We can also conclude that since there is no agreement on the definition of legal language, there is a risk of over-simplifying jurisprudence in relation to the study of legal language. I also perceive it as problematic that jurisprudence generally neglects the study of some types of communication, and, together, these studies do not present a comprehensive picture of legal language. That is why I aim to contribute to the discussion about legal language in this article, and explore more deeply the concept that this term covers and represents.

The aim of this paper is therefore to find the criteria by which legal language can be identified. At first glance this question may seem trivial, but as I will show below, there are several possible answers and there is certainly no consensus on which definition is accurate. My effort will therefore be to define clear criteria that make a language ‘legal’. In other words, how to recognise that a particular statement or text is an example of legal language. I will not go down the route of listing all specific examples or types or genres of legal language (in the sense of an extension of the term), but I will look for general criteria that define what legal language is (i.e., the intension of the term in Carnap's sense [ 5 ]), since such a clear definition of legal language is still lacking in existing state of the art.

This paper is divided into four parts. First, I will outline some notes on the topic of conceptualization and describe in detail my procedure in searching for the concept of the term ‘legal language’. Second, I present possible viewpoints on legal language. This chapter serves as the core basis, as it not only summarizes the current state of study but entails various approaches to defining the term and what should be the characteristics of the phenomenon in question. The third part then presents a critical discussion of these results. This should be a bridging chapter between the concepts discussed and a proposed novel concept of legal language building on the insights of communication studies and pragmatics. That naturally forms the main content of the last, fourth, part. In conclusion I come up with a suggestion of what should be the basic markers for determining whether certain text or speech should be considered legal language.

2 Looking for the Concept: Methods of Analysis

Before I proceed to the description of methodology and my chosen way of defining the term ‘legal language’, I will briefly introduce the term ‘concept’ itself and how it is used in this paper as it can often be the subject of confusion with other terms. By concept I understand a mental construction that brings together observations and experiences that have something in common, and which therefore summarizes a certain mental representation of a certain term [ 6 ]. Through concepts we can also map the field of meaning in which we operate. We must distinguish the concept from its designation (sometimes the word ‘term’ is also used in this meaning), since the concept is in any case a certain intangible slice of reality to which the given designation (term or word) refers. In some cases, a term can also refer to a specific thing. However, the term ‘legal language’ cannot be described by merely pointing to an object (like e.g., an apple, a table etc.). Therefore, we need to find where are boundaries of the slice of reality and reach certain criteria for defining it [ 7 ]. This is the concept I will try to capture and define. Footnote 2

The aim of this article is to come up with a concept of legal language. As with almost any legal term (or maybe all the terms), its meaning is shaped, transformed, and can be revealed through discursive practice, i.e., within the communication and minds of individuals using such a term. In other words, the meaning of ‘legal language’ is shaped by how it is used, talked about and thought about. Insights into social reality might help to illuminate the boundaries and definitions of legal language. For instance, Maciej Dybowski, when arguing for an inferentialist picture of semantics, bases his conclusions on legal concepts being shaped through their use by legal practitioners: “when legal practitioners use legal concepts (when they engage in legal discursive practice (LDP)), they remain within given autonomous discursive practice (ADP) in a natural language. It must be assumed that such practitioners have discursive skills and abilities that extend in some respect beyond those of any participant of ADP. Legislatures, administrative bodies, courts, solicitors, counsels, prosecutors and so on are all institutional users in the sense that their discursive moves in that practice count only insofar as they take place when such users act in their official, status-related, capacity. It must also be assumed that practitioners are reasonable in LDP, just as they are in ADP. LDP is built on the ability to use legal concepts in order to form beliefs and/or actions that can be treated by other participants of that LPD as having determinate content.” [ 9 p. 44] Based on Brandom, Dybowski also concludes that the user of a concept is responsible for, and to, the conceptual content. The user determines (in the sense of sharpening) Footnote 3 the content of the legal concepts and provides some guidelines for future users. Moreover, the users are themselves responsible to the concept inherited by prior users [ 9 , p. 47].

Provided that legal concepts are shaped by the way legal practitioners use them, and that legal language is a technical term [ 11 , p. 93], we can look for the meaning of the concept in legal discursive practice. I am aware that, by focusing on legal practitioners, I could be (at first sight) undermine the original emphasis on taking into account the complex social aspects shaping the content of the concept. However, the notion of legal language is specific. Although the layperson is likely to be familiar with the term (perhaps as with many other legal terms), we can assume that a more comprehensive idea of its extent will be held by members of the professional legal community. Indeed, one might expect laypeople to characterize legal language more in terms of individual features (e.g., complex, incomprehensible), but this does not illuminate the scope of the concept and delineate its boundaries. On the contrary, these individuals will often have no idea which categories could even be included in the extension of the term. Footnote 4 Thus, only people with legal training or who are otherwise deeply focused on law and language can shed light on this question.

It should also be mentioned that this work represents a rather analytical approach to language. Although its discursive function has also been emphasised recently (e.g. as an instrument of power according to Bourdieu [ 12 ] or language in the dispute resolution process and its separation into official and deviant language as Sousa Santos describes it [ 13 ]), it can be assumed that the concept of language as a means of communication, still prominent and dominant, will be sufficient to define the content of the notion of 'legal language'. Therefore, I draw only on the classical view of language (in the Saussurean and subsequent structuralist sense of language as a system, as explained in detail below [ 14 ]). I am aware that this focus excludes from my investigation a very broad (and perhaps recently dominant) view of linguistic reality—be they critical legal theory, legal pluralism or postcolonialism. However, most of these texts have in common that they are concerned with the problems associated with the practical use of legal language rather than the nature of legal language itself. Thus, while they are certainly significant and central to an understanding of legal reality, they should be useful for the subsequent stage of legal language research. Since in this paper I am seeking an answer to what legal language actually is (and not yet how it specifically operates and what it causes in society), these streams will not be so helpful as they do not provide a comprehensive definition of legal language (in the sense of intension of the term).

Given these considerations, one of the methods for the conceptualization of the term at hand could be to approach a number of experts on the subject and—put simply—ask them what they consider to be ‘legal language’ and how it should be demarcated. The choice of such a technique would undoubtedly be innovative and could provide some novel thoughts on the conceptualisation of this term. Nevertheless, an analysis of the work of these experts, in which many of them have already given their ideas on the content of the concept, could serve equally well. Therefore, I will use the method of literature review inspired by some content analysis technique. Of course, the topic of legal language is certainly not an unexplored area, but the conceptualization of the term itself is a somewhat neglected topic. In the case of a large number of samples, we would be unable to focus on specific characteristics of the concepts and would have to be content with a more superficial analysis [ 15 ]. For these reasons, a qualitative analysis seems more suitable. The samples chosen should reflect key perspectives on the formation of the concept (given the significance of the influence of these individuals and their publications). A stratified selection, ensuring that the research sample includes documents (or other data) in key categories, seems to be appropriate for this (Patton describes this as ‘purposive sampling’ [ 15 ]). While this method may suffer from a lack of transparency in the sampling, it is, in my view, balanced by a considerable representativeness across different theories and disciplines which could not be achieved by simply randomly selecting publications. However, in order to make the process of selecting the works under study clear, I have set out several criteria, which I describe below.

As part of the pilot analysis, I used the keyword ‘legal language’ as the default search term. Within the search results, it was then possible to trace certain interconnections when, for example, they cited similar authors or explicitly endorsed a particular methodology with which they approached legal language. I also came across references to other works that were not part of the initial search results because they worked with a different key concept (language of law, legal discourse, legal communication) and I also took these works into consideration. In order to facilitate the preparation of the search, I have grouped the studies into certain streams to make them easier to work with. Up to now, I have identified mainly the legal-theoretical, linguistic, semiotic, pragmatic and other applied and interdisciplinary approaches (including, e.g., forensic linguistics, work with computer tools, translation and the art of proper writing) [ 16 ]. From these streams I chose major publications that are most relevant or have the biggest impact (by the number of citations). Furthermore, more general publications that focus on legal language comprehensively were preferred over those that address only a particular aspect of legal language. This is because these books or papers may provide a more accurate view of the definition of the concept of legal language. Other criteria reflected an attempt to represent works from different legal cultures and geographies, as well as both older and recent studies and the inclusion of more diverse disciplines besides legal theory.

On the basis of this key, I arrived at the following publications, from which I extracted the particular concepts of legal language. First of all, we can look at the legal language strictly from legal-theoretical approach. This workstream should involve older studies, probably some of the first comprehensive descriptions of legal language including legal theorists from both common law and continental system. Let us take the following two works Footnote 5 :

Wróblewski, Bronisław. 1948. Jezyk prawny i prawniczy .

Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law .

