Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Pragmatics
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/pragma

A matrix of legislative speech acts for Chinese and British statutes

Ni Shifenga,b,*, Sin King Kuia,1
a
Department of Chinese, Translation & Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China
b
Max-Planck-Institut für europäische Rechtsgeschichte, Germany

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: By conducting a synchronic comparison between Chinese and British statutes and a
Received 19 February 2009 diachronic comparison between the original and current versions of Chinese statutes on
Received in revised form 27 April 2010 intellectual property rights, this paper presents a matrix of legislative speech acts in
Accepted 10 July 2010
Chinese and British statutes. The results show that legislative speech acts in Chinese
statutes are made at two levels: (1) performatives carrying legislative force; and (2)
Keywords:
legislative sentences containing modals. Modals far outnumber performatives in
Legislative speech acts
Chinese statutes materialization of legislative speech acts, which is believed to be the socio-pragmatic
British statutes characteristics of the legislative discourse. This coincides with British statutes. There are
discrepancies among the three in terms of materialization and occurring frequencies,
which are suggested to be rooted in the cultural traditions and social development stage of
a particular country. Theoretically, when transplanting law, it is necessary to take
language and its materialization into consideration in legislation and revision of existing
legislation.
ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Background

Drawing on speech act theory (Austin, 1976; Searl, 1969), Habermas (1998) categorized speech acts in legal discourse into
the following: (1) constative speech acts; (2) regulative speech acts; and (3) expressive speech acts. In the context of legal
settings, Cao (2007) classified legal speech acts into the following: (1) legislative speech acts; (2) judicial speech acts; and (3)
other legal utterances. Legislative speech acts operate in statutory laws. The significance of legislative speech acts in
producing and establishing legislative force has long been recognised (Cao, 1999; Kurzon, 1986; Trosborg, 1995; Yang, 2007;
Zhang, 2000). Illocutionary acts that produce legal facts are referred to as legal speech acts (Cao, 2007:71). Such illocutionary
acts can be broken down into permission, rights, obligation and prohibition. Kurzon (1986) wrote a wide-ranging
dissertation on legal speech acts. In his argument, performatives are not uniquely capable of exerting illocutionary forces;
legislative sentences containing modals and even the statutes as a whole can also function as speech acts. With the intent to
regulate human relations, performatives function as directives. In the context of degrees of imposition, there are speaker-
based and hearer-oriented directives (Leech, 1983). Hearer-oriented directives concern the ability or willingness of the
addressee to perform a certain action, whereas speaker-based directives express the addresser’s desires and needs. Further,
legislative sentences that contain finite modal verbs in the main clause, such as may or shall, also act as legislative speech
acts. Such sentences contains speech acts with illocutionary forces, such as permission (may), obligation (shall) or prohibition

* Corresponding author at: Department of Chinese, Translation & Linguistics, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong, China.
Tel.: +49 69 78978177.
E-mail addresses: shifengni2@student.cityu.edu.hk (S. Ni), kingkuisin@gmail.com (K.K. Sin).
1
Tel.: +852 27788770.

0378-2166/$ – see front matter ß 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2010.07.012
376 S. Ni, K.K. Sin / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384

