Forensic-linguistic Analysis of Grammatical Modality Features in Kenya Supreme Court judgements

Abstract

Many studies on grammatical modality have focused on media and political discourse. Studies on modality features as used in legal discourse are limited. This study undertook a Forensic-linguistic analysis of Kenya Supreme Court judgements with a view to explore the grammatical modality features used. Guided by Systemic Functional Linguistics, different aspects of modality were investigated. These include deontic modality, dynamic modality and epistemic modality. The study established that the deontic modal categories are used in the Supreme Court judgements to articulate the prescriptive nature of legal discourse. Modal verbs such as ‘shall’, ‘must’, ‘should’, ‘ought to’, ‘need to’, ‘have to’ and ‘had better’ are used in the judgements to articulate obligation, permission, and authority related to various legal expectations. Secondly, dynamic modal features (can, could, would, shall, will) are used in the Supreme Court judgements to signify ability, volition, intention and willingness. On the other hand, the epistemic modal categories (must, could, may, might) are used to articulate the speakers’ confidence or lack of confidence concerning different propositions related to the legal process. Evidently, the judges and lawyers use high modality features to assert legal authority while median and low modality features are used to describe different legal aspects. From the study, it is clear that legal discourse is both prescriptive and descriptive. The participants in the legal process should therefore use appropriate modality features to express the intended meanings and legal functions