Writing History in a Supreme Court Ruling: Evaluative language in the majority opinion concerning Dobbs vs. Jackson
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.vi63.140130Keywords:
Appraisal Theory, legal discourse, U. S. Supreme Court, abortion, argumentative discourseAbstract
This paper conducts an exploratory investigation into the use of evaluative language in the historical section of the majority opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. (2022). The investigation employs Martin & White’s (2005) Appraisal Theory, adapted specifically for the analysis of the particular evaluative features of historical discourse as elaborated on, for example, by Myskow (2018a) and Oteíza & Pinuer (2013). The findings confirm that a revised version of the Appraisal framework can be fruitfully applied to systematically account for the complex interplay between, on the one hand, the various sources of evaluation, and, on the other hand, the specific attitudinal resources, employed by the authorial voice in an attempt to construe and advance a particular view of the past. This particular ideological view is ultimately leveraged to produce a convincing justificatory argument for the overruling of the two previous landmark Supreme Court decisions that had, respectively, granted and confirmed abortion as a constitutional right in the United States of America.
References
Almutairi, B. A. A. (2013). Visualizing patterns of appraisal in texts and corpora. Text & Talk, 33(4-5), 691-723.
Bakhtin, M. M. (1935[1981]). The dialogic imagination: Four essays. Edited by M. Holquist, translated by C. Emerson & M. Holquist. University of Texas Press.
Bartley, L. V. (2020). ‘Please make your verdict speak the truth’: Insights from an Appraisal analysis of the closing arguments from a rape trial. Text & Talk, 40(4), 421-442.
Bayley, P. (1993). The language of the law, the language of the Constitution. In P. Bayley & D. R. Miller, Texts and contexts of the American dream a social semiotic study of political language (pp. 63-100). Pitagora.
Benamara, F., Taboada, M., & Mathieu, Y. (2017). Evaluative language beyond bags of words: Linguistic insights and computational applications. Computational Linguistics, 43(1), 201-264.
Bednarek, M. (2006). Evaluation in Media Discourse. Continuum.
Bhatia, V. K. (1987). Language of the law. Language Teaching, 20(4), 227-234.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1989). Styles of stance in English: Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text, 9, 93-124.
Biber, D., & Finegan, E. (1988). Adverbial stance types in English. Discourse Processes, 11, 1-34.
Bondi, M. (2017). What came to be called: Evaluative what and authorial voice in the discourse of history. Text & Talk, 37(1), 25-46.
Carrió-Pastor, M. L. (2019). Do writers express the same attitude in historical genres? In I. Moskowich et al., History in Late Modern English: Explorations of the Coruña Corpus (pp. 236-257). John Benjamins.
Chaemsaithong, K. (2017). Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia Linguistica, 51(1), 103-132. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0003
Chafe, W. L., & Nichols, J. (Eds.). (1986). Evidentiality: The linguistic coding of epistemology. Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Coffin, C. (2002). The voices of history: Theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses. Text & Talk, 22(4), 503-528.
Coffin, C. (2006). Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. Bloomsbury Publishing.
Conrad, S., & Biber, D. (2000). Adverbial marking of stance in speech and writing, evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 56-73). Oxford University Press.
Douthwaite, J., & Vasta, N. (2001). Supreme revolutions: Equity, symmetry and argument in end-of-life decisions. Textus, XIV(2), 547-587.
Finegan, E. (2010). Corpus linguistic approaches to 'legal language': Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 65-77). Routledge.
Flowerdew, L. (2012). Corpus-based discourse analysis. In J. P. Gee & M. Handford (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 174-187). 1st edn. Routledge.
Gales, T., & Solan, L.M. (2017). Witness cross-examinations in non-stranger assault crimes: An appraisal analysis. Language and Law, 4(2), 108-139.
Goźdź Roszkowski, S. (2022). Evaluative language in legal professional practice: The case of justification of judicial decisions", in B. Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk & M.Trojszczak (Eds) Language Use, Education, and Professional Contexts (pp. 1-20). Springer International Publishing.
Goźdź Roszkowski, S. & Pontrandolfo, G. (2013). Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse, 3(2), 1-36.
Halliday, M.A.K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold.
Hunston, S. (2011). Corpus approaches to evaluation: Phraseology and evaluative language. Routledge.
Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation and planes of discourse: Status and value in persuasive texts. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 176-207). Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S. & Thompson, G. (2000a). Evaluation: An introduction. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (Eds.), Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse (pp. 1-27). Oxford University Press.
Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2000b). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse: Authorial stance and the construction of discourse. Oxford University Press.
Hyland, K. (2008). Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English text construction, 1(1), 5-22.
Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse studies, 7(2), 173-192.
Ivanič, R., & Camps, D. (2001). I am how I sound: Voice as self-representation in L2 writing. Journal of second language writing, 10(1-2), 3-33.
Macken-Horarik, M. (2003). Appraisal and the special instructiveness of narrative. Text & Talk, 23(2), 285-312.
Martin, J. & White, P. (2005). The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Palgrave Macmillan.
Mazzi, D. (2010). ‘This argument fails for two reasons…’: A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in us supreme court judgments. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 23, 373-385.
Miller, D. R. (2002). Multiple judicial opinions as specialized sites of engagement: conflicting paradigms of valuation and legitimation in Bush v. Gore 2000. In M. Gotti et al. (Eds.), Conflict and negotiation in specialized texts (pp. 119-141). Peter Lang.
Miller, D. R. (1993). The juridical text as cultural fragment: discourse communities and the (re)creation of truth. In P. Bayley & D. R. Miller, Texts and contexts of the American dream a social semiotic study of political language (pp. 101-146). Pitagora.
Myskow, G. (2018a). A framework for analyzing evaluative language in historical discourse. Functions of Language, 25(3), 335-362.
Myskow, G. (2018b). Changes in attitude: Evaluative language in secondary school and university history textbooks. Linguistics and Education, 43, 53-63.
Myskow, G. (2017). Surveying the historical landscape: The evaluative voice of history textbooks. Functional Linguistics, 4, 1-15.
Myskow, G., & Ono, M. (2018). A matter of facts: L2 writers’ use of evidence and evaluation in biographical essays. Journal of Second Language Writing, 41, 55-70.
O’Donnell, M. (2008). The UAM CorpusTool: Software for corpus annotation and exploration. In C. M. Bretones Callecas et al. (Eds.) Understanding Language and Mind. Applied Linguistics now (pp. 1433-1447). Universidad de Almerìa.
Oteíza, T. (2017). The appraisal framework and discourse analysis. In T. Bartlett & G. O’Grady (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics (1st ed., pp. 457-472). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315413891.ch28
Oteíza, T. (2009). Evaluative patterns in the official discourse of Human Rights in Chile: Giving value to the past and building historical memories in society. DELTA: Documentação de Estudos em Lingüística Teórica e Aplicada, 25, 609-640.
Oteíza, T. (2003). How contemporary history is presented in Chilean middle school textbooks. Discourse & Society, 14(5), 639-660.
Oteíza, T. & Pinuer, C. 2013. Valorative prosody and the symbolic construction of time in recent national historical discourses. Discourse Studies, 15(1), 43–64. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612466447
Partington, A., Duguid, A., & Taylor, C. (2013). Patterns and meanings in discourse: Theory and practice in corpus-assisted discourse studies (CADS) (Vol. 55). John Benjamins Publishing.
Sarangi, S. (2003). Evaluating evaluative language. Text & Talk, 23(2), 165-170.
Segal, J. A., & Spaeth, H. J. (2002). The Supreme Court and the attitudinal model revisited. Cambridge University Press.
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M, (2014). Systemic-functional approaches to discourse. In K. P. Schneider & A. Baron (Eds.), Pragmatics of Discourse (pp. 125-163). De Gruyter Mouton.
Simpson, P. (2003). Language, ideology and point of view. Routledge.
Somasundaran, S., & Wiebe, J. (2010). Recognizing stances in ideological on-line debates. In Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 workshop on computational approaches to analysis and generation of emotion in text (pp. 116-124).
Stone, G. R. (2017). Sex and the Constitution: Sex, Religion, and Law from America's Origins to the Twenty-First Century. Liveright Publishing.
van Leeuwen T., & Han. J. (2023). Evaluation and discourse analysis. M. Handford & J. P. Gee (Eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 23-38). 2nd edn. Routledge.
White, P.R.R. (2004). Subjectivity, evaluation and point of view in media discourse. In C. Coffin et al. (Eds.), Applying English Grammar (pp. 229-246). Routledge.
White, P.R.R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text & Talk, 23(2), 259-284. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011
White, P.R.R. (2000). Dialogue and inter-subjectivity: Reinterpreting the semantics of modality and hedging. In M. Coulthard et al. (Eds.), Working with Dialogue (pp. 67-80). Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Zappavigna, M. (2018). Searchable talk: Hashtags and social media metadiscourse. Bloomsbury.
Ziegler, M. (2020). Abortion and the Law in America. Roe v. Wade to the Present. Cambridge University Press.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Polina Shvanyukova
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
a. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
b. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
c. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
