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

Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski

doi:10.18778/1731-7533.22.2.03

Authors

Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski University of Łódź

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.18778/1731-7533.22.2.03

Keywords:

evaluation, evaluative language, justification, judicial opinion

Abstract

Using 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.

Author Biography

Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski, University of Łódź

Stanisław Gozdz-Roszkowski is Associate Professor and Head of the Department of Specialised Languages and Intercultural Communication, University of Lodz (Poland). His research focuses on functional and corpus-based approaches to the study of judicial discourse across different languages and cultures. He has published widely in the area of variation in legal language, legal phraseology and communicating evaluative meanings in judicial opinions.

References

Alba-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.242.01alb
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.242.01alb

Bednarek, Monika. 2009. Emotion talk and emotional talk: Cognitive and discursive perspectives. Pragmatics and Cognition 17(1), 146–176. https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.17.1.05bed

Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stieg, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan and Finegan Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Longman.
Google Scholar

Condello, Angela. 2020. New Rhetorics for Contemporary Legal Discourse. Edinburgh University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474450584
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9781474450584

Conrad, 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/9780198238546.003.0004
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0004

Englebretson, Robert (ed.). 2007. Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164

Feteris, 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_6
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4_6

Finegan, 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.
Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2024. Language and Legal Judgments. Evaluation and Argument in Judicial Discourse. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003333302
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003333302

Goźdź-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_1
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-96095-7_1

Goźdź-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/10.1515/9783110720969-004
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110720969-004

Goźdź-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/s11196-020-09700-1
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09700-1

Goźdź-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/10.4324/9781315445724-9
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315445724-9

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2011. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-Based Study. Peter Lang. https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-00659-9
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-00659-9

Goźdź-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.2016.0089
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2016.0089

Goźdź-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.v37i3-4.1287
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.24989/fs.v37i3-4.1287

Hafner, 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.
Google Scholar

Heffer, 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.
Google Scholar

Hunston, 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.164.03hun
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.03hun

Hunston, 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/9780198238546.003.0005
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0005

Królikowski, 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.
Google Scholar

MacCormick. Neil.1978. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Martin, James and White, Peter. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave.
Google Scholar

Mazzi, 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/s11196-010-9162-0
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0

McKeown, 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-2022-2075
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2075

Partington, 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.55
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.55

Pérez, 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/10.4324/9781003153771-11
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003153771-11

Pontrandolfo, 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-2014-0014
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/rela-2014-0014

Pounds, 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.
Google Scholar

Ray, L. Krugman, 2002. Judicial Personality: Rhetoric and Emotion in Supreme Court Opinions, 59 Washington and Lee Law Review 59(1/6), 193-234.
Google Scholar

Romano, Michael, Curry, Todd. 2020. Creating the Law. State Supreme Court Opinions and the Effect of Audiences. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429461828
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429461828

Segal, Jeffrey. A. and Spaeth, Harold. 2002. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model revisited. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615696
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615696

Sinclair, John. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford University Press
Google Scholar

Szczyrbak, 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/10.4324/9781003153771-3
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003153771-3

Thompson, 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/9780198238546.003.0001
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198238546.003.0001

Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.6
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.6

Tomza-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/10.4324/9781003153771-16
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003153771-16

Tyrkkö, 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.82.01tyr
Google Scholar DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.82.01tyr