(shall not). There are two types of strategies, namely, indirect and direct strategy, available in the choice of modals to carry
legal force in legislative discourse (Trosborg, 1995). Using a direct strategy, sentences use modal verbs to establish legal
power in an explicit and direct manner. They are expressed ‘‘on record’’ (Brown and Levinson, 1987) and thus impose a high
degree of legal force. An indirect strategy involves the integration of face redress techniques into the expressions of legal
force, thereby leading sentences to be phrased ‘‘off record’’. The choice is determined by the socio-pragmatic characteristics
of the legislative discourse. Context is thus suggested to be a vital constituent of any attempt to comprehend an utterance’s
performative strength, and the performance of legal speech acts depend not on purely linguistic competence but rather on
socio-linguistic, political and legal facts of the world (Cao, 2007).
Legislative speech acts in Chinese statutes attract rare academic scholarships (Cao, 1999, 2009; Zhang, 2000). Legislative
speech acts in Chinese statutes using performative verbs are defined as explicit legislative speech acts, and those using modal
verbs are defined as conventionalised legislative speech acts (Zhang, 2000). Bixu (must) and ying(dang) (shall or should) in
Chinese statutes are supposed to confer compulsory obligation in different degrees, which is traced back to the influence of
the ancient Chinese cultural and legal philosophy of li [TD$INLE] (etiquette) and fa [TD$INLE] (law) (Cao, 1999). The wider cultural and
linguistic contexts shall thus be considered to understand Chinese law, and speech act theory needs to address the
interlingual and intercultural variables in the construction of meaning. Further, upon reviewing legal performative modal
verbs used in legal Chinese in ways equivalent to the English ‘shall’, ‘may’ and ‘may not’ or ‘shall not’ for the illocutionary
forces of setting out obligation, permission, and prohibition, it is argued that there is a universalism in the illocutionary
functions of legal language and the tendency to use performatives in legal texts and to use fossilised words across different
languages (Cao, 2009).
Existing studies concerning legislative speech acts in Chinese statutes most often focus on some particular performatives,
and their theoretical approaches fail to go beyond the legislative language. This empirical study is intended to fill this gap.
Here, legislative speech acts in British statutes and the current and original versions of corresponding Chinese statutes have
been selected, described and contrasted. The aims of the present study are to systematically describe the materialization of
legislative speech acts in Chinese statutes and justify the stand that cultural traditions and social development play a role in
legislative speech acts. The synchronic comparison between legislative speech acts in English and Chinese statutes and the
diachronic comparison between the current and original versions of Chinese statutes constitute a matrix of legislative speech
acts. The coincidences between Chinese and British statutes reveal the characteristics of the materialization of legislative
speech acts in general, and the differences among the three types of statutes are explained through socio-cultural and
economic factors. Apart from Chinese statutes, which have been sparsely touched upon, this study shall also distinguish itself
from earlier studies by systematically describing materialization of legislative speech acts in Chinese statutes and
establishing a matrix among British statutes and the current and original versions of corresponding Chinese statues.
Therefore, in this sense, the present study is a pioneering attempt.

2. Research design

The history of the modern Chinese legal system is a history of legal transplantation (Chen, 2008:1–75). Following the
Revolution of 1911, the Republic of China adopted a largely Western-style legal code in the European civil law tradition,
particularly incorporating a German influence. The foundation of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 witnessed a more
Soviet-influenced system of socialist law. The reform and opening up policy implemented in 1978 ushered in a new era of
transplanting foreign economic law. The handing over of Hong Kong 1997 introduced the English common law tradition.
However, earlier traditions of the Confucian philosophy of social control through moral education and the Legalist emphasis
on codified law and criminal sanction have retained their influence, even to the present. The data used for this study are four
Chinese statutes (approximately 23,000 words in Chinese) and three counterpart British statutes (approximately 163,000
words in English) regarding Intellectual Property Rights (hereafter referred to as ‘‘IPR’’) protection. The reason that statutes
on IPR protection are selected is because they are the most updated and advanced kind of legislation in China while retaining
influence by social and cultural traditions. Statutes on IPR protection in China came with the 1978 reform and opening up
policy, with their roots coming from the West. To keep pace with economic and social development, the statutes have often
been revised to adapt to China’s economic and social situation. For example, Trademark Law was promulgated in March 1983
and successively revised in January 1988, July 1993 and April 1995. It is thus believed that legislative speech acts in statutes
on IPR protection are typical of Chinese statutes and that the selection is justified. In the present study, only the initially
promulgated and latest versions are selected. British statutes are the latest versions in force. Details of the statutes are
accessible at www.lawinfochina.com and www.legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts.htm. The details of the statutes are given in
Tables 1 and 2.
Statutes were subject to computational analysis and manual tagging. By applying Microsoft Word’s global search
function, it is possible to quantify lexical items and phrases indicators which are identified beforehand as possible indicators
of forms of materialization. However, the global search function cannot help to distinguish whether scored indicators act as
legal binding speech acts. Additionally, verbs in the past tense are left out in British statutes. Prior to the final statistic
calculation, manual tagging is performed to rule out all computer-recognised but actually unrealized forms. Based on the
authors’ observations and the outcomes of the previous studies (Cao, 1999, 2007; Kurzon, 1986; Trosborg, 1995; Yang, 2007;
Zhang, 2000), it is proposed that legislative speech acts in Chinese statutes materialize via the following: (1) performatives
 S. Ni, K.K. Sin / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384 377

Table 1
Details of Chinese statutes.

Year (promulgated) Year (latest) Chinese statutesa

Mar 1983 Aug 2002 |[TD$INLE] } (Trademark Law)

Mar 1984 Aug 2000 |[TD$INLE] } (Patent Law)
Sep 1990 Oct 2001 |[TD$INLE] } (Copyright Law)
Sep 1993 Aug 2007 |[TD$INLE] } (Anti-monopoly Law)
a
English titles for Chinese statutes are extracted from CCH available at www.clrsonline.com. The precedent of the Anti-monopoly Law
is named the Anti-unfair Competition Law.

