Exploring modality in legal discourse: Insights from a systematic literature review

This study undertakes a systematic literature review (SLR) of modality in legal discourse, drawing on English-language publications indexed in the Scopus database. The search and screening procedures adhered to the PRISMA guidelines, yielding 30 full-text articles that directly examine modality in legal contexts for inclusion in the review. The study further employs the Theory – Context – Characteristics – Methodology (TCCM) framework and Thematic analysis to organize and evaluate the literature, map prevailing research patterns, and outline directions for future inquiry. The analysis reveals three dominant strands: (i) corpus-based approaches that identify and describe modal features in legal discourse; (ii) comparative and contrastive approaches across texts and across two or more languages that delineate differences in modal choices and functions; and (iii) studies that conceptualize modality as an analytical lens for interpreting social issues reflected in, or shaped by, legal processes and texts. Regarding theoretical foundations, Traditional Grammar and Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) emerge as two influential frameworks for linguistic analysis in legal settings. On this basis, the study argues that cross-linguistic contrastive research on modality in legal contexts is likely to remain a productive and theoretically meaningful avenue, while also underscoring the need for further work to address persisting gaps in the literature.