Cover not available
Part of
Applications of Pattern-driven Methods in Corpus Linguistics
Edited by Joanna Kopaczyk and Jukka Tyrkkö
[Studies in Corpus Linguistics 82] 2018
► pp. 131–158

Chapter 6
Between corpus-based and corpus-driven approaches to textual recurrence

Exploring semantic sequences in judicial discourse

 | University of Łódź
The article investigates the link between lexical and meaning patterns in the specialized discourse of judicial opinions. It presents an analysis of the N that pattern in a corpus of US Supreme Court opinions. The analysis looks at the distribution of a selection of nouns found in the pattern across different discourse functions. It is shown that judicial opinions use a range of status-indicating nouns in the N that pattern to perform five main functions: evaluation, cause, result, confirmation and existence. Yet, evaluation plays a central role in judicial writing and most status-indicating nouns are used to signal sites of contentions, i.e. challenged propositions are likely to be labelled as arguments, assumptions, notions or suggestions. By drawing on the concept of semantic sequence (Hunston 2008), the analysis illustrates how corpus-based and corpus-driven approaches can complement one another to build a picture of common epistemological practices in the corpus of legal texts.
Keywords: corpus linguistics, judicial discourse, phraseology, semantic sequence
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.N that pattern, evaluation and status
  • 3.Corpus and context
  • 4.Methodology
  • 5.Discussion of findings
    • 5.1The phrase argument that and its functions
    • 5.2Status-indicating nouns and their discourse functions
  • 6.Conclusion and outlook
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 March 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.82.06goz
References (37)
References
Alba-Juez, Laura & Thompson, Geoff. 2015. The many faces of evaluation. In Evaluation in Context [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 242], Geoff Thompson & Laura Alba-Juez (eds), 3–23. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas. 2009. A corpus-driven approach to formulaic language in English. Multi-word patterns in speech and writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 14(3): 275–311. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. University Language. A Corpus-based Study of Spoken and Written Language [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 23]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. The Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Black, Henry Campbell. 1990. Black’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations. New York NY: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bondi, Marina. 2010. Metadiscursive practices in introductions: Phraseology and semantic sequences across genres. Nordic Journal of English Studies 9(2): 99–123.Google Scholar
Brostoff, Teresa Kissane & Sinsheimer, Anne. 2003. Legal English. An Introduction to the Legal Language and Culture of the United States. New York NY: Oceana Publications.Google Scholar
Charles, Maggie. 2007. Argument or evidence? Disciplinary variation in the use of the noun that pattern in stance construction. English for Specific Purposes 26(2): 203–218. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. The Construction of Stance: A Corpus-Based Investigation of Two Contrasting Disciplines. PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Cheng, Winnie, Greaves, Chris & Warren, Martin. 2006. From n-gram to skipgram to concgram. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 11(4): 411–433. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coxhead, Averil. 2000. A new academic word list. TESOL Quarterly 34(2): 213–238. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Davies, Mark. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English: 520 million words, 1990-present. <[URL]> (30 November 2016).
Fletcher, William. 2002. KfNgram. Annapolis MD: USNA.Google Scholar
Flowerdew, John & Forest, Richard. 2015. Signalling Nouns in English: A Corpus-based Discourse Approach. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, Gill. 1986. Anaphoric nouns. Discourse Analysis Monographs 11. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Printing SectionGoogle Scholar
Gardner, Dee & Davies, Mark. 2013. A new academic vocabulary list. Applied Linguistics 35(3): 305–327. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gries, Stefan. 2008. Phraseology and linguistics theory. In Phraseology: An Interdisciplinary Perspective, Sylviane Granger & Fanny Meunier (eds), 3–25. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groom, Nicholas. 2007. Phraseology and Epistemology in Humanities Writing. PhD dissertation, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2011. Patterns of Linguistic Variation in American Legal English. A Corpus-based Study. Frankfurt: Peter Lang. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2018. Facts in law: a comparative study of fact that and its phraseologies in American and Polish judicial discourse. In: Phraseology in Legal and Institutional Settings. A Corpus-Based, Interdisciplinary Perspective. Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski & Gianluca Pontrandolfo (eds.), 143–159. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1976. Cohesion in English. LongmanGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Matthiessen, Christian. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hunston, Susan. 2011. Corpus Approaches to Evaluation. Phraseology and Evaluative Language. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2008. Starting with the small words. Patterns, lexis and semantic sequences. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(3): 271–295. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2007. Using a corpus to investigate stance quantitatively and qualitatively. In Stancetaking in Discourse: Subjectivity, Evaluation, Interaction [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 164], Robert Englebretson (ed.), 27–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Francis, Gill. 2000. Pattern Grammar. A Corpus-Driven Approach to the Lexical Grammar of English [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 4]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan & Thompson, Geoffrey. 2000. Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
Ivanič, Roz. 1991. Nouns in search of a context: A study of nouns with both open-and closed system characteristics. International Review of Applied Linguistics in Language Teaching 29(2): 93–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jiang, Feng (Kevin) & Hyland, Ken. 2015. ‘The fact that’: Stance nouns in disciplinary writing. Discourse Studies 17(5): 529-550. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James & White, Peter. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rayson, Paul. 2008. From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 13(4): 519–549. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans. 2000. English Abstract Nouns as Conceptual Shells: From Corpus to Cognition. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Scott, Mike. 2011. Wordsmith 5.0. Oxford: Lexical Analysis Software. <[URL]>
Solan, Lawrence. 1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago IL: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tognini-Bonelli, Elena. 2001. Corpus Linguistics at Work [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 6]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Warren, Martin. 2010. Determining aboutgrams in engineering texts. In Keyness in Texts [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 41], Marina Bondi & Mike Scott (eds), 113–126. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Zumrík, Miroslav
2021. Lexical Bundles in the Corpus of Slovak Judicial Decisions. Journal of Linguistics/Jazykovedný casopis 72:2 ► pp. 705 ff. DOI logo
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław
2019. Chapter 6. “It is not just a fact that the law requires this, but it is a reasonable fact”. In Corpus-based Research on Variation in English Legal Discourse [Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 91], ► pp. 123 ff. DOI logo
Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław
2019. Marriage, Liberty and Constitution: a Corpusassisted Study of Value-Laden Words in Legal Argumentation. Research in Language 17:1 ► pp. 71 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.