Table 2
Details of British statutes.

Year British statutes

1994 Competition Act

1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Acta
1994 Trade Marks Act
a
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act includes the Copyright, etc. and Trademarks
(Offences and Enforcement) Act of 2002 and the Copyright (Visually Impaired Persons)
Act of 2002.

Table 3
Performatives in Chinese statutes.

Optionsa Rights Obligation

Speaker-based yunxu [TD$INLE] (allow, permit); shouquan [TD$INLE] (grant) buxu [TD$INLE] (must not); jinzhi [TD$INLE] (prohibit)
Hearer-oriented (xiang)you. . .quan(li) [TD$INLE] you/chengdan. . .yiwu; zhuijiu. . .zeren
(have the rights/power to; be entitled to) [TD$INLE]
(shoulder. . .responsibility)
a
The options box in Tables 3–6 refers to the illocutionary forces performed by performatives and sentences containing modals and to the strategy
choices.

Table 4
Performatives in British statutes.

Options Rights Obligation

Speaker-based allow, grant, offer demand; request; prohibit

Hearer-oriented have the rights/power to; be entitled to Not Available

Table 5
Modals in Chinese statutes.

Options Permission Obligation Prohibition

Indirect strategies ke(yi) [TD$INLE] (may) ying(dang) [TD$INLE] (shall) buke [TD$INLE] ; buying [TD$INLE] (shall not)
Direct strategies Not Available bixu [TD$INLE] (must) bude [TD$INLE] (must not)

Table 6
Modals in British statutes.

Options Permission Obligation Prohibition

Indirect strategies can; may shall; should; ought to may not; shall not
Direct strategies Not Available must; have to can not; must not
378 S. Ni, K.K. Sin / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384

with legislative force; and (2) legislative sentences containing modals. Details on performatives and modal verbs in Chinese
and British statutes are listed in Tables 3–6.

3. Results

The occurring frequencies of indicators and the implications of materialization of legislative speech acts in Chinese and
British statutes are presented in this section. Provisions are also extracted from relevant statutes to expound legislative
speech acts.

3.1. Chinese statutes

The comparison between the original and current versions of the Chinese statutes establishes the diachronic comparison
of the legislative speech acts matrix. The occurring frequencies of materialization of legislative speech acts in Chinese
statutes are presented in Appendices 1 and 2 as attached. In Appendix 1, the results show an apparent predominance of
modals (Category B), which amounts to 82.2% in the current Chinese statutes. In contrast, Category A, which represents the
distribution of performatives, only accounts for 17.8% of the total directives. Appendix 2 presents a distribution of indicators
of legislative speech acts in the original versions of Chinese statutes. As with the current versions of Chinese statutes, a
predominance of modals (82.8%) and a relative minority of legislative performatives (17.2%) are found. The percentage
distributions of Category A and Category B in Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 are very similar. Such a coincidence implies that
certain characteristics of this materialization persist regardless of social and economic changes. It is thus proposed that the
predominant employment of modals to realize legislative speech acts is an inherent requirement of the legislative discourse.

3.2. Examples in Chinese statutes

Permission amounts to 43.9% and 44.9% of the total number of observed legislative speech acts (see Appendices 1 and 2)
in the current and original versions of the Chinese statutes. Ke(yi) [TD$INLE] (may) is used almost exclusively among the
permission. The statement of permission may serve to establish the rights of public individuals or legal institutions, as the
following example demonstrates:

(1) [TD$INLE] Business

operators may expand the scale of operation and improve the capacity for market competition through
fair competition, voluntary union and concentration in accordance with the law.2 (Anti-monopoly Law 2007,
Article 5)

Ke(yi) [TD$INLE] is sometimes associated with rights-conferring performatives to entitle the addressee with discretion
regarding the rights:

(2) [TD$INLE]
[TD$INLE] Copyright owners and owners of neighbouring rights may authorise an organisation for
the collective administration of copyright to exercise copyright or neighbouring rights. (Copyright Law 2001,
Article 8)

