Morpho-Syntactic Analysis of Prosecutors’ Resolution
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65339/ijsair.V2.I2.660Keywords:
Justice, Legal Discourse, Legal Linguistics, Morpho-Syntactic Analysis, Prosecutors’ Resolutions, Syntactic Structures, Word FormationAbstract
This study examined the morpho-syntactic features of prosecutors’ resolutions in the Philippines, focusing on how morphological processes and syntactic structures contribute to legal meaning, interpretation, institutional authority, and accessibility. Guided by Lexical Functional Grammar, the study analyzed lexical entries, word forms, inflection, derivation, phrase and clause organization, grammatical functions, and syntactic dependencies. It employed a qualitative documentary-linguistic design using 16 criminal case resolutions from the Supreme Court E-Library, covering filed and dismissed cases from different Philippine regions. The study did not involve human respondents; each resolution served as a unit of analysis. A qualitative coding scheme was used to identify morphological features, syntactic patterns, and comparative differences, with expert review by a linguist and a prosecutor or lawyer to strengthen reliability. The findings showed that inflection, derivation, compounding, affixation, analytic structures, passive voice, tense, aspect, mood, and allomorphy shaped the formal and technical character of the resolutions. Syntactically, coordination, subordination, transposition, predication, and parallelism organized evidence, legal reasoning, procedural sequence, and judgment. Filed cases emphasized legal action, evidentiary strength, and completion, while dismissed cases emphasized insufficiency, procedural limitation, negation, and distance from agency. The study concluded that morpho-syntactic choices are functional tools in constructing precise, authoritative, and procedurally legitimate legal texts. It recommended integrating morpho-syntactic analysis into legal and linguistic education, simplifying or translating resolutions for non-experts, encouraging language-inclusive legal drafting, conducting linguistic audits, and expanding future research to other legal texts. The study supports SDG 16, SDG 4, SDG 9, and SDG 17 by promoting clearer legal communication, legal literacy, digital accessibility, and interdisciplinary collaboration. Its sustainability impact lies in strengthening institutional transparency, educational development, community legal awareness, and governance-oriented communication.
References
Aronoff, M., & Fudeman, K. (2022). What is morphology? (3rd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
Bauer, L. (2017). Compounds and compounding. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235679
Bhatia, V. K. (2014). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Routledge. (Original work published 1993). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844992
Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45(1), 5–35. https://doi.org/10.5054/tq.2011.244483
Booij, G. (2012). The grammar of words: An introduction to linguistic morphology (3rd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Comrie, B. (1989). Language universals and linguistic typology: Syntax and morphology (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315630311
Crystal, D., & Davy, D. (2016). Investigating English style. Routledge. (Original work published 1969). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315538419
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell Publishing.
Gonzalez, A. B. (1998). The language planning situation in the Philippines. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 19(5–6), 487–525. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434639808666365
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar (4th ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203431269
Haspelmath, M., & Sims, A. D. (2010). Understanding morphology (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203776506
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108693974
Katamba, F., & Stonham, J. (2006). Morphology (2nd ed.). Red Globe Press.
Lieber, R. (2016). Introducing morphology (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316156254
Mattila, H. E. S. (2024). Comparative legal linguistics: Language of law, Latin and modern lingua francas (2nd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003578017
Palmer, F. R. (2001). Mood and modality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139167178
Plag, I. (2018). Word-formation in English (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316771402
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory: An introduction to word structure in generative grammar. Blackwell.
Supreme Court of the Philippines. (1997). 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended (Rules 1–71, Rules of Court) (Bar Matter No. 803). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/11/374
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Trosborg, A. (1997). Rhetorical strategies in legal language: Discourse analysis of statutes and contracts. Gunter Narr Verlag.