Legal language is an interdisciplinary term as it affects (at least) law and linguistics. Hence, I would like to emphasise the need to not limit the research to legal scholars and their view of legal language. We should be looking for the meaning of this term at the intersection of both fields. An ideal proponent of this interconnection, being both legally and linguistically educated, is Peter M. Tiersma:

Tiersma, Peter M. 2000. Legal Language .

Since Tiersma is a proponent of common law thinking, to ensure more balance I would like to compare his concept with continental linguistic approach. Such descriptions can be found mainly in stylistics handbooks Footnote 6 from which we can choose a Czech one depicting the influential theory coming out of the so-called Prague Linguistic Circle:

Čechová, Marie et al. 2008. Současná stylistika .

All the books selected so far represent more or less traditional ways of thinking about legal language. The following works, however, should introduce a more recent perspective view of the term in question. For this reason, only works of more recent date, i.e. approximately no more than 10 years old, are included in the further analysis. Such currently trending approaches are undoubtedly legal semiotics and legal pragmatics. It is difficult to identify a single flagship covering the prevailing or main ideas on the subject of legal language from these streams. Therefore, the selected works are rather cross-sectional, chosen according to the criteria of novelty and collaboration of several authors (which should entail inclusion of multiple opinions):

Broekman, Jan M., and Larry Catà Backer. 2013. Lawyers Making Meaning .

Capone, Alessandro, and Francesca Poggi. 2016. Pragmatics and law: Philosophical perspectives .

There are also streams that draw on other fields, e.g., using various computer tools, practising translation of legal texts and speech, forensic linguistics, or many handbooks on legal writing and legal rhetoric. However, many of them treat the matter rather selectively, and can thus only be used to provide a complementary perspective. On the other hand, a comprehensive overview can be found in the following publications, focusing in the first case on the general theory of translation, and in the second case on the analysis of the style of legal discourse.

Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating Law .

Garner, Bryan A. 2009. Garner on Language and Writing: Selected Essays and Speeches of Bryan A. Garner .

To sum up, the works listed above were selected from diverse approaches to legal language to be proportionally represented within the whole set. I am convinced that this list encompasses not only different methodological and substantive approaches to legal language, but also both classical and modern streams, plus diversity in the background of fields and major legal systems. Footnote 7 From each of these works, I will extract a concept of legal language. A comprehensive description of these concepts follows in the next chapter. Afterwards, I will proceed to analyse and compare them in identification of common characteristics, and delineation of my concept of legal language.

3 Approaches to Legal Language

Following the methodology described in the previous part of this paper, I will describe possible viewpoints on legal language, and extract the key elements of the concept of legal language they present. Firstly, let us look deeper into some (and in my view the most important) legal theoretical works on this topic, which also constitutes the most traditional branch of the research. Our second approach will lead us, on the other hand, to the field of linguistics and how this area deals with the phenomenon of legal language. Then, I will move on to more recent approaches, all of which occupy a transition zone between jurisprudence and different branch of study. In these interdisciplinary fields, we will be starting with legal semiotics—the study of signs—according to which not only language but also law itself can be understood as a system of signs. Then (in part 4) I explore the connections between law and pragmatics, especially those aspects that liken law to (ordinary or natural language based) communication. The last, fifth, part is devoted to other applied approaches. It covers the fields of forensic linguistics, legal translation, legal writing and rhetoric or corpus-based language analysis. This may appear to be a sort of a residual category, nevertheless, outcomes of these approaches can have also much to say about the concept of legal language.

3.1 Godfathers of Legal Language: Wróblewski and Mellinkof

Questions connected to language and its role in the fields of law are far from new. Many legal scholars have tackled the issues during the history of jurisprudence from various points of view. Footnote 8 However, the first really comprehensive analysis of legal language and its usage and characteristics is the work of Bronisław Wróblewski in continental Europe (especially in Central and Eastern European circles) and David Mellinkoff in common law countries. Even though the latter is probably more famous and his book The Language of Law (1963) is now appreciated as groundbreaking in this field, Wróblewski’s work is of more recent date. His book Jezyk prawny i prawniczy was published in 1948 (posthumously), hence 15 years earlier than Mellinkoff’s The Language of Law . However, probably because there is only a Polish edition, it has not gained such an impact outside Poland and surrounding countries. Both of these publications are not limited to legal theoretical implications but present a complex overview and description of the language of law. Based on this, I consider both Wróblewski and Mellinkoff to be godfathers of legal language—ergo the title of this subchapter.

As the title suggests, Bronisław Wróblewski bases his entire book on the distinction between ‘jezyk prawny’ (legal language) and ‘jezyk prawniczy’ (the language of lawyers). This stratification of language used in legal realm was followed not only by Wróblewski and other Polish scholars, but also by many others [see e.g., 19 , 20 , 21 ]. According to Wróblewski, legal language (stricto sensu) in this traditional categorization represents the language of the sources of law or other manifestations of public authorities. We could widen this description to not just the language of normative texts, i.e., texts that are considered a formal source of law and that reflect a legal rule (mainly, statutes or court decisions), but also generally to all acts issued by public authority (administrative decisions, internal guidelines etc.). Some even question whether the language used by academics within legal literature should be part of ‘jezyk prawny’ as well, regardless of its normativity or the lack of public authority [ 19 ]. In contrast to these texts, there is the language of lawyers, which encompasses expressions used by legal practitioners. This could include for instance the jargon of attorneys or possibly communication by law students as well.

Nevertheless, even following this division, we face some challenges when we try to comprehend what we mean by legal language. The key criterion of legal language (stricto sensu) for Wróblewski is ‘officialness’ and an act attributable to state authority. It is however a limited category, and even though the differentiation can be helpful for academic purposes, it should not imply that only official legal communication is relevant. On the contrary, language is a complex phenomenon which should be researched in all its variations. Furthermore, the category of correctness has recently become increasingly marginalised as the key ground for stratification of language [ 22 ]. Besides that, language is continually developing through linguistic practice, and can be subject to change and mutual transformation. For comparison, similar classification of legal language can be found elsewhere. For instance, Bernard Jackson differentiates written legal communication from oral [ 23 ]. Although the divisions do not overlap entirely, they both emphasize that legal language cannot be narrowed to written official texts in statutes or precedents [ 23 ]. The fact that legal language can take many forms or varieties, is further discussed below.

Mellinkoff, on the other hand, uses a completely different definition of legal language, or ‘language of law’ as he labels it (however, for the purposes of this paper, I am going to use consistently the term legal language). He defines legal English as “the customary language used by lawyers in those common law jurisdictions where English is the official language.” [ 24 p. 3] Since he focuses on ‘legal English’, one of the elements of the definition is also the geographical delimitation on countries where English serves as the official language. Despite that, we can still highlight the main part of his concept—the fact that he understands this phenomenon as the ‘language used by lawyers’. Besides that he emphasizes the variety of legal language, being determined by law as well as by the prevailing language of the particular environment [ 24 , p. 3–4].

Although The Language of Law is an extraordinary book describing the complexity of legal language, Mellinkoff does not devote so much space to the delimitation of the term. He instead takes the reader on a journey through history and the development of legal English. Yet in the second part of the book, he depicts the language of law based of the assumption (and apparently quite a fitting one) that it has many flaws and is in general incomprehensible. For example, he characterizes legal language with the following aspects—frequent use of common words with uncommon meanings, use of old Latin and French words, terms of art, argot and formal words, use of words and expressions with flexible meaning, attempts at extreme precision [ 24 , pp. 11–22]. Regardless of that, Mellinkoff also notes that these characteristics may differ according to a given genre and thus implies an existence of various types of communicative acts within legal language.

3.2 A Linguistic View: Legal Language as a Sublanguage or a Style

The linguistic field is perhaps not as concerned with law as legal theorists are interested in language. The reason for that is simple—it might seem that only a part of language and communication is legal, whereas almost every aspect of law is expressed in words. Footnote 9 Legal-related issues present only one topic for linguistics, so it is understandable that it is discussed on few pages of stylistics handbooks. Despite that, they should not be ignored, because of their impact on the linguistic area of research, together with other ideas from stylistics in general. Apart from these handbooks, legal language attracts the eyes of linguists who are educated not only in language, but also in law. One of them is Peter M. Tiersma. I included his work in this approach since he follows Mellinkoff in a certain way—yet he also adds remarks from his linguistic expertise. Because of that I will start with his concept of legal language and then I will move to its description in stylistics.