Such a combination often concurs with multiple conditionals. Legislative speech acts performed by keyi adopt an indirect
strategy and are hearer-oriented. In contrast, speaker-based permission-granting directives only account for 3.3% and 0.9% of
the total number of observed legislative speech acts (Appendices 1 and 2). Explicit performatives, like shouquan [TD$INLE] and
yunxu [TD$INLE] , are rarely employed to indicate permission.
Obligation is used to order addressees to perform certain acts, denoting the mandatory and compulsory weight of the
relevant provisions. The modal ying(dang) [TD$INLE] [TD$INLE] (shall or should) typically expresses obligation in legislative discourse, which
accounts for 33.4% (out of 37.3%) and 29.4% (out of 36.5%) of the total number of observed legislative speech acts (Appendices
1 and 2) in the current and original versions of Chinese statutes. Yingdang [TD$INLE] and its short form ying [TD$INLE] are functionally
equivalent to the English modal shall. As the following examples show, it denotes a sense of command and compulsory
obligation and not a matter of choice or discretion:

(3) [TD$INLE]
[TD$INLE] The Patent Administration Authority of the State Council shall, in a timely manner, notify the
patentee of its decision to grant a compulsory licence for exploitation, and register and announce the grant
of the licence. (Patent Law 2000, Article 52)

2
English translations of Chinese statutes provisions are extracted from CCH available at www.clrsonline.com.
 S. Ni, K.K. Sin / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384 379

Bixu [TD$INLE] (must) and performatives, such as you/chengdan . . .yiwu(zeren) [TD$INLE] [TD$INLE] (shoulder liability or
responsibility), are rarely observed as illocutionary force indicators of obligation. Moreover, their occurrences are always
accompanied by multiple conditionals or attached to hearer-oriented modals to smooth the production of legal forces. For
instance,

(4) [TD$INLE]
[TD$INLE] In the case of goods that the State stipulates must use registered trademarks, trademark registration must be
applied for. If trademark registration for such goods has not been approved, they may not be sold on the market.
(Trademark Law 2002, Article 6)

Defining and conferring rights is a commitment of law. The explicit conferring of rights is exclusively materialized using
performatives, such as you/xiangyou . . .quan(li) [TD$INLE] (have or enjoy the rights or power). These performatives
are hearer-oriented in nature. Rights are the sacred entitlement of citizens. The subjects of these performatives are usually
expressed explicitly. As to occurring frequencies, xiangyou. . .quan(li) prevails over you. . .quan(li) in Chinese statutes. The
following is an example of this phenomenon:

(5) [TD$INLE] Trademarks

approved for registration by the Trademark Office are registered trademarks. Trademark registrants shall have
the exclusive rights to use a trademark and shall receive legal protection. (Trademark Law 2002, Article 3)

Legislative speech acts granting rights and conferring permission share common ground in their function of assigning
benefits. Both are for the benefit of addressees and confer privileges. However, these articulations of rights are absolutely
hearer-oriented in nature. Legislative speech acts granting permission, on other hand, are still oriented to the addresser.
Yingdang [TD$INLE] is loaded heavily with moral persuasions (Cao, 1999) and thus falls into the hearer-oriented category. The
occurring frequencies of permission (43.9% and 44.9% in the current and original versions of Chinese statutes, respectively)
far outnumber those of rights-conferring statements (6.8% and 9.3%), which could be explained by the desire of the authority
to remain authoritative over the public. Permission and rights are both counted as rights-conferring statements in the
legislative speech act matrix.
Apart from obligation, the regulation of behaviour can also take place through the issuance of prohibition. To regulate by
means of prohibition, bude [TD$INLE] (must not) is used most frequently (7.5% out of 11.7% and 7.2% out of 9.3% in the current and
original version of Chinese statutes, respectively). Jinzhi [TD$INLE] (prohibit) and buxu [TD$INLE] (not allowed) also occasionally occur.
The subject of prohibition is without exception expressed implicitly, as in following examples:

(6) [TD$INLE] If trademark registration for such goods has not been approved, they
may not be sold on the market. (Trademark Law 2002, Article 6)

(7) [TD$INLE] Works that may not be published or disseminated under

law shall not be protected under this Law. (Copyright Law 2001, Article 4)

Both obligation and prohibition are issued to regulate the behaviour of either institutions or individuals. They are both
counted as obligation in the legislative speech act matrix.

3.3. British statutes

The legislative speech acts materialized in British statutes are analysed and compared with those of the current versions
of Chinese statutes, which act as the synchronic axle of the matrix. The occurring frequencies of materialization of legislative
speech acts in British statutes are presented in the attached Appendix 3. As in Appendices 1 and 2, Appendix 3 demonstrates
a salient predominance of modals (72.9%) compared with performatives (27.1%). The distribution echoes with Chinese
statutes, which proves that the legislative discourse carries certain linguistic features to realize its pragmatic ends.
Compared with Chinese statutes (82.2% and 82.8%, 17.8% and 17.2% in original and current versions, respectively), the British
statutes demonstrate differences in this regard. A detailed comparison is conducted in section 4.

