Analysis of the Use of Metadiscourse Markers in the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s Panama Case Verdict

Abstract

The current paper aims at analyzing metadiscourse markers in the Supreme Court of Pakistan’s verdict related to the Panama Case. The metadiscourse markers, the components of the language which structure the text and address the readers are essential in legal texts for improving comprehensibility, reasoning and convincing. From the Panama Case verdict analysis, this research seeks to find the types of markers of metadiscourse used by the judges and the goals of using such markers. Using Hyland’s (2005) theoretical framework of metadiscourse, the study divides the markers into interactive and interactional means and thus sheds light on how these markers enable the structuring of legal arguments and impact the legal thinking of the judiciary. The results suggest that metadiscourse markers are employed consciously to lead the readers through the legal proofs and analyses, control the amount of information released once, and build a relationship with the reader. This research provides practical recommendations for lawyers and academicians specializing in Legal Linguistics and the Rhetoric of Judicial Writing.