According to Tiersma, legal language is an extremely broad topic. Similarly to Mellinkoff, he thinks of legal language as the language of lawyers. Although for him it is not merely a tool for lawyers, it affects the daily lives of virtually everyone. For instance, every time a consumer buys a parking ticket, he should read the small print on the reverse side which is nothing if not legal language [ 1 , pp. 1–2]. In his book Tiersma gives an exhaustive description of all aspects of legal language. For example, he concludes that the way lawyers speak and write (at least the English ones) is different from ordinary language—it differs in lexicon or in the pronunciation of some words [ 1 ]. In addition, he is also trying to determine what exactly legal language is in the sense of linguistic stratification. It is not dialect, nor jargon or argot, since these concepts are associated with either a specific geographic or social environment. The language of lawyers encompasses much more [ 1 ]. Not even the notion of style is the best description, as the term itself is ambiguous (more attention will be paid to this problem in the second part of this section on stylistics). It seems that Tiersma leans towards the term sublanguage, by which he understands “language used in a body of texts dealing with a circumscribed subject area in which the authors of the documents share a common vocabulary and common habits of word usage.” [ 1 , pp. 142–143] According to him, many characteristics attributed to sublanguages also apply to legal language. Legal language has a limited subject-matter and its own special grammatical rules, as it differs from ordinary language not only in lexicon but also in terms of morphology, syntax or semantics. That is why he considers the language used by lawyers to be a subset of the language as a whole [ 1 ]. While Tiersma inclined towards the label ‘sublanguage’, some other scholars have developed these ideas and proposed the notion of register as more convenient [ 25 ], but we will get to that later in this article.

Tiersma also supports Mellinkoff’s conclusion that the language of lawyers remains unclear and incomprehensible to the lay person. Similarly to Mellinkoff, he lists some of the reasons that this persists. One of the reasons might be that this way of communication is strategic and depends on the goal of the communication (which is a concept widely developed by pragmatic approach as we shall see below). Tiersma suggests that it can also be the adversarial nature of legal language or economic reasons. He also mentions the notion that the language of law is ritualistic, which provides speakers with a badge of membership in the community. And last but not least, it can be motivated by the attempts of lawyers to be as objective as possible, and to create the impression that law is mysterious and complex [ 1 , pp. 241–244].

The most significant contribution of Tiersma’s work to the concept of legal language is perhaps his emphasis on the fact that legal language is not a unitary system: “There is great variation in legal language, depending on geographical location, degree of formality, speaking versus writing, and related factors.” [ 1 , p. 139] It thus creates, as he calls it, various ‘genres’ of legal language [ 1 , p. 51]. The genres have different characteristics, and different stylistic rules, and expectations apply to them as well. Besides written texts it can also include oral communication. This would imply that legal language is an extremely broad area and we should be cautious about generalizing conclusions and blanket descriptions of legal language when it contains many genres that may differ. This idea can be also supported by the linguistic axiom that language in general is not a simple and uniform phenomenon, but a complex organism, differentiated vertically and horizontally, i.e., we can notice social and functional as well as regional and territorial diversification of language [ 26 ].

Let us now move to the strictly linguistic viewpoint of legal language with a focus on Central European perceptions of stylistics. Linguists usually emphasize the need to examine a particular communication act and its function (purpose), which is followed by the speaker (addresser) in his utterance [ 26 ]. This idea was mainly promoted by the members of the Prague Linguistic Circle (or so-called Prague School) operating especially in the interwar period and which was spread and developed afterwards as part of the structuralist theory [ 27 ]. Style can be characterized as a principle that leads us in the choosing of expressions and linguistics in particular speech. In this way it contributes to the construction of communication and its meaning. Style has both a differentiating and a classifying role—it allows us to distinguish a certain communication from another, and at the same time to classify it in a superior group of texts and to treat it accordingly. The Prague School then differentiates styles according to the leading function of the communication act, i.e., the intention pursued by the author, the purpose or the aim served by the speech [ 26 , p. 28].

It can be deduced that the stylistic handbook examined classifies legal language as administrative style, within the normative and directive subtype [ 26 , pp. 238–239]. The authors explicitly emphasize that merely ‘part of the legal agenda’ can be included in the administrative style but there is always an intersecting or transitional zone. Therefore, we need to consider the classification of each communication according to its predominant function. This remark can be useful and should be noted. On the other hand, the handbook still mentions only judgments and statutes or regulations. This somewhat selective perception of the legal field can be problematic if we agree with Tiersma’s conclusion that legal communication is much broader. That is why it can be more helpful to consider the notion of the functional style itself rather than clearly determining that legal language is a part of a certain function style.

3.3 Law and Language as Systems of Signs

In the following subsection, I will move from purely legal or linguistic perspectives on legal language to the approach of (legal) semiotics. The fundamental starting point for semiotics (legal, as well as general) is the emphasis on sign systems and communicative interactions [ 28 ]. Words as the daily-bread of lawyers are of a sign character, i.e., they refer to something other than themselves, and by this they determine an effect upon a person (in Peirce’s words an interpretant) [ 29 ]. From semiotics developed the view that law and language have much in common and can be both considered sign systems, yet they also have a communicative form. As this seems a crucial remark to conceptualization of legal language, I will firstly introduce the dual nature of the word ‘language’. Afterwards I will describe some observations of semioticians specifically on legal language.

Semiotics notes that language can be recognized in two forms, namely as a sign system and also communication: “This fact underlines the system-character of language (as made visible in traffic signs) and the communicative features of law (there is no society without “signs of law”).” [ 30 , p. 16] This follows the well-known concept of Ferdinand de Saussure who differentiated ‘langue’ (language) and ‘parole’ (speaking). The former corresponds to an abstract system of signs and rules for their usage which serve as prerequisites for the latter—concrete acts of speech executed on the basis of selection and combination of units from the langue [ 14 ]. Legal semiotics adopts this dual nature of language and focuses on the signs per se and also how they are used in communication, as production and uncovering of meanings. For example, Roberta Kevelson, possibly a founder of legal semiotics, stresses that law is envisaged as a language. On the one hand, it is a realm of arguments and unique rhetoric, on the other it is a profession of words as signs that manage meaning [ 30 ]. She claims that law can be considered a system of signs in terms of legal semiotics, interrelated with other social sign systems such as language, provided that law can be understood as a process of communication or exchange of meanings (which are inherently sign-based) [ 28 ].

Nevertheless, these considerations are inevitably connected to one’s approach to law in general, and the theory or concept that she adopted. Let us take for example a classical dogmatic view of law as a system of rules (or norms) [ 18 ]. This view could thus correspond to language in the sense of langue. On the other hand, the view of law as a discursive space and social practice has been increasingly developed recently [ 31 ], followed by [ 32 ]. However, these seemingly incompatible views can be easier to understand precisely by paralleling law to language (as langue and parole). Law too can take the form of both an abstract system of norms (even likened by some to signs) [ 33 , 34 ] and of communication. In my view these two forms are interdependent and contingent, for there cannot be one without the other, and we cannot examine law (as a langue-system) without examining individual communicative acts concerning the law (in the sense of law as parole). Similarly see the extent of the metaphor ‘law is language’ [ 16 ].

Similar accentuation of the importance of practice and discourse can be deduced from the works of legal semiotics as well. This is most noticeable when claiming that lawyers not only work with words and meanings, but also engineer them: “lawyers manage meanings, because meanings are not beyond any human power of using or inventing words, signs, symbols and special meanings. Consider how legal practice incorporates a specific body of knowledge, which at law’s core issue: making law fit to multiple contexts of society.” [ 30 , p. 109] In this view, law is determined by the discourse, it is dominated by actions and through patterns of its practitioners who eventually influence the shape of law. And legal practice (what lawyers do and say) can be to some extent considered as law itself.

Mastering meanings entails engineering of a form of society as well, that is why legal semiotics implies that legal language is an instrument of power. Lawyers move between two different modes of communication, and by ‘translating’ one to another they create meanings in incomprehensible ways which ensures them the status of an elite [ 35 ]. To do this, they must “master two languages: the language of everyday delivers them meanings of life in a directness that does not exist in law, and the language of law delivers them meanings to operate in a jargon that does not exist in daily life. The two, of course, intertwine but the legal- and state institutions wish to have the citizen's interests be translated in legal language so that the latter type of language dominates their lives.” [ 30 p. 120] Roughly summarized, legal language can be—according to the legal semioticians—described as language which must be translated into regular language in order to be understood by lay people (and vice versa).

3.4 Pragmatic Approach

The pragmatic approach can be in fact quite similar to what I described in the previous section as the semiotic concept of language. Compared to semiotics, legal pragmatics focuses strictly on individual communication and uses different methods. In simple terms, it is founded on the assumption that every communication has, in addition to its semantic content, a pragmatic content (level). No communication takes place in a vacuum, but is influenced by extra-linguistic phenomena. In addition to semantics, the intention of the parties to the conversation and their mutual expectations, context, barriers of communication, etc. play an important role in the interpretation of a speech act [ 36 ].Furthermore, pragmatists focus not only on what has been said but also on that which has been only implied. That might be the reason why some authors tend to use the term legal discourse rather than legal language (which can appear to be limited to the verbal side of communication). However, for our purposes, I will keep on using the latter.