3.4. Examples in British statutes

May is used almost exclusively to issue permission in British statutes, which amount to 32.5% (out of 38.7%) as in
Appendix 3. May is used to establish the rights of legal institutions (non-human subjects) and is always attached with
conditionals, such as ‘‘an approved body’’ in the following article.
380 S. Ni, K.K. Sin / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384

(8) An approved body may lend or transfer the intermediate copy to another approved body which is entitled
to make accessible copies of the work or published edition under section 31B. (Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988, Article 39)

In legislation, the conferring of a relevant right, privilege or power in the position of the subject is frequently expressed in
the form of passive structures. ‘‘The power’’ in the following example is such a case:

(9) The power under subsection (3) to provide for an additional exclusion may be exercised only if it appears to the
Secretary of State that agreements which fall within the additional exclusion. (Competition Act 1998, Article 3)

To express obligation in British statutes, shall is used most frequently (18.6% out of 34.82%). Shall is used to express the
illocutionary force of an order. To explicitly express the legal effects, shall is used in British statutes with an explicit subject,
whether it is a legal institution or a citizen:

(10) Where there is more than one person interested in a copy or other article, the court shall make such order as it
thinks just and may (in particular) direct that the article be sold, or otherwise dealt with, and the proceeds
divided. (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Article 114)

Moreover, shall is also frequently associated with negatives, such as nothing in the following examples, to strengthen the
negative legal force.

(11) Nothing in subsection (3) shall be construed as applying to an article which may lawfully be imported into the
United Kingdom by virtue of any enforceable Community rights within the meaning of section 2(1) of the
European Communities Act 1972. (Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, Article 20)

The quasi-modal be to is also observed in British statutes to express obligation. It is most frequently employed with
inanimate subjects, as in the word ‘‘payments’’ in the following article.

(12) Payments are to be made at not less than quarterly intervals in arrears. (Copyright, Designs and Patents
Act 1988, Article 134)

Must is also observed to indicate obligation. Must denotes the mandatory and compulsory weight of the relevant
provisions. To de-emphasise antagonism between addressers and addressees, it is usually used in the form of passive
structures and with inanimate subjects.

(13) Before anything is seized under this section, notice of the time and place of the proposed seizure must be given
to a local police station. (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Article 100)

As Trosborg (1995) argued, should and ought to are loaded with heavy moral duty rather than legal obligation. They are
rarely observed in British statutes. Ought to only occurs two times and should occurs 47 times in the three British statutes.
Therefore, we categorize the legislative speech acts realized by them as hearer-oriented acts.
Rights are fulfilled by explicit performatives in British statutes. They are almost equally achieved by have the rights/power,
be entitled to and confer, which account for 3%, 3% and 4.5% of the total, respectively. To strengthen legitimacy, modals are
sometimes adopted to concur with rights-conferring performatives:

(14) The High Court (in Scotland, the Court of Session) shall have power to grant an injunction against a service
provider, where that service provider has actual knowledge of another person using their service to infringe
copyright. (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Article 64)

In most cases, confer is used in the perfect tense to indicate the condition of rights or powers, as in the following example:

(15) Any infringement after a person’s death of the rights conferred by section 84 (false attribution) is actionable by
his personal representatives. (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Article 95)

In British statutes, prohibition is indicated in most cases by prohibit and the negative form of shall. Without exception,
they are presented in passive forms and with non-human subjects, as in the following two examples, which relate to the
importation of goods and to remuneration with respect to copyright, respectively.

(16) When a notice is in force under this section, the importation of the goods to which the notice relates,
otherwise than by a person for his private and domestic use, is prohibited. (Trade Marks 1994, Article 89)

(17) Remuneration shall not be considered inequitable merely because it was paid by way of a single payment or at
the time of the transfer of the rental rights. (Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Article 85)
 S. Ni, K.K. Sin / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384 381

Fig. 1. Speaker-based or hearer-oriented. Note: Rights-H denotes rights-conferring directives that are hearer-oriented, whereas Rights-S denotes rights-
conferring directives that are speaker-based. The same goes with Obligation-H and Obligation-S. O, C and E denote the original versions and current versions
of Chinese statutes and to British statutes, respectively.

Fig. 2. Indirect strategy or direct strategy. Note: Obligation-I denotes the obligation imposing employing indirect strategy directives, whereas Obligation-D
denotes the obligation imposing employing direct strategy directives. The same goes with Prohibition-I and Prohibition-D distributions. O, C and E denote
the original and current versions of the Chinese statutes and to the British statutes, respectively.

