Text typology of resolutions

Source document: Brno studies in English. 2005, vol. 31, iss. 1, pp. [19]-33
  • ISSN
Type: Article
License: Not specified license
The present paper investigates the generic structure potential and intrageneric variation within a text type in relation to the socio-cultural context in which the communication takes place, the intended text functions and the linguistic means used for the implementation of the purpose at hand. This inquiry scrutinizes the genre of resolutions, taking the example of UNESCO documents, and is a part of a larger study which analyses stylistic variation within the discourse of diplomacy. -- Resolutions are legal instruments used by international organizations, e.g. the United Nations Organization, the European Union, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, for stating their decisions concerning the formation of future behaviour with regard to the internal administration of an organization and the ordering of relations between independent states. Therefore, as a specimen of formal written discourse in institutional settings, they are characterised by explicit internal organization, conventionalization and stability of form to the detriment of variation. The analysis of the generic structure potential of resolutions is performed on the material of the Resolutions volumes of the Records of the General Conference of UNESCO adopted at the 30th session in 1999, which includes 114 resolutions, and the 32nd session in 2003, which includes 109 resolutions.
[1] Bhatia, V. A. (1993). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman, 1993.

[2] Biber, D. (1994). "An Analytical Framework for Register Studies" Biber D. and Finegan E., eds. Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Register. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1994: 31–56.

[3] Biber, D., S. Johansson et al. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education, 1999.

[4] Chamonikolasová, J. (1987). "Loose Elements in Colloquial English" Brno Studies in English 17 (1987): 97–105.

[5] Dontcheva-Navratilova, O. (2004). "Situational Characteristics of the Discourse of International Governmental Organizations: UNESCO Resolutions and Declarations" Acta Academica Karviniensis 1 (2004): 25–41.

[6] Fowler, R. (1986). Linguistic Criticism. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1986.

[7] Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as Social Semiotic: The social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold, 1978.

[8] Halliday M. A. K. and R. Hasan (1989). Language, Context and Text: Aspects of Language in a Social-semiotic Perspective. 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1989.

[9] Hoey, M. (2001). Textual Interaction: An Introduction to Written Discourse Analysis. London and New York: Routledge, 2001.

[10] Hymes, D. (1975). Foundations in Sociolinguistics. An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: U of Pennsylvania P, 1975.

[11] Kristeva, J. (1969). Sémiotique: Recherches pour une sémanalyse. Paris: Seuil, 1969.

[12] Leech G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London and New York: Longman, 1983.

[13] Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge UP. 1969.

[14] Searle, J. (1975). "A Taxonomy of Illocutionary Acts". In Gunderson K., ed. Language, Mind and Knowledge. Mineapolis: U of Minnesota P, 1975: 344–369.

[15] Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis. English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990.

[16] Urbanová, L. and A. Oakland (2002). Úvod do anglické stylistiky. Brno: Barrister & Principal, 2002.

[17] Records of the General Conference. 30th Session. Paris, 26 0ctober to 17 November 1999. Vol. 1 Resolutions (2000). Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Accessed 2000 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0011/001185/118514e.pdf.

[18] Records of the General Conference. 32nd Session. Paris, 29 September to 17 November 2003. Vol. 1 Resolutions (2004). Paris: United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Accessed 2004 http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001331/133171e.pdf.