One of the goals of legal pragmatics is answering the question as to whether legal interpretation differs from ordinary understanding [ 4 ]. Thus, they focus mainly on the language of statutes and other normative text which must be interpreted. However, they principally acknowledge that legal discourse is much broader [see e.g., 4 , p. 42]. Izabela Skoczeń, for instance, divides legal language into the following categories (although she also notes that this is certainly not a definitive and exhaustive list):

An exchange within a legislative body

An exchange between a legislature and courts

An exchange between a court and parties

An exchange between parties

Contracts and other legal declarations of intent [ 37 , p. 2]

What can also be interesting are the numerous debates on the topic of whether legal language is a part of common natural languages, or is a technical/artificial language. Mario Jori arrived at a rather unusual perspective that legal language is a mixture of both, i.e., partly similar to natural languages and partly similar to an artificial one [ 38 ]. He also argues that the key feature distinguishing one type of language from another is its function. Jori argues that the central point of legal language is the usual connection to legal authorities, the associated coercive power, and the interaction of laymen and jurists. Therefore, he proposes that legal language is an administered language, as it ensures creation and changes of law and the complex structural interactions between authorities, public and lawyers [ 38 , pp. 58–59]. We can note the striking proximity of Jori's concept of administered language (and function as a determinant) to the Prague school of functional styles and the placement of legal language on the borderline between administrative and professional style. Both imply that the legal nature of language is characterized by a certain pragmatic criterion, namely its function.

3.5 Legal Language Applied: on the Intersection of Fields

The applied approaches basically only support the broad view of legal language described in regard to pragmatics of law. For example, although computer-based research does not give a comprehensive description of legal language, we can encounter the processing of many different types of communication in various corpus-based and corpus-driven studies [see e.g., 39 , 40 ]. Forensic linguistics takes a similar approach to legal language when analysing discourse in legal settings in various forms—oral and written, in statutes as well as in contracts, and not limited to the speeches and texts produced by a lawyer (including issues connected with e.g. voice identification, interpretation of expressed meaning in laws and legal writings, statements, authorship identification or analysis of courtroom language used by trial participants) [ 41 ].

But since the approaches mentioned above generally work with legal language rather selectively (choosing a specific category without generalisation), it seems more appropriate to start from a different applied field. We will first look at the theory of translation of legal texts and the flagship text on the subject, Translating Law , by Deborah Cao. The next section will focus on the work of Bryan A. Garner, one of the most prominent proponents of legal writing and legal rhetoric. In particular, I will draw on facts from these books that have not been covered, or at least not strongly emphasized, in the approaches summarized so far.

Deborah Cao, similarly to Tiersma and many others, notices that legal language is not homogeneous and does not just cover language of laws (statutes and other normative sources of law), but many other communications in legal settings. Therefore, legal texts or communications may have various communicative purposes (normative or informative, prescriptive or descriptive). She also considers to what extent legal language is based on ordinary language or if it is an independent, technical language. While legal language has several peculiarities and deviations from ordinary language (lexical, syntactical, textual or even pragmatic), it still shares a common core of general language [ 25 ]. Unlike Tiersma (and his conclusion that legal language has the nature of sub-language), Cao describes legal language as a register, i.e., “a variety of language appropriate to different occasions and situations of use, and in this case, a variety of language appropriate to legal situations of use.” [ 25 , p. 9] As such, it is based on regular language, but in addition has some special deviations (we could say, special signs and rules for their use). These deviations are selected by the speaker from a register and applied according to the particular ‘legal’ situation at hand, and different signs and rules may be applicable in each case. Thus, there might be different sub-types (genres) of legal language and each of them comes with distinct characteristics.

Cao adopts a broad definition of legal language, as she considers it any “language of and related to law and legal process. This includes language of the law, language about law, and language used in other legal communicative situations.” [ 25 p. 9] Though one may wonder whether the definition is really broad or rather vague or even tautological. Nevertheless, she further clarifies this by assigning legal language to language used in texts produced or used for legal purposes in legal settings (even though she focuses in this list solely on texts, it can be applied to speeches as well). She distinguishes four major categories of legal texts: legislative, judicial, legal scholarly texts (academic literature or commentaries) and private legal texts. It is interesting that the fourth category according to Cao includes “texts written by lawyers, e.g. contracts and litigation documents, and also texts written by non-lawyers, e.g. private agreements, witness statements and other documents produced by non-lawyers and used in litigation and other legal situations.” [ 25 , pp. 9–10] That is different from the majority of above-mentioned approaches which usually consider legal language only as texts produced strictly by lawyers.

Let us move on to Garner’s approach to legal language. He thinks about this phenomenon especially from the view of style of writing, or as he calls it (referring to Jonathan Swift’s definition) putting ‘proper words in proper places’ [ 42 p. 39]. And that is why his work is grounded in a description of a tension between traditional legal language and modern tendencies to use plain language. Garner can be certainly considered a proponent of the plain language movement, as he repeatedly expresses the belief that anything that can be simplified should be said in simpler words [ 42 ]. According to him, plain language is the “idiomatic and grammatical use of language that most effectively presents ideas to the reader.” [ 42 , p. 40].

In contrast to plain language there is the traditional one, so called ‘legalese’ as “the complicated language of legal documents.” [ 42 p. 302] Garner counters the idea that legalese ensures precision of legal texts, enjoys more respectability, or is generally preferable. Although he strives for clarity, brevity and accuracy as well, these qualities of a text cannot be guaranteed by legalese. And the belief that precision goes hand in hand with legalese is a myth [ 42 p. 296]. Garner also expresses a view that these qualities—such as clarity, brevity and accuracy—are just the first step. Everything hangs on context and purpose. Lawyers must do more than just simply communicate, sometimes the aim is also to persuade or even delight [ 42 ]. Despite Garner’s favoring of plain language, we can presume that for Garner, both legalese and plain language (in legal drafting) are legal language. Even (plain) language used in drafting statutes or contracts (as it was in some attempts applied, see [ 42 pp. 298–299]) still remains ‘legal’ and has the quality of language of law. Garner actually argues that such language can have even bigger potential for the legal community to gain the respect of the public and maybe even the authority of law [ 42 ].

Let us take stock after this—I believe—intense and exhaustive chapter. So far, I have described various concepts of legal language, and one might say that each of them is different and with few exceptions they have little in common. I dare to say the opposite. Although each approach emphasizes different features, they share a common core. Alternatively, there appear to be at least germs of certain basic types of legal language concepts that can be compared and critically analysed in their context. Given the scope and complexity, I will address these issues in the following chapter, which will also be an imaginary bridge to my definition of legal language in the final section.

4 What Can Various Approaches to Legal Language Tell Us?

The following paragraphs are intended not only to summarize the concepts of legal language described in the previous chapter, but also to abstract the key elements from the concepts, compare them and discuss them. First, I will focus on the word 'language'. Then I will look into the attribute ‘legal’ and what connotations it may have, which will lead us to a more detailed examination of the communication structure and its functions. At this stage, then, I will try to identify all possible criteria that are considered to define the 'legal' nature of language. However, it is already evident here that there are several of these characteristics and that they overlap and interfere with each other. It will therefore be necessary to critically evaluate them and determine which criteria (or combination of some of them) will be defining for the intension of the term under investigation.

4.1 ‘Language’: Communication, Sublanguage or Register?

As we learned from the semiotic approach, language can mean both the system of signs (words), and the particular communicative situations of their usage. Commonly, we do not distinguish between these two meanings and often simply consider particular texts as legal language. Of course, such a text is not itself legal language, but merely represents one of the instances in which legal language is used. This distinction, however, is more of an academic question. Naturally, in legal communication (parole) we use nothing else than the legal language, and conversely, we come to know legal language as a system of signs and rules (langue) only through the individual instances of its use. They are therefore essentially two sides of the same coin. Despite all this, it is good to remember that when we conceptualize the notion of legal 'language', we are looking for the definition of an abstract system of signs and rules for their use. At the same time, we must focus on the texts and utterances themselves, and it is only from their character that we can infer whether or not legal language is used in them at all. Therefore, even though it could be more precise to differentiate legal language from legal communication, the important thing is that in order to paint the picture of the ‘system’ we must first grasp it through the particular acts of communication.

What almost all of the concepts have in common is the emphasis on the heterogenous nature of legal language. Similar to language in general, legal language comprises many genres and varieties of oral and written communication, official as well as unofficial (sometimes called jargon). However, it is sometimes pointed out that written and spoken language cannot be considered the same and should be distinguished. Although texts and speech may have different characteristics, the emphasis on the primacy or importance of only one is in many respects overcome (as Derrida in particular pointed out [ 43 ]). Particularly in the search for a concept of legal language, this distinction is meaningless, since both forms of language are cases of communication and fall equally under the use of legal language. That is why, in the following, I always try to take into consideration both texts and speeches.