3.5. A legislative speech acts matrix

At the beginning, it is suggested that performatives are either speaker-based or hearer-oriented. There are two types of
strategies, namely, the indirect and direct strategies, available in the choice of modals to establish legal force in legislative
discourse. In addition, there are four major illocutionary forces in legislative discourse. Upon comparison and contrast of
such choices, we establish a matrix of legislative speech acts among British statutes and the current and original versions of
Chinese statutes.
With regard to the selection of the indirect and direct strategies, the British statutes and the current and original versions
of the Chinese statutes go in opposite directions.
Fig. 1 demonstrates choices between speaker-based or hearer-oriented performatives among the three kinds of statutes.
The tendency exhibited in the above figure is apparent. It either increases or decreases from the original versions, the
current versions of Chinese statutes to British statutes. Compared with the original versions, the current Chinese statutes
come closer to the British statutes in terms of the frequency of hearer-oriented and speaker-based approaches to confer
rights or impose obligation. The current versions of the Chinese statutes employ more hearer-oriented performatives to
establish rights and adopt more speaker-based performatives to produce obligation than the original versions do. The
Chinese statutes are different from the British statutes in general. Overall, the Chinese statutes are more inclined to employ
hearer-oriented performatives. The British statutes use more speaker-based performatives to convey obligation. Although
economic and social development initiated the successive revisions of Chinese statutes, these still essentially remain the
same.
Fig. 2 demonstrates choices between indirect and direct strategy among the three kinds of statutes.
The current versions of the Chinese statutes use more indirect strategies in imposing obligation, whereas British statutes
employ more direct strategies to impose obligation. When issuing prohibition, Chinese statutes are more likely to use direct
strategies, whereas British statutes use more indirect strategies. Between the Chinese statutes, the current versions of the
Chinese statutes employ more indirect modal verbs, whereas the original Chinese statutes adopt more direct ones in expressing
obligation. In a nutshell, the current versions of Chinese statutes are closer to the British statutes than the original versions.
Fig. 3 demonstrates distribution among four illocutionary forces among three kinds of statutes.
The above figure shows that Chinese and British statutes almost arrive at the same level in terms of the distribution of the
four types of illocutionary forces, namely, permission, rights, obligation and prohibition. Permission accounts for about 44%,
rights about 9%, obligation about 36% and prohibition about 11%. Furthermore, British statutes and the original and current

Fig. 3. Distribution of illocutionary forces.

382 S. Ni, K.K. Sin / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384

versions of Chinese statutes also use similar performatives or modals to express these permission, rights, obligation and
prohibition. A predominance of may and ke(yi), have power to and xiangyou. . .quanli, shall and ying(dang) and shall not and
bude is used to issue permission, rights, obligation and prohibition, respectively.

