Distribution analysis of argumentation frames in the text of court decision: Comparative analysis of law and sports science
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2021.16.Proc3.46Keywords:
Argumentation frame, Sports science, Court decision, Distribution pattern, Argumentation discourseAbstract
The article focuses on comparative analysis of argumentative frames' distribution in the text of appeal court decisions pertaining to different law systems: US court opinions and Russian appellate rulings. Text of court decision is a communicative product of the judicial discourse which is argumentative by virtue of its nature; however, the sequence of frames implementing the argumentative discourse dynamics is specific to each type of court decision generated within respective law system. The present article explores the applicability of frame analysis to judicial argumentation in appeal court decisions pertaining to different law systems. The current interest of the research lays in the fact that court decision texts represent a relatively regular sequence of cognitive argumentation frames that provide for argumentative discourse dynamics, and that can be viewed as a cognitive tool of developing judge’s argumentation strategy. The article aims at conducting an experiment on distribution analysis of the identified argumentation frames in the specified category of court decision texts and compare the traced regularities. The research methodology rests on application of the following methods: distribution analysis method, method of statistical analysis, methods of functional and structural analysis. The materials for the research included 50 texts including court opinions made by United States Court of Appeal for the seventh and ninth circuits and appellate rulings of Altay Regional Court (appeal instance). All documents carried the same type of the decision - affirming the lower court decision - and referred to criminal law only to preclude possible dependence of the research results on type of decision and branch of law concerned. In the research findings we came to the conclusion that within the chosen category of cases argumentation frames’ distribution patterns exhibited insignificant variability however they were not absolutely rigid. The research outcomes can find further application for argumentation structure analysis in other categories of court decisions or other genres of the judicial discourse.
Downloads
References
Atabekova, A. & Radic, N. (2020). EU legislative discourse on unaccompanied minors: Exploring conceptual-linguistic architecture. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues, 23(1), 1-9. Retrieved from: https://www.abacademies.org/articles/EU-legislative-discourse-on-unaccompanied-minors-exploring-conceptual-linguistic-architecture-1544-0044-23-1-460.pdf
Atabekova, A. & Shoustikova, T. (2018). Language issues within forced migration at borders and temporary settlements: An integrated content analysis. European Research Studies Journal, 21, 690-700.
Atabekova, A.A., Gorbatenko, R.G., Shoustikova, T.V. & Radić, N. (2019). Language analysis of convention on the rights of the child to enhance societal awareness on the issues. Journal of Social Studies Education Research, 10(4), 506-529.
Avdeev, V.A., Avdeeva, O.A., Shagieva, R.V., Smirnova, V.V., Mashkin, N.A. & Taradonov, S.V. (2019). The mechanism of legal regulation in the conditions of globalization and formation of information environment. Regional aspect. Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism, 10(7), 1517-152.
Bayanova, A.R., Vodenko, K.V., Sizova, Zh.M., Chistyakov, A.A., Prokopiev, A.I. & Vasbieva, D.G. (2019). A philosophical view of organizational culture in contemporary universities. European Journal of Science and Theology, 15(3), 121-131.
Bhatia, V.K. (1998). Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Setting. New York: Longman.
Björling, E. (2016). The Expression of Legal argumentation: Towards a Methodology for Narrative Studies of "Discourses of Subsumption". International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(1), 117-132. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0003
Bubnova, I.S., Khvatova, M.A., Chernik, V.E., Popova, O.V., Prokopyev, A.I., Naumov, P.Yu. & Babarykin, O.V. (2018). Research of Professional Activity Features of Ecologist at Carrying Out Public Ecological Examination. Ekoloji, 106, 999-1006, Article No: e106183.
Carlson, K., Livermore, M.A. & Rockmore, D. (2016). A Quantitative Analysis of Writing Style on the U.S. Supreme Court, 93, 1461-1476. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2554516
Chilingaryan, K. & Lutkovskaya, L. (2015). Frame-analysis of Argumentation in Court Opinion Texts: Empirical Research. Educational research and reviews, 10(21), 2834-2840. https://doi.org/10.5897/ERR2015.2464
Dijk T.A. van (1997). Discourse as structure and Process. New York: Sage Publications.
Dijk, T.A. van (2006). Discourse, Context and Cognition. Discourse Studies, 8(1), 159-177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059565
Duke, K., Thom, B. & Gleeson, H. (2020). Framing 'drug prevention'for young people in contact with the criminal justice system in England: views from practitioners in the field. Journal of Youth Studies, 23(4), 511-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/13676261.2019.1632818
Feteris, E.T. & Kloosterhuis, H. (2009). The Analysis and Evaluation of Legal Argumentation: Approaches from Legal Theory and Argumentation Theory. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 16(29), 307-331.
Feteris, E.T. (2017). Fundamentals of legal argumentation. A Survey of Theories on the justification of Judicial decisions. Amsterdam: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1129-4
Fillmore, Ch.J. (1977). Scenes-and-frames Semantics.Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Gordon, T.F. (1994). The Pleadings Game: an exercise in computational dialectics. Artif. Intell. Law, 2(4), 239-292. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00871972
Hinkle, R. & Nelson, M. (2017). The Importance of Being Caustic: The Linguistic Features of Influential Dissents. Retrieved from: http://mjnelson.org/papers/HinkleNelsonDissent.pdf
Khairullina, E.R., Shubovich, M.M., Bogdanova, V.I., Slepneva, E.V., Mashkin, N.A. & Rodyukova, T.N. (2020). Modern student youth civic identity: Political activity or social responsibility? Opcion, 36(Special Edition 27), 1703-1717.
Losekan, C., Dias, T.H. & Camargo, A.V.M. (2020). The Rio Doce mining disaster: Legal framing in the Brazilian justice system. The Extractive Industries and Society, 7(1), 199-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.exis.2019.11.015
Luoi, R.P. (1998). Process and Policy: Resource-Bounded NonDemonstrative Reasoning. Computational