There is an almost unanimous opinion that legal language is rooted in ordinary language, albeit with some variations—whether lexical, syntactic, phonetic or pragmatic. From a linguistic point of view, there can be two notions to describe such a phenomenon—either a sublanguage (as promoted by Tiersma), or a register (as promoted by Cao). Sublanguage is usually understood as a subset of (sentences of) a whole language in a particular community [ 44 , 45 ]. But legal language should not be just a part of a separate (linguistic) community of professionals. On the contrary, there is a systematic interaction between jurists and lay people, and requirements are placed on lawyers to ensure at least some degree of lay understanding [ 38 ]. Moreover, the lexicon and grammar (signs and rules of their usage) create only a certain part of the lexicon and grammar of the language as a whole. On the other hand, a register can be considered as a variety which supplies a taxonomy of features according to certain situational parameters. They include determinants such as field, tenor and mode, i.e., the type of activity (its content, ideas and institutional focus), the status and role relationships of the participants and the channel of communication, respectively [ 46 ]. We can also note some similarities of the term ‘register’ and the ‘functional style’ as termed by Prague School, since both of them refer to specific situational settings [ 45 ].

The concepts of legal language described above usually highlight the peculiarities (on various linguistic levels) which cause the differentiation from natural language. It can be deduced that the reason for choosing to use these peculiarities are specific situational factors, mainly the nature of the actors and the purpose of the communication (this will be discussed further below). Therefore, the term ‘register’ seems to correspond best and be appropriate as the description of legal language. The most important thing is still what it entails. Legal language as a register should include many kinds of features which should be chosen and applied in a specific communication act based on given situational settings. We need to find out what the situational settings should be that trigger the use of legal language. For now, it is clear that defining them as ‘somehow connected to the law’ will not be sufficient.

4.2 What Could the Attribute ‘Legal’ Mean?

In the course of the previous chapter, the basic criteria for determining the ‘legal’ nature of legal language gradually crystallized. All of the approaches described provide interesting insights into legal language, and I am aware that they cannot be limited only to the way they define legal language. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this paper, I believe I can draw from all of them the following possible criteria for determining the ‘legal’ character:

Defined by a ‘quality’ (e.g., incomprehensibility, complexity);

Defined by ‘officialness’ (manifestations of public authorities bearing normativity);

Defined by speakers and their profession (as language used by lawyers);

Defined by an enumeration of genres or categories of texts or speeches;

Defined by situational settings (especially function).

Let us now look at each of these characteristics and assess how appropriate they are or what is problematic about them.

4.2.1 Definition by a Quality

Criteria like ‘too complicated’ or ‘incomprehensible’ can be described as basically the definition of a circle. They do not help to determine the extent (range) of the term legal language, in fact they already describe what they consider as part of the legal language. Furthermore, we can refer to Garner, who, although basically starting from the definition of legal language as a poor style of writing, also considers plain language as ‘legal’. Imagine, for example, a provision in a statute that is clearly written in a concise and understandable sentence. Does it make it any less an example of ‘legal language’ than a dubious complex sentences with several Latin words? I believe not. A statute is a statute not by its length or a lexicon used, but by the form of publication which enjoys the authority of being normative [ 45 ].

4.2.2 Definition by Officialness

Another characteristic is based on Wróblewski’s conception of legal language as opposed to the language of lawyers. Without a doubt, this differentiation is useful as it categorizes our perception and can help us to better understand and navigate such a complex system. However, legal language cannot be limited to a language of statutes and other normative sources of law. That would be too restrictive and would not correlate with a complex legal discourse as we understand it from today’s, pluralist, perspective. Therefore, I support the idea of structuring legal language, but only as an internal stratification, so that the concept is inclusive of all instances of legal communication (which actually does not contradict Wróblewski’s view, who himself paid a lot of attention to the language of lawyers) [ 47 ]. This is not to deny that the language of legislation may have much greater relevance to jurisprudence, and that different rules or characteristics may also apply. However, from this alone, in my view, it cannot be concluded that the concept of legal language should be limited to the language of statutes (such a conclusion is, in fact, contrary to most of the other concepts described).

4.2.3 Definition by Speakers and Their Profession

Probably the most used criterion (proposed by Mellinkoff and followed by Tiersma) is the nature of the speakers as legal practitioners. Two questions can be asked with regard to this idea. Firstly, is legal language used solely by lawyers? Can there not be any instances of legal language being used by a person without legal education who is just somehow involved in the process of law? And secondly, should be every sentence uttered by a lawyer be considered as legal language? Let us explore these two issues.

Legal language is primarily inherent in the legal community. As Tiersma and Garner show, it could be almost one of the privileges that symbolically confer on an otherwise ‘ordinary’ person the status of someone enabled to practice law or at least belonging to an exclusive group of people. Of course, this is more of a myth, but it does not undermine the primacy of lawyers in the use of this specific language.

On the other hand, this view could raise the question of whether a statute is after all an instance of legal language if we are not sure who wrote it or performed the act. Footnote 10 Not all lawmakers are lawyers. Or let us take for example an administrative decision which can be issued by an official without legal education. And how about a contract written by two parties that did not involve legal education? Or should we consider as legal language any communication that has impact on a legal status of a person (so even almost any implied-in-fact contracts as Mooney implies [ 49 ])? After all, even a witness testimony is of importance for the process of law. Some of the described concepts of legal language imply that these acts should be considered as legal language. Moreover, there is no doubt about assigning this nature to statutes or even (court) decisions as they are the typical examples of legal language.

Help to answer these questions can be provided, in my opinion, by the prototype theory. This theory has played an important role in dealing with borderline cases of meanings of terms [ 50 ]. Its central figure is Eleanor Rosch who conducted several experiments on categorization, and promoted the idea that not all terms can be defined by sets of features that are both necessary and sufficient (in classic Aristotelian way). According to Rosh, people have a prototype of a concept stored in their memory, and then classify individual objects into categories based on comparison with this mental image. If an object corresponds to a prototype, it can be classified under the concept that the prototype represents [ 51 ]. It may be surprising that this theory has much in common with Hart's thesis of the open texture of law [ 52 ]. Similarly to Hart, Rosh concluded that prototypical categories can be hard to clearly define by using a single set of criteria, since they have blurred edges (in Wittgenstein’s sense of the term [ 53 ]). Therefore, we need to think about concepts as a certain degree of typicality for assigning a particular object to a given category (under a given concept). There will always be some borderline cases that we have to assess on a contextual basis, and often we will not even agree on their categorisation [ 50 ]. But we cannot, because of that, abandon the effort to grasp the concept and define it. At least some typical core of the concept is definable, so we can focus on it in conceptualization.

Although the theory described uses largely experimental methods, it can at least help us understand that some objects can be a more ‘typical’ example of a certain term, and some can be only similar to it in some features. I would also say that legal language can be a subject of imitation. A typical example is the generally widespread practice of copy-paste contracts. Non-legal consumers often try to avoid the expensive services of lawyers by downloading a template of a contract and adapting the key parts of it. It is fair to say, I suppose, that such a document is not an example of legal language, it is its mere imitation. Similar assumptions can be claimed about some administrative decisions. These can be often prepared by somebody without legal education, according to a template and the instructions of a lawyer. Or on the other hand, a text of a statute or any other regulation is usually prepared by a legislator (legally educated person) [ 11 ], even though it is often subject to amendments or corrections in the subsequent legislative procedure. The difference is however in the nature of such acts and the implications they entail. They are based on language originally produced by lawyers. We should consider them as part of legal language as a whole. regardless of the uncertainty of whether they were completely produced by lawyers. Therefore, the acts of an official who represents a state authority can be also instances of use of legal language.

Different attitudes should be, nevertheless, taken in regard to witness statements and other lay talk. Even though they might be of enormous importance for the process of law, they are not the purest form of legal language. On the other hand, we can think of them as lay talk which must be transformed (or even translated) to legal language by a judge or an attorney [ 54 , p. 64]. Such transcripts of lawyers would be an instance of legal language. However, the preceding form expressed by a lay person is not.

We can move on to the second question outlined above, in particular whether every text or speech written or pronounced by lawyer should be considered legal language. Imagine for example a lawyer speaking to her lay husband or to her kids about their plans for a dinner. I am sure that while lawyers can incorporate adopted peculiarities from legal jargon into relatively ordinary conversations, such statements will not amount to a prototypical example of legal language. Therefore, the questions raised by the criterion of the nature of a speaker and some of the replies above show that a ‘legal’ nature of language is not ensured just by the category of a speaker. The concept of legal language should include more criteria than just ‘language of lawyers’. This brings us to the fourth criterion, in particular the definition by the enumeration of categories.