4. Discussions

The results of the present study show that the distribution of the four illocutionary forces and materialization of
legislative speech acts in Chinese statutes are very similar to those in British statutes. In three kinds of statutes, modals far
outnumber performatives in terms of frequency. Additionally, both Chinese and British statutes are inclined to use direct
performatives and speaker-based modals. These findings confirm and substantiate arguments made by earlier studies (Cao,
2009; Kurzon, 1986; Trosborg, 1995) that there is a universalism in legislative speech acts and a tendency to use direct
performatives and speaker-based modals in statutes to signal degrees of power distance and directness. This universalism
can be attributed to the pragmatic characteristics of legislative discourse, which are beyond social and cultural constraints in
terms of the uses of direct performatives and speaker-based modals. Laws are enacted to regulate human relations. To
efficiently accomplish this mission, legislative discourse employs a set of legislative speech acts to construct legal force. The
legislator is in a position of authority over the addressee; this factor is a decisive one in the distribution of power imposition
and the selection of materialization of legislative speech acts. On the other hand, legislative discourse does resort to hearer-
oriented modals and indirect performatives to address directness and imposition. In this area lie the different manners in
which the three kinds of statutes operate.
The current versions of Chinese statutes employ more hearer-oriented performatives to establish rights and adopt more
speaker-based performatives to produce obligation than the original versions do. Chinese statutes are more inclined to
employ hearer-oriented performatives, whereas British statutes use more speaker-based performatives to convey
obligation. The current versions of Chinese statutes use more indirect strategies in imposing obligation. British statutes
employ more direct strategies to impose obligation. When issuing prohibition, Chinese statutes are more likely to use direct
strategies, whereas British statutes use more indirect strategies. Between Chinese statutes, the current Chinese statutes
employ more indirect modal verbs in expressing obligation, whereas the original Chinese statutes adopt more direct modal
verbs in doing so. Compared with the original Chinese statutes, the current Chinese statutes are generally more similar to
British statutes. These differences may be traced back to the differences in cultural traditions and social development
between the two countries. Major efforts in the translation of Western law from 1839 to the 1920s prepared the building
blocks for modern Chinese legal language and Chinese law (Chen, 2008:36–50). Despite the Western influences carried with
translation, Chinese legal language is still imbedded with Chinese legal philosophical traditions. Chinese legislative language
is a carrier of legal messages with built-in Chinese cultural codes (Cao, 1999). A predominance of hearer-oriented and
indirect performatives creates a configuration of legal command in the form of moral advice. Such an interpretation
conforms to the moral teaching and reshaping motives of the higher authority of government or legislature in guiding as well
as regulating the ordinary people in proper conduct in the Confucian tradition, as suggested by Cao (1999). It signifies a kind
of harmonious coexistence the Chinese authority wishes to establish with its people. Language changes with social
development. This is particularly true of legislative language. To fulfil their end of serving as the regulator and mediator of a
society, legislations conform to the economic and social development status of a particular society (Sakumoto et al., 2003).
Law has become an important part of international trade and foreign investment in current Chinese society. Chinese statutes
have been going through tremendous amendments and revisions over the last 20 years under the influx of foreign legal
concepts and practices. There is no denying that Chinese legislation borrowed heavily from the West at its initial stage. It is
still under heavy influence of foreign legal traditions, especially after the handing over of Hong Kong in 1997 and China’s
entry into the World Trade Organization in 2006. This explains the apparent closeness between the current Chinese statutes
and British statutes, as exhibited in Figs. 1 and 2. Of course, there is always a two-way influence. In accepting legal influence
from abroad, the Chinese legal system is also making its mark on foreign legal systems. Apart from socio-economic factors,
language and its accessibility also represent a major factor that influences the success and implementation of legal
transplants (Watson, 2001:34), which has been largely neglected. The results of the present study support the argument that
it is essential to take language and its materialization into serious consideration when transplanting law.

5. Conclusion

A matrix of legislative speech acts is established to explore materialization of legislative speech acts in Chinese statutes
and compare them with those in British statutes. As in British statutes, a predominance of modals, such as ke(yi) (may),
xiangyou. . .quanli (have power to), ying(dang) (shall) and bude (shall not), in Chinese statutes is used to issue permission,
rights, obligation and prohibition, respectively. Additionally, both Chinese and British statutes are inclined to use direct
performatives and speaker-based modals. Differences are also apparent. Chinese statutes adopt more hearer-oriented and
indirect strategies in their legislative speech acts than British statutes do. Compared with the original versions of Chinese
statutes, current versions are becoming more similar to the British statutes in terms of materialization of legislative speech
acts. Such universalism among the three types of statutes could be attributed to the pragmatic characteristics of legislative
discourse, which is beyond social and cultural constraints. Differences between among the three lie in differences in cultural
traditions and social development. Law has long been held in honour in Western society, whereas Chinese society is more
 S. Ni, K.K. Sin / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384 383

inclined to accept moral persuasion and teaching. During the last 20 years, China has witnessed great social and economic
development. This accounts for the differences between the original and current versions of the Chinese statutes.

Appendix 1. Distribution percentage in the current version of the Chinese statutes

Performatives A P C T Total Percentage

Cagtegory A
Permission
Yunxu 0 3 0 1 6 1.0%
Shouquan 9 0 4 0 13 2.3%
Rights
(Fu)You. . .quan (li) 2 1 7 0 10 1.8%
Xiangyou. . .quan (li) 0 3 25 0 28 5.0%
Obligation
(Fu)You. . .yiwu 1 2 0 0 3 0.5%
Chengdan. . .yiwu 2 2 4 0 8 1.4%
Zhuijiu. . .yiwu 2 3 1 1 7 1.3%
Prohibition
Wuquan 0 2 0 2 4 0.7%
Buxu 0 0 4 0 4 0.7%
Jinzhi 10 0 3 3 16 2.8%
Total 17.8%

Category B
Permission
Ke (yi) 28 70 89 30 227 40.6%
Obligation
Ying (dang) 32 46 35 74 187 33.4%
Bixu 0 1 0 3 4 0.7%
Prohibition
Bude 13 9 14 3 42 7.0%
Buying 0 1 1 1 3 0.5%
Total 82.2%

Total 559 100%

Note: A, P, C and T denote Anti-monopoly Law 2007, Patent Law 2000, Copyright Law 2001 and Trademarks Law 2002, respectively.

