Marriage, liberty and constitution: a corpus-assisted study of value-laden words in legal argumentation

Open access

Abstract

This paper investigates the interplay between judicial argumentation and evaluative or emotive language identified in two US Supreme Court landmark cases on the right of same-sex couples to marry. The analysis of both majority and dissenting opinions leads to two main observations. First, marriage and liberty are indeed emotive words and they represent two major sites of contention between the concurring and dissenting judges. Second, there are important differences within the argumentative strategies employed by the judges. While (re)defining the concepts remains the major argumentative goal for both types of opinion, the majority opinions tacitly integrate the redefined concept of marriage into their argumentation. It is the dissenting opinions that explicitly raise the issue of (re)definition in order to defend and retain the original sense of marriage.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Alba-Juez Laura and Thompson Geoff. 2015. ‘The Many Faces of Evaluation.’ In Geoff Thompson and Laura Alba-Juez (eds) Evaluation in Context [Pragmatics and Beyond New Series 242] 3-23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Baker Paul. 2006. Using Corpora in Discourse Analysis. London: Continuum.

  • Black Henry. 1990. Black’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations. New York: West Publishing Company.

  • Finegan Edward. 2010. ‘Corpus Linguistics Approaches to ‘Legal Language’: Adverbial Expression of Attitude and Emphasis in Supreme Court Opinions.’ In Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics 65-77. London and New York: Routledge.

  • Gallie Walter. 1955. Essentially Contested Concepts. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 56. 167-198.

  • González Ruiz Victor. 2005. ‘Changing the Law on Marriage: The Semantics of Tolerance.’ In Krzysztof Kredens and Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds.) Language and the Law: International Outlooks 227-237. Frankfurt: Peter Lang.

  • Goźdź-Roszkowski Stanisław. 2013. Legal Terms and Meaningful Units. A Corpus-based Study of the Term Discovery in the United States Supreme Court Opinions. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk and Marcel Thelen (eds.) Translation and Meaning Part 10 299-306. UPM Universitaire Pers Maastricht.

  • Goźdź-Roszkowski Stanisław. 2018a. ‘Facts in Law: a Comparative Study of Fact That and its Phraseologies in American and Polish Judicial Discourse.’ In Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski and Gianluca Pontrandolfo (eds.) Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-based Interdisciplinary Perspective 143-159. London. Routledge.

  • Goźdź-Roszkowski Stanisław. 2018b. ‘Between Corpus-based and Corpus-driven Approaches to Textual Recurrence. Exploring Semantic Sequences in Judicial Discourse.’ In Joanna Kopaczyk and Jukka Tyrkko (eds.) Patterns in Text: Corpus-driven Methods and Applications. [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 82] 131-158. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

  • Goźdź-Roszkowski Stanisław. 2018c. Values and Valuations in Judicial Discourse. A Corpus-assisted Study of (Dis)respect in US Supreme Court Decisions on Same-sex Marriage. Studies in Logic Grammar and Rhetoric 53 (66). 61-79.

  • Hart Herbert. 1961. The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press

  • Heffer Chris. 2007. ‘Judgement in Court: Evaluating Participants in Courtroom Discourse.’ In Krzysztof Kredens and Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski (eds.) Language and the Law: International Outlooks 145-179. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang GmbH.

  • Leech Geoffrey. 1974. Semantics. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

  • Macagno Fabrizio. 2016. Defining Marriage: Classification Interpretation and Definitional Disputes. Informal Logic vol. 36 (3). 309-332.

  • Macagno Fabrizio and Douglas Walton. 2014. Emotive Language in Argumentation. Cambridge University Press.

  • 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 No. 4: 373-385.

  • Partington Alan Alison Duguid and Charlotte Taylor. 2013. Patterns and Meanings in Discourse. Theory and Practice in Corpus-Assisted Discourse Studies. Amsterdam / Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

  • Partington Alan. 2004. ‘Corpora and Discourse: A Most Congruous Beast.’ In Alan Partington John Morley and Louann Haarman (eds.) Corpora and Discourse 11-20. Bern: Peter Lang.

  • Partington Alan.1998. Patterns and Meanings. Using Corpora for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamins.

  • Perelman Chaïm and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. 1969. The New Rhetoric. A Treatise on Argumentation. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame.

  • Rayson Paul. 2008. From Key Words to Key Semantic Domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics. 13(4). 519-549.

  • Stevenson Charles. 1944. Ethics and Language. New Haven CT: Yale University Press

  • Thompson Geoff and Susan Hunston. 2000. ‘Evaluation. An Introduction.’ In Susan Hunston and Geoff Thompson (eds.) Evaluation in Text. Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse 1-27. Oxford: OUP.

  • Solan Lawrence. 1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. doi: 10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001

  • Szczyrbak Magdalena. 2014. Stancetaking Strategies in Judicial Discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court Opinions Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis 131. 1-30.

Search
Journal information
Impact Factor


CiteScore 2018: 0.29

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.177
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.471

Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 128 128 10
PDF Downloads 113 113 13