Abstract
This paper investigates the language of Ghana’s 1992 Constitution at the level of the sentence. Using the register assumption that linguistic choices are influenced by the context of situation, we investigate the use of sentences and their immediate clause constituents in the 1992 Constitution of Ghana. The study is premised on two notions. In the first place, the constitution is a legal document put together by legal experts. However, its contents (duties, obligations, responsibilities, rights, etc.) are meant for citizens of variegated backgrounds. One is curious to know how these factors influence linguistic choices in the constitutional document? In all, 13 chapters covering 639 sentences were studied usingquantitative and qualitative methods. We found that the complex sentence type (including the compound complex sentence) is the preferred choice in the constitutional data. We equally observed that this predominant sentence type favours the use of several finite and non-finite subordinate clause combinations (up to 26 subordinate clauses in a single sentence). We argue based on these findings that though the complex sentence and its multiple clause combinations enable the framers of the constitution achieve precision and clarity, they inhibit readability and comprehensibility. This has implications for register argumentation and the general assumption that the audience is one of the variables that influence linguistic choices.
Keywords: constitutional language, Ghanaian legal language, register, sentence complexity, clause combination
References
Ahialey, H. (2011). Elicitation and Response Strategies in Courtroom Cross examination: A Critical Discourse Analysis. Cape Coast: University of Cape Coast.
Akmajian, A. (1995). Linguistics: An Introduction to Law and Communication. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Amoako-Atta, G. (1998). Modality in Ghanaian Contractual Documents. University of Cape Coast. Cape Coast: University of Cape Coast.
Banfiled, C. (2014). The Importance of Interpretation: How the Language of the Constitution Allows for Differing Opinions. University of Tennessee. Tennessee: University of Tennessee.
Bex, T. (1996). Variety in written English. London: Routledge.
Bhatia, V. (1994). Cognitive Structuring in Legislative Provisions. In J. Gibbons, Language and the Law (pp. 136-155). Harlow: Longman Group.
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2009). Register, Genre and Style. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Blaxter, L., Hughes, C., & Tight, M. (2017). How to Research. England: Open University Press.
Bloor, T., & Bloor, M. (2004). The Functional Analysis of English. London: Arnold.
Danet, B. (1985). Legal Discourse. In V. D. (ed), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (Vol. Vol. 1, pp. 273-291). London: Academia Press.
Edu-Buandoh, D., & Ahialey, H. (2012). Exploring the Ideological Implications of Questions In Elicitation In Courtroom Cross-Examination Discourse In Ghana. Language, Dicourse & Society, Vol. 1(No.2), 11-30.
Endicott, T. (2000). Vagueness in Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Frempong, A. (2007). Constitution-Making and Constitutional Rule in Ghana. CODESRIA Books. Frimpong, G. K. (2015). A Comparative Register Analysis of Editorials from Ghanaian and British News-papers. University of Ghana. Accra: University of Ghana.
Frimpong, G. K. (2017). Subordination Across Ghanaian and British Newspaper Editorials: A register Perspective. Ghana Journal of Linguistics, Vol. 6(1), 72 – 115.
Frimpong, G. K. (2018). The complex sentence across written genres from native and nonnative contexts. A corpus-based study. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, Vol. 15(3), 185-203.
Frimpong, G. K. (2019). Cross-dialectal similarity of registers: The case of the sentence across Ghanaian and British newspaper editorials. SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, Vol. 16(2), 104 -130.
Ghana, R. o. (1992). Constitution of the Republic of Ghana. Ghana.
Gimenez-Moreno, R., & Skorczynskab, H. (2013). Corpus Variation: A Field in need of an Update. Procedia–Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 95, 402 – 408.
Greenbaum, S. (1996). The Oxford Grammar of English. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gustafsson, M. (1975). Binomial Expressions in Present-day English: A Syntactic and Semantic Study. Turku: Turun Yliopisto.
Halliday, M. A., & Matthiessen, C. (2014). Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.
Hiltunen, R. (1990). Chapters on Legal English: Aspects, Past and Present of the Language of the Law. Helsinki: Suomlaisen Tiedeakatemian Toimituksia.
IIDEA, I. I. (2014). What is a Constitution? http://www.iidea.int/publications/pgcb/index.cfm: Retrieved, January 12, 2016.
Ike, N. J. (2002). English for specific purposes 1. Abuja: Wildbest Educational Publishers.
Irmawati, N. D., & Hum, M. (2014). Structural Linguistics and its Implication to Language Teaching. International Journal on Studies in English Language and Literature, Vol. 2(8), 116-130.
Khan, R., & Khan, S. (2015). Stylistic Study of Legal Language. International Journal of Engineering Research and General Science, Vol. 3(1), 2091-2730.
Lutz, D. (2006). Principles of Constitutional Design. Cambriadge: Cambridge University Press.
Mala, M. (2011). Sentence Complexity in Academic Written English: A Syntactic Study with a Diachronic Perspective (1904 – 2005). LAT: Lambert Academic Publishing.
Mala, M. (2012). Change in Syntactic Functions of Finite/Non-Finite Clauses in Newspaper Language: Similarities and Differences between Academic Prose and Newspaper Language. BAS Journal, 243-252.
Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Ochs, E. (1979). Syntax and Semantics. In T. Givon, Planned and Unplanned Discourse: Discourse and Syntax (pp. 51-78). New York: Academic Press.
Panther, K.-U., & Kopcke, K.-M. (2008). A Prototype Approach to Sentences and Sentences types. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics, 83-112.
Payne, T. (2011). Understanding English Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Phakiti, A. (2014). Experimental Research Methods in Language Learning. New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
Post, R. (1990). Theories of Constitutional Interpretation. Representations, 30, 13-41.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. Edinburgh: Longman Group Limited.
Rozakis, L. (2003). English Grammar for the Utterly Confused. USA: McGraw-Hill.
Schauer, F. (1982). An Essay on Constitutional Language. Faculty Publication, 797-832.
Shitu, F. (2011). The Nature and Complexity of the Legal Document from the Perspective of Some Educated ‘Laymen’ in Federal College of Education, Abuja. Journal of the Nigerian English Studies Association (JNESA), Vol. 14(2), 69-77.
Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing Functional Grammar. London: Routledge.
Tiersma, P. (1999). Legal Lnaguage. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ufot, B. G. (2013). Stylistics and ESP: A Lexico-Grammatical Study of Legal Discourse. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, Vol. 3(No. 4), 620-631.
Vystricilova, R. (2000). Legal Language. Philosophica, Vol. 73, 91-96.
Wiredu, J. (2012). A Grammar of Newspaper Editorial Language: The Complex Sentence. Legon Journal of the Humanities, Vol23, 75-124.
Wiredu, J. (2014). The Complex Sentence in Legal English: A Study of Law Reports. Journal of Literature, Languages and Linguistics, Vol. 22, 29-41.
Wydick, R. (1998). Plain English for Lawyers. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.