4.2.4 Definition by an Enumeration of Genres or Categories

Some concepts worked with listing of categories or genres covering instances within which legal language is used. Although it could seem like a good strategy, these definitions usually do not deal with the specific function of a communication act itself, but are focused more on the type of document or act (court decisions, contracts, witness testimony etc.). This procedure can lead to the omission of some genres. Also, not every time can the ‘legal’ nature be determined by the type of a document, e.g., as stressed above, not all contracts will be of the typical nature of legal language (for example, with regard to verbal consumer-to-consumer contracts alone). In this article, I made it my goal to make the concept of legal language as comprehensive and precise as possible. Evidently, the concept defined by a list of categories cannot fulfil this aim. Footnote 11

4.2.5 Definition by Situational Settings

The last characteristic entails the specific pragmatic role of the act of communication, or in other words, concrete situational settings. It is not a prevailing feature in the concepts explored, however in a way many of them imply the use of something more than just words and the form of a text or speech. This criterion emphasizes the background, i.e., what is going on beyond the text or spoken words, and takes into consideration extralinguistic features that can have an impact on the meaning or are otherwise important for the communication. It needs to be pointed out that this approach is based on the premise of performativity of law and the necessity of communicating law and law-related issues [ 35 , 54 ]. One of the most frequent factors mentioned in the concepts described is the function (or purpose) of a communication. As it seems that understanding of communication in connection with its functions is crucial for developing a concept of legal language, these topics deserve more exploration and I will now briefly address them.

4.3 Functions of Legal Communication

Communication, especially in connection with its functions, has been extensively elaborated by the Russian linguist (and at the same time one of the representatives of the Prague structuralist school) Roman Jakobson. In his studies he observed both the structure of communication and the creation of meaning in terms of its functions, on the basis of which he also developed the well-known dual model of communication [ 55 ]. In the first diagram, he presents the constitutive elements of a communicative act. These are then followed in the second depiction by the individual functions associated with the given elements. Jakobson builds on earlier procedural models of communication by considering communication as a situation where the speaker (addresser) sends a message to the addressee. However, since a message usually does not refer to itself, a necessary complement to these three elements is context, i.e., a section of the actual or possible world to which the message refers. To this, however, Jakobson adds two more elements, contact and code. By contact Jakobson means the physical channel and psychic connection between speaker and addressee. In other words, it is the element of communication that constructs the relationship, psyche or emotion between the transmitter and the receiver and enables them to initiate the communication and, with the help of maintaining contact between them, to maintain the communication. The code can then be understood as a shared system of meaning (essentially sign meaning) by which the message is structured [ 56 ]. The process model of communication can be illustrated as follows (Fig. 1 ):

figure 1

Jakobson’s processual model of communication

On the basis of the scheme above, Jakobson then created a corresponding representation, through which he wanted to depict the basic six functions of language—cognitive, emotive, conative, phatic, meta-linguistic and poetic. Each function is determined by one of the six constitutive elements of communication mentioned above. The first of these, cognitive function, concerns context and thus focuses on the reality being referred to (the main purpose is to communicate information). If the communicative act is directed at the transmitter and directly expresses the speaker's attitude towards what is communicated, Jakobson speaks of an emotive (or expressive) function. In contrast, the orientation towards the addressee usually gives rise to the so-called conative or appellative function, the clearest form of which is the use of the imperative or vocative. A less common function is the phatic function (focusing on contact), which serves to establish and maintain communication. In the case of a focus on code, we use the so-called meta-linguistic function, and, as the last function, Jakobson mentions the poetic function, which is accentuated when the message itself is at the core of the communicative act [ 56 ]. Jakobson mapped these six functions onto a diagram corresponding to the procedural model and corresponding to the constitutive elements of communication (Fig. 2 ):

figure 2

Jakobson’s semiotic model of communication

These functions can help us understand that communication is not merely about transmitting information. It can serve various purposes, within legal realm notably the conative function, as we can assume that some communication bears normativity and ensures that some individuals will (or shall) act in a certain way. Jakobson’s model of communication highlights that communication is not only about a message itself or about the participants of the conversation. More elements are involved. Therefore, we need to examine all of these elements when proposing a concept of legal language, and also the meanings of such communication reflected in the relevant function of the act.

5 The Concept of Legal Language

The concept of legal language can be described with a help of Aristotelian distinction between genus proximum and differentia specifica , i.e., by placing it in a generically superior concept (e.g., man is an animal) and assigning concrete specifications that distinguish it from other cases falling into the same category (e.g., social, walking on two legs, talking, etc.). The word ‘language’ could serve as a sort of a genus proximum since it indicates the form of the set of phenomena, a part of which should be determined by the attribute ‘legal’. The meaning of the term ‘language’ must be however adjusted to more accurately reflect what it represents. That is to say, it is not a natural, national language, but represents a certain register of it. That means that as it is used in certain situations, but in addition/or as variable to regular language, it has some signs and rules which are different.

The more pressing issue, however, is understanding how to recognize such use of a register (special characters or rules). The previous section showed that it cannot just be determined by the speaker, but also by the given context within which a certain act is performed (eventually by the addressee, message or code of the communication). As for the addresser, for a communication act to have the nature of legal language it must be either performed by a lawyer (a legal practitioner) or it must be attributed to a state authority, i.e., the act is performed by an authorized person who acts as a representative of state authority. The second condition is dependent on the context within which the act was performed and the function of the communication. Let us now look more closely at these contextual and functional settings.

I have come to the conclusion that there are typically three situations of communicative acts linked to legal language. The first case involves the conative function of the act implying that a norm should apply to a certain addressee. As such, the act must be performed in a form or by a means of message that is, under given jurisdiction, considered to be legally binding. In other words, this category would encompass the acts that are generally accepted as a formal source of law. To the second and the third one we cannot precisely assign a function in Jakobson’s division. However, the context is important for both of these categories in the meaning of extra-linguistic circumstances within which the communication is performed. One of them would be a general reference to law (in the meaning of a set of norms). That is for example a lawyer describing law or interpreting it for her client or discussing some legal issue with her colleague. As another case we could imagine a communicative act of a lawyer when she does not strictly refer to law but she is involved in the process of law, in particular in the process of creation or application of law. There are some uncertain cases in this type of context, for example individual norm-making when a legal practitioner creates or concludes a contract or when she appears in the courtroom just as a witness. For eliminating this grey zone, we should exclude all those instances when such application of norms concerns a lawyer’s private life. Thus, only those instances of acts in the process of law when a lawyer acts as a representative of a legal status or in the course of her employment should be considered as use of legal language.

And does an addressee or a code of communication matter in determining the scope of legal language? I assume that the addressee can be almost anybody (if there is any at all): state authority, another lawyer or a lay person. We could think of the distinctiveness of a code of communication as well in a way that it somehow bears normativity. However, that is not given by the code itself (sign system that the addresser uses) but again by the context, since it has a form that is generally accepted as a source of law.

To put it briefly (and perhaps a little tentatively), this concept of legal language refers to the following types of communications. First should be the documents generally accepted as the formal sources of law, e.g., statutes, precedents, documents reflecting some legal customs. Second case could be a lawyer when she refers to law (in the course of performing her work/employment). This could be for instance legal scholars’ literature, speech/opinion of an attorney to a client, conversation of lawyers on a case (even with some specific jargon lexicon). And thirdly, some acts in the process of law should be involved, such as communication within a legislative body, communication within court (written and oral), contracts and intents of will. At this point, however, I want to remind you that this exemplary list is not a delineation of the concept of legal language itself (indeed, I criticized this way of formulating it above). Despite this criticism, even analysing these categories could be enriching for the research of legal language. However in this paper I was looking for an intension of the term (as opposed to its extension in Carnap’s terms following Frege’s differentiation [ 5 ]).

I am certain that the concept of legal language outlined above can have some limits. One of these can be the applicability of the conceptualization in all jurisdictions, since our understanding of the term can differ across the world. To this I must make clear that I focus mainly on the continental and common law view of law and this concept is based on it. This also matches the chosen research methodology, which is to reflect diverse approaches to legal language. The proposed concept is also quite general and broad. That was however my aim from the very beginning. and it is intended to serve as a basic starting point for more specific legal language research, which should be based on established criteria and be aware of the scope of the concept. It may also be worth clarifying that I am not of the opinion that all instances of legal language are equally important. As many other legal terms, legal language is an example of a term with blurred edges [ 53 ]. We can therefore only approximate the content of this concept, knowing that some cases will remain borderline and debatable. Despite this, I am convinced of the importance of this exploration, as it can help us to articulate these borderline cases and subject them to debate.

6 Conclusion

In this article I outlined the possible approaches to legal language and proposed a novel concept of this term. Legal language is a part of language as a register which uses suitable signs and rules of their usage in accordance with given communication and its purpose. However, it can be problematic regarding not only the rules or signs to use in a particular situation but also how we recognize that the situation triggers use of this register (of so-called ‘legal language’). The legal nature of language cannot be characterized by formal features of a text or speech, nor is it sufficient to say that it is the language used in state acts or by lawyers tout court . The best characterization is by a combination of the criteria of certain communication acts, notably by its specific pragmatic (extralinguistic) role. The first key determinant is the nature of the addresser who by a definition must be a lawyer. The second and equally important determinant is the context within which the particular act is performed. Either the context implies that the function of the communication is to create a legally binding norm, or it refers to law, or it is performed in the process of creating or applying law. Although legal language may not at first glance be a typical legal term, it is undoubtedly a concept that is essential to jurisprudence and legal theory. In this way, this article has the potential to help illuminate the meaning and scope of the term so that future legal language research can build on this definition, knowing that it encompasses many instances of communication of various kinds.

Mainly focusing on the language of statutes, at most on the language of court decisions [see e.g., 4 ].

However, there is no complete agreement on how exactly to understand the word ‘concept’ itself, and approaches to this term vary across the social sciences [ 8 ] . For the purposes of this paper we will use the outlined definition.

This process could be more closely described as a certain refinement of the meaning of a given expression based on its use by speakers. For example, in which context the expression can still be used and in which context the native speaker will not use it anymore and will choose another word. Or, alternatively, a certain actualization of the meaning of the word, i.e. adding a new lexical meaning by using it in a new sense and then, on the basis of each further use, the given meaning gradually becomes one of the layers of the given expression. On the various layers of lexical meaning, see also [ 10 ].

Of course, this may be a certain prejudice, but in professional publications the opinion is held that the “language of laws" is too complex and dense for ordinary citizens, which in a way evokes a certain limited perception of the concept of legal language being the language of only one type of sources of law [ 11 ].

From continental system we could also consider a work by Helmut Hatz [ 17 ]. However, Wróblewski’s book was published earlier.

Even though it might seem that a handbook does not have such relevance and scientific value, they are picked because of their impact on the linguistic area of research as shaping the ideas of other linguists.

Of course, one could argue that certain works or streams are missing in the review. Unfortunately, this is an inevitable quirk of the social sciences, where each researcher comes from a different background and different frames of reference are available to them (given, for example, by the language and geographical limitations of the author). However, the presented results were obtained based on the described key and criteria (with regard to the chosen keywords, citation rate criterion, a preference for general works that were entirely devoted to legal language), which at the same time should guarantee greater transparency of the procedure.

Among others, for example, we can mention general issues of legal interpretation that work with language in a fundamental way and involve several formal (linguistic) matters. As an example for all, H. L. A. Hart and his discussion of the open texture of law and the vagueness of legal concepts [ 18 ].

Or at least must be expressible in words, see [ 2 ].

I am aware that this topic was discussed from many perspectives and that is why I am putting aside that the notion of a communication by ‚lawmaker ‘ when enacting an act is not simply resolved [ 48 ].

Cf. for example Kurzon’s approach, who also emphasized that legal discourse has not just a generic side, but also a linguistic one (i.e., register that can be recognized by the function of a communication) [ 45 ].

Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 2000. Legal Language . Paperback. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Google Scholar  

Weinberger, Ota. 1995. Norma a instituce: úvod do teorie práva . Masarykova univerzita: Spisy Právnické Fakulty Masarykovy Univerzity v Brně.

Myška, Matěj, Terezie Smejkalová, Jaromír Šavelka, and Martin Škop. 2012. Creative Commons and Grand Challenge to Make Legal Language Simple. In AI Approaches to the Complexity of Legal Systems. Models and Ethical Challenges for Legal Systems Legal Language and Legal Ontologies, Argumentation and Software Agents , ed. Monica Palmirani, Ugo Pagallo, Pompeu Casanovas, and Giovanni Sartor. Berlin: Lecture Notes in Computer Science.

Capone, Alessandro, and Francesca Poggi, eds. 2016. Pragmatics and Law: Philosophical Perspectives , 1st ed. New York: Springer.

Carnap, Rudolf. 1988. Meaning and Necessity: A Study in Semantics and Modal Logic , 2nd ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sartori, Giovanni. 2008. Guidelines for Concept Analysis. In Concepts and method in social science: The tradition of Giovanni Sartori , ed. David Collier and John Gerring, 97–133. New York: Routledge.

Buriánek, Jiří. 2020. Konceptualizace. Edited by Zdeněk R. Nešpor. Sociologická encyklopedie .

Ginsburg, Tom, and Nicholas Stephanopoulos. 2017. The Concepts of Law. University of Chicago Law Review 84: 147–175.

Dybowski, Maciej. 2018. Articulating Ratio Legis and Practical Reasoning. In Ratio Legis: Philosophical and Theoretical Perspectives , ed. Verena Klappstein and Maciej Dybowski. New York: Springer.

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1974. Semantics . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.

Škop, Martin, Michal Malaník, Terezie Smejkalová, Markéta Štěpáníková, and Barbora Vacková. 2019. Tvorba práva–empirické studie. In Spisy Právnické fakulty Masarykovy univerzity v Brně . Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Pierre, Bourdieu. 1993. Language and Symbolic Power. In Harvard University Press , ed. John Thompson. Cambridge.

Santos, Boaventura, and de Sousa. 1977. The Law of the Oppressed: The Construction and Reproduction of Legality in Pasargada. Law & Society Review 12: 5–126. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053321 .

Article   Google Scholar  

de Saussure, Ferdinand. 1959. Course in general linguistics . New York: Philosophical Library.

Patton, Michael Quinn. 2015. Qualitative Research & Evaluation Methods: Integrating Theory and Practice , 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE.

Glogar, Ondřej. 2021. The Concept of Legal Language: Law is Language. In Argumentation 2021: International Conference on Alternative Methods of Argumentation in Law , 51–68. Brno: Masaryk University Press.

Hatz, Helmut. 1963. Rechtssprache und juristischer Begriff . Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer Verlag.

Hart, H.L.A. 2012. The Concept of Law , 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Knapp, Viktor. 1978. Právní pojmy a právní terminologie (Právní pojmosloví a názvosloví). Státní správa: Bulletin Ústavu státní správy v Praze 4: 5–68.

MacCormick, Neil, and Ota Weinberger. 1986. An Institutional Theory of Law: New Approaches to Legal Positivism . Dordrecht: Springer.

Tomášek, Michal. 1998. Překlad v právní praxi . Praha: Linde.

Nebeská, Iva. 2012. Spisovná čeština. In CzechEncy—Nový encyklopedický slovník češtiny , ed. Jana Pleskalová, Petr Karlík, and Marek Nekula. Brno: Masarykova Univerzita.

Jackson, Bernard S. 1995. Making Sense in Law: Linguistic, Psychological and Semiotic Perspectives . Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.

Mellinkoff, David. 2004. The Language of the Law . Eugene, Oregon: Wipf & Stock Publishers.

Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating Law . Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Čechová, Marie, Marie Krčmová, and Eva Minářová. 2008. Současná stylistika . Praha: NLN Nakladatelství Lidové noviny.

Havránek, Bohuslav. 2014. The functional differentiation of the standard language. In Chapters from the History of Czech Functional Linguistics , ed. Jan Chovanec, 27–40. Brno: Masarykova univerzita.

Kevelson, Roberta. 1988. The Law as a System of Signs . New York: Plenum Press.

Charles-Sanders, Peirce. 1992. The Essential Peirce, Volume 2: Selected Philosophical Writings (1893–1913) . Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Broekman, Jan M., and Larry Catà Backer. 2013. Lawyers Making Meaning: The Semiotics of Law in Legal Education II . Dordrecht: Springer.

White, James Boyd. 1981. Law as Language: Reading Law and Reading Literature. Texas Law Review 60: 415–446.

Hoecke, Van, and Mark. 2002. Law as Communication . Oxford: Hart publishing.

Cover, Robert M. 1983. Foreword: Nomos and Narrative. Harvard Law Review 97: 4–78. https://doi.org/10.2307/1340787 .

Škop, Martin. 2013. právo, jazyk a příběh . Praha: Auditorium.

Smejkalová, Terezie, and Markéta Štěpáníková. 2019. Law for Elites. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric 59: 47–68. https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2019-0028 .

Marmor, Andrei. 2014. The Language of Law . Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Skoczeń, Izabela. 2019. Implicatures within Legal Language . Cham: Springer.

Jori, Mario. 2016. Legal Pragmatics. In Pragmatics and Law: Philosophical Perspectives , 1st ed., ed. Alessandro Capone and Francesca Poggi. New York: Springer.

Solan, Lawrence M., and Tammy Gales. 2018. Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation. BYU Law Review 2017: 1311–1358.

Mouritsen, Stephen. 2017. Corpus Linguistics in Legal Interpretation: An Evolving Interpretative Framework. International Journal of Language & Law JLL 6: 67–89. https://doi.org/10.14762/JLL.2017.067 .

McMenamin, Gerald R. 2002. Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Stylistics . Boca Raton: CRC Press.

Garner, Bryan A. 2009. Garner on Language and Writing: Selected Essays and Speeches of Bryan A . ABA Defending Liberty Pursuing Justice, Chicago: Garner.

