Pokaż uproszczony rekord

Frequent Phraseology as Pointers to Evaluation in Judicial Opinions: A Corpus-Driven Comparative Perspective

dc.contributor.authorGoźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-15T13:13:32Z
dc.date.available2025-01-15T13:13:32Z
dc.date.issued2024-12-31
dc.identifier.issn1731-7533
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/11089/54218
dc.description.abstractUsing Sketch Engine to explore two sets of data, a corpus of US Supreme Court opinions and a corpus of opinions from Poland’s Trybunał Konstytucyjny (in literal translation: Constitutional Tribunal), this paper explores the use of evaluative language in the context of judicial justification. Adopting a corpus-driven approach, the analysis has shown that a number of 3-4-grams are found in co-occurrence patterns with value-laden lexis in both the SCOTUS and the Constitutional Tribunal justifications. In semantic terms, these expressions have been found to serve as pointers to evaluation and as clues to the textual segments where argumentation unfolds. The scrutiny of the relevant co-texts has revealed that these phrases tend to be utilized as building blocks of judicial discourse to help frame interpretive and argumentative concerns.en
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherWydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiegopl
dc.relation.ispartofseriesResearch in Language;2en
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
dc.subjectevaluationen
dc.subjectevaluative languageen
dc.subjectjustificationen
dc.subjectjudicial opinionen
dc.titleFrequent Phraseology as Pointers to Evaluation in Judicial Opinions: A Corpus-Driven Comparative Perspectiveen
dc.typeArticle
dc.page.number120-141
dc.contributor.authorAffiliationUniversity of Łódźen
dc.referencesAlba-Juez, Laura and Thompson, Geoff. 2014. The many faces of evaluation. In G. Thompson & L. Alba-Juez (eds.), Evaluation in context, 3–23. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.01alben
dc.referencesBednarek, Monika. 2009. Emotion talk and emotional talk: Cognitive and discursive perspectives. Pragmatics and Cognition 17(1), 146–176. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.05beden
dc.referencesBiber, Douglas, Johansson, Stieg, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman.en
dc.referencesCondello, Angela. 2020. New Rhetorics for Contemporary Legal Discourse. Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474450584en
dc.referencesConrad, Susan and Biber, Douglas. 2000. Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing. In G. Thompson and S. Hunston. (Eds.). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 56–73. Oxford UP. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0004en
dc.referencesEnglebretson, Robert (ed.). 2007. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164en
dc.referencesFeteris, Eveline T. 2017. Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the Justification of Judicial Decisions. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4_6en
dc.referencesFinegan, Edward.2010. Corpus linguistics approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. In M. Coulthard and A. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 65–77. Routledge.en
dc.referencesGoźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2024. Language and Legal Judgments. Evaluation and Argument in Judicial Discourse. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003333302en
dc.referencesGoźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2022. Evaluative language in legal professional practice: the case of justification of judicial decisions. In B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and M. Trojszczak (eds.) Language use, education, and professional contexts, 3-20. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96095-7_1en
dc.referencesGoźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2021. Hostility to religion or protection against discrimination? Evaluation and argument in a case of conflicting principles. In J. Giltrow, F. Olsen and D. Mancini (eds.), Legal Meanings: The Making and Use of Meaning in Legal Reasoning, 57-75. De Gruyter Mouton. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110720969-004en
dc.referencesGoźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2020. Move analysis of legal justifications in Constitutional Tribunal judgments in Poland: What they share and what they do not. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 33(3), 581–600. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09700-1en
dc.referencesGoźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2018. Facts in law: a comparative study of fact that and its phraseologies in American and Polish judicial discourse. In S. Goźdź-Roszkowski and G. Pontrandolfo (eds.), Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective, 143-159. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315445724-9en
dc.referencesGoźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2011. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-Based Study. Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-00659-9en
dc.referencesGoźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław and Hunston, Susan. 2016. “Corpora and beyond – investigating evaluation in discourse: introduction to the special issue on corpus approaches to evaluation.” Corpora. 11(2), 131-141. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2016.0089en
dc.referencesGoźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław and Pontrandolfo, Gianluca. 2015. Legal phraseology today: corpus-based applications across legal languages and genres. Fachsprache 37 (3-4), 130-138. https://doi.org/10.24989/fs.v37i3-4.1287en