Appendix 2. Distribution percentage in the original versions of the Chinese statutes

Performatives A P C T Total Percentage

Category 1
Permission
Yunxu 2 0 0 0 2 0.6%
Shouquan 0 0 1 0 1 0.3%
Rights
(Fu)You. . .quan (li) 0 0 6 1 7 1.8%
Xiangyou. . .quan (li) 0 0 26 1 27 7.5%
Obligation
(Fu)You. . .yiwu 0 2 0 0 2 0.6%
Chengdan. . .yiwu 1 0 6 0 7 1.8%
Zhuijiu. . .yiwu 4 3 1 1 9 2.5%
Prohibition
Wuquan 0 2 0 0 2 0.6%
Buxu 0 0 4 0 4 1.2%
Jinzhi 0 0 1 0 1 0.3%
Total 17.2%

Category 2
Permission
Ke (yi) 19 48 67 25 159 44.0%
Obligation
Ying (dang) 17 36 30 23 106 29.4%
Bi (xu) 2 4 0 2 8 2.2%
Prohibition
Bude 15 6 0 3 26 6.6%
Buying 1 0 1 0 2 0.6%
Total 82.8%

Total 361 100%

Note: A P, C and T denote Anti-unfair Competition Law 1993, Patent Law 1984, Copyright Law 1983 and Trademarks Law 1990, respectively.
384 S. Ni, K.K. Sin / Journal of Pragmatics 43 (2011) 375–384

Appendix 3. Distribution percentage in the British statutes

Performatives C1 C2 T Total Percentage

Category A
Permission
Allow 8 8 2 18 0.6%
Grant 87 29 28 144 4.5%
Offer 29 0 3 32 1.0%
Rights
Have the rights/power 29 48 20 97 3.0%
Confer 106 22 13 141 4.4%
Be entitled to 54 10 35 99 3.0%
Obligation
Demand 2 0 0 2 0.06%
Request 5 12 3 20 0.6%
Prohibition
Prohibit 39 195 10 244 7.5%
Total 27.1%

Category B
Permission
Can 2 2 0 4 0.1%
May 435 369 246 1050 32.5%
Obligation
Shall 381 20 201 602 18.6%
Should 27 11 9 47 1.4%
Ought to 1 0 1 2 0.06%
Must 18 128 15 161 6.8%
Have to 0 1 2 3 0.08%
Be to 57 182 31 270 8.3%
Prohibition
Can not 16 19 0 35 1.0%
Shall not 60 5 55 120 3.7%
Must not 5 9 0 14 0.4%
Total 72.9%

Total 3228 100%

Note: C1, C2 and T denote Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, Competition Act 1998 and Trade Marks Act 1994, respectively.

References

Austin, John L., 1976. How to Do Things with Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Brown, P., Levinson, S.C., 1987. Politeness, Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cao, D., 1999. ‘‘Ought to’’ as a Chinese legal performative? International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 12, 153–169.
Cao, D., 2007. Legal speech acts as intersubjective communicative action. In: Wagner, A., et al. (Eds.), Interpretation, Law and the Construction of Meaning.
Springer Netherlands, Netherlands, pp. 65–82.
Cao, D., 2009. Illocutionary acts of Chinese legislative language. Journal of Pragmatics 41, 1329–1340.
Chen, J.F., 2008. Chinese Law: Context and Transformation. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden & Boston.
Habermas, J., 1998. On the Pragmatics of Communication. MIT Press, Cambridge.
Kurzon, D., 1986. It Is Hereby Performed . . . Explorations in Legal Speech Act. John Benjamins Publishing Company, Amsterdam.
Leech, G.N., 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. Longman Group Limited, London.
Sakumoto, N., et al. (Eds.), 2003. Law, Development and Socio-economic Changes in Asia. Institute of Developing Economics, Japan.
Searl, J.R., 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge University Press, London.
Trosborg, A., 1995. Statutes and contracts: an analysis of legal speech acts in the English language of the law. Journal of Pragmatics 23, 31–53.
Watson, A., 2001. Society and Legal Change. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Yang, M., 2007. A Functional Approach to the Power of Legal Discourses. People’s University of China Press, Beijing.
Zhang, X.H., 2000. An analysis of the speech acts in Chinese legislative discourses. Modern Foreign Languages 23 (3), 283–295.

Mr. Ni Shifeng is a full-time PhD candidate in the Department of Chinese, Translation & Linguistics at City University of Hong Kong. His research interests are legal
translation, language and law.

Dr. Sin King Kui is an associate professor in the Department of Chinese, Translation & Linguistics at City University of Hong Kong. His research interests are legal
translation, language and law.