Derrida, Jacques. 1976. Of Grammatology . Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Kittredge, Richard, and John Lehrberger, eds. 1982. Sublanguage: Studies of Language in Restricted Semantic Domains . Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.

Kurzon, Dennis. 1997. “Legal language”: Varieties, genres, registers, discourses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7: 119–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1997.tb00111.x .

Swales, John M., and John Swales. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Wróblewski, Bronisław. 1948. Język prawny i prawniczy . Kraków: Polska Akademia Umiejętności.

Greenberg, Mark. 2011. Legislation As Communication? Legal Interpretation and the Study of Linguistic Communication. In Philosophical Foundations of Language in the Law , ed. Andrei Marmor and Scott Soames. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mooney, Annabelle. 2014. Language and Law . London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Geeraerts, Dirk. 2016. Prospects and Problems of Prototype Theory. Diacronia 3: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.17684/i4A53en .

Rosch, Eleanor H. 1973. Natural Categories. Cognitive Psychology 4: 328–350. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0 .

Zeifert, Mateusz. 2022. Rethinking Hart: From Open Texture to Prototype Theory—Analytic Philosophy Meets Cognitive Linguistics. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 35: 409–430. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09722-9 .

Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1968. Philosophical Investigations . Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Smejkalová, Terezie. 2017. Legal Performance: Translating into Law and Subjectivity in Law. Tilburg Law Review 22: 62–76. https://doi.org/10.1163/22112596-02201004 .

Fiske, John. 2011. Introduction to Communication Studies , 3rd ed. Routledge: Routledge.

Jakobson, Roman. 1995. Poetická funkce . Jinočany: Artes et litterae H & H.

Download references

Acknowledgements

This publication was written at Masaryk University as part of the project The Concept of the Term Legal Language number MUNI/A/1529/2021 with the support of the Specific University Research Grant, as provided by the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sports of the Czech Republic in 2022.

Open access publishing supported by the National Technical Library in Prague.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Legal Theory, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

Ondřej Glogar

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ondřej Glogar .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Glogar, O. The Concept of Legal Language: What Makes Legal Language ‘Legal‘?. Int J Semiot Law 36 , 1081–1107 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10010-5

Download citation

Accepted : 19 April 2023

Published : 03 May 2023

Issue Date : June 2023

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10010-5

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

  • Legal language
  • Communication
  • Conceptualization
  • Legal communication
  • Find a journal
  • Publish with us
  • Track your research

IMAGES

  1. Thesis Statement: Definition and Useful Examples of Thesis Statement

    definition of language thesis

  2. What are the Basic Four Parts of a Thesis Statement?

    definition of language thesis

  3. Linguistics Thesis Topics

    definition of language thesis

  4. Thesis

    definition of language thesis

  5. 25 Thesis Statement Examples (2024)

    definition of language thesis

  6. PPT

    definition of language thesis

VIDEO

  1. How to Write an Abstract for Your Thesis Explained in Somali Language

  2. Meaning of academic , Definition of academic

  3. Master Thesis

  4. Differences Between Thesis Abstract and Research Article Abstract

  5. Thesis

COMMENTS

  1. PDF 1 Introduction: What is language?

    Ferdinand de Saussure (1857-1913) was a Swiss linguist. His theories were fundamental in defining the study of language as a science. Saussure's work led to the twentieth-century development of the important linguistic subfield of semiotics, or the study of signs. We'll explore the field of semiotics in Chapter 7.

  2. Thesis Definition & Meaning

    The meaning of THESIS is a dissertation embodying results of original research and especially substantiating a specific view; especially : one written by a candidate for an academic degree. How to use thesis in a sentence. Did you know?

  3. What Is a Thesis?

    A thesis is a type of research paper based on your original research. It is usually submitted as the final step of a master's program or a capstone to a bachelor's degree. Writing a thesis can be a daunting experience. Other than a dissertation, it is one of the longest pieces of writing students typically complete.

  4. What is the Nature of Language? How does it Behave? What is Language

    Therefore, success in language teaching depends on the learning environment, how a teacher views what is a language or the nature of language and on the motivations of learning provided to the ...

  5. Thesis

    Thesis. Your thesis is the central claim in your essay—your main insight or idea about your source or topic. Your thesis should appear early in an academic essay, followed by a logically constructed argument that supports this central claim. A strong thesis is arguable, which means a thoughtful reader could disagree with it and therefore ...

  6. THESIS

    THESIS definition: 1. a long piece of writing on a particular subject, especially one that is done for a higher…. Learn more.

  7. (PDF) Language and linguistics

    A language is used with the purpose of covering several functions of communication. According to Alshami (2019), there are two main categories of functions of language as micro functions and macro ...

  8. Thesis Statements

    A thesis statement: tells the reader how you will interpret the significance of the subject matter under discussion. is a road map for the paper; in other words, it tells the reader what to expect from the rest of the paper. directly answers the question asked of you. A thesis is an interpretation of a question or subject, not the subject itself.

  9. Thesis: Definition and Examples in Composition

    A thesis ( THEE-ses ) is the main (or controlling) idea of an essay, report, speech, or research paper, sometimes written as a single declarative sentence known as a thesis statement. A thesis may be implied rather than stated directly. Plural: theses. It's also known as a thesis statement, thesis sentence, controlling idea.

  10. What is a thesis

    A thesis is an in-depth research study that identifies a particular topic of inquiry and presents a clear argument or perspective about that topic using evidence and logic. Writing a thesis showcases your ability of critical thinking, gathering evidence, and making a compelling argument. Integral to these competencies is thorough research ...

  11. THESIS Definition & Usage Examples

    Thesis definition: a proposition stated or put forward for consideration, especially one to be discussed and proved or to be maintained against objections. See examples of THESIS used in a sentence.

  12. thesis noun

    thesis (that…) a statement or an opinion that is discussed in a logical way and presented with evidence in order to prove that it is true. The basic thesis of the book is fairly simple. These latest findings support the thesis that sexuality is determined by nature rather than choice.

  13. THESIS

    THESIS meaning: 1. a long piece of writing on a particular subject, especially one that is done for a higher…. Learn more.

  14. How to Write a Thesis Statement

    Placement of the thesis statement. Step 1: Start with a question. Step 2: Write your initial answer. Step 3: Develop your answer. Step 4: Refine your thesis statement. Types of thesis statements. Other interesting articles. Frequently asked questions about thesis statements.

  15. Thesis

    Etymology. The term thesis comes from the Greek word θέσις, meaning "something put forth", and refers to an intellectual proposition. Dissertation comes from the Latin dissertātiō, meaning "discussion". Aristotle was the first philosopher to define the term thesis.. A 'thesis' is a supposition of some eminent philosopher that conflicts with the general opinion...for to take notice when ...

  16. Language

    language, a system of conventional spoken, manual (signed), or written symbols by means of which human beings, as members of a social group and participants in its culture, express themselves. The functions of language include communication, the expression of identity, play, imaginative expression, and emotional release.

  17. How to Write a Literary Analysis Essay

    Table of contents. Step 1: Reading the text and identifying literary devices. Step 2: Coming up with a thesis. Step 3: Writing a title and introduction. Step 4: Writing the body of the essay. Step 5: Writing a conclusion. Other interesting articles.

  18. PDF AP English Language and Composition

    English Language and Composition Conceptual Framework Effective Fall 2019. This conceptual framework organizes course content according to the big ideas, which enables teachers to trace a particular big idea and its related enduring understanding, its course skills, and all the essential knowledge statements associated with those skills.

  19. Language and Power

    Another language power is its immense impact on national unity and discord. The third language power is its ability to create influence through single words (e.g., metaphors), oratories, conversations and narratives in political campaigns, emergence of leaders, terrorist narratives, and so forth.

  20. (PDF) The Theory of Translation and Linguistics

    Abstract. In the thesis The Theory of Translation and Linguistics we discuss some of the aspects of general linguistics, applied linguistics, text linguistics and psycholinguistics for the theory ...

  21. How to Write a Thesis Statement

    How to write a thesis statement for persuasive essays. Similar to argumentative essays, persuasive essays follow many of the same guidelines for their thesis statements: decisive language, specific details, and mentions of subtopics. However, the main difference is that, while the thesis statements for argumentative and expository essays state facts, the thesis statements for persuasive essays ...

  22. How to Write an Argumentative Essay

    Make a claim. Provide the grounds (evidence) for the claim. Explain the warrant (how the grounds support the claim) Discuss possible rebuttals to the claim, identifying the limits of the argument and showing that you have considered alternative perspectives. The Toulmin model is a common approach in academic essays.

  23. The Concept of Legal Language: What Makes Legal Language ...

    Many legal theorists and linguists have addressed the notion of legal language from different perspectives. Despite that, the definitions of legal language vary. Almost all of the approaches conclude that legal language entails several types of communication. Nevertheless, not all of these categories are sufficiently researched. Some types of legal communication seem to be neglected. This lack ...