dc.referencesHafner, Christoph. 2014. Stance in a professional legal genre: The barrister’s opinion. In R. Breeze, M. Gotti & S. Guinda Carmen (eds.), Interpersonality in Legal Genres, 137–160. Peter Lang.en
dc.referencesHeffer, Chris. 2007. Judgement in Court: Evaluating participants in courtroom discourse. In K. Kredens and S. Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds.), Language and the law: International outlooks, 145–179. Peter Lang.en
dc.referencesHunston, Susan, 2007, Using a corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. In R. Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 27–48. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.03hunen
dc.referencesHunston, Susan and Sinclair, John. 2000. A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 74–101, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0005en
dc.referencesKrólikowski, Jakub. 2015. Uzasadnienia orzeczeń Trybunału Konstytucyjnego [Justifications of Constitutional Tribunal Decisions]. In: I. Rzucidło-Grochowska & M. Grochowski (eds.), Uzasadnienia decyzji stosowania prawa [Justification in judicial decision-making process], 427–439. Warsaw.en
dc.referencesMacCormick. Neil.1978. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford University Press.en
dc.referencesMartin, James and White, Peter. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave.en
dc.referencesMazzi, Davide. 2010. “This argument fails for two reasons...”: A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in US Supreme Court judgements’. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23(4), 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0en
dc.referencesMcKeown, James. 2022. Stancetaking in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence (1973-present): Epistemic (im)probability and evidential (dis)belief. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(2), 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2075en
dc.referencesPartington, Alan., Duguid, Alison and Charlotte Taylor. 2013. Patterns and Meanings in Discourse. Theory and Practice in Corpus-assisted Discourse Studies (CADS). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.55en
dc.referencesPérez, Maria. J. 2022. A corpus-based comparative analysis of the evaluative lexicon found in judicial decisions on immigration. In S. Goźdź-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (eds.), Law, language and the courtroom: Legal linguistics and the discourse of judges,126–143. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003153771-11en
dc.referencesPontrandolfo, Gianluca and Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2014. Exploring the local grammar of evaluation: The case of adjectival patterns in American and Italian judicial discourse. Research in Language 12(1), 71–91.https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2014-0014en
dc.referencesPounds, Gabrina. 2013. Genre- and culture-specific aspects of evaluation: Insights from the contrastive analysis of English and Italian online property advertising. In M. Taboada, S.D. Suarez, E.G. Alvarez (eds.) Contrastive Discourse Analysis. Functional and Corpus Perspectives, 240-261. Equinox.en
dc.referencesRay, L. Krugman, 2002. Judicial Personality: Rhetoric and Emotion in Supreme Court Opinions, 59 Washington and Lee Law Review 59(1/6), 193-234.en
dc.referencesRomano, Michael, Curry, Todd. 2020. Creating the Law. State Supreme Court Opinions and the Effect of Audiences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429461828en
dc.referencesSegal, Jeffrey. A. and Spaeth, Harold. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model revisited. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615696en
dc.referencesSinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Pressen
dc.referencesSzczyrbak, Magdalena. 2022. Evidentiality in US Supreme Court opinions: Focus on passive structures with say and tell. In S. Goźdź-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (eds.) Law, language and the courtroom:Legal linguistics and the discourse of judges, 26–38, Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003153771-3en
dc.referencesThompson, Geoff and Hunston, Susan. 2000. Evaluation: An introduction. In: S. Hunston and G. Thompson (eds.), Evaluation in text:. Authorial stance and the construction of discourse, 1–27, Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0001en
dc.referencesTognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.6en
dc.referencesTomza-Tulejska, Anna, Higgins, Patrick. 2022. Do the words of the American Constitution still matter? The question of “the meaning of meaning” in current judicial argumentation. In S. Goźdź-Roszkowski and G. Pontrandolfo (eds.), Law, Language and the Courtroom. Legal linguistics and the discourse of judges, 185-197. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003153771-16en
dc.referencesTyrkkö, Jukka and Kopaczyk, Joanna. 2018. Present applications and future directions in pattern-driven approaches to corpus linguistics. In J. Kopaczyk and J. Tyrkkö (eds.), Applications of Pattern-driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics, 1-12, John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.82.01tyren
dc.contributor.authorEmailstanislaw.gozdz@uni.lodz.pl
dc.identifier.doi10.18778/1731-7533.22.2.03
dc.relation.volume22


Pliki tej pozycji

Thumbnail
Nazwa:
120-141_Gozdz-Roszkowski.pdf
Rozmiar:
448.1KB
Format:
PDF
Oglądaj/Otwórz

Pozycja umieszczona jest w następujących kolekcjach

Pokaż uproszczony rekord

https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0
Poza zaznaczonymi wyjątkami, licencja tej pozycji opisana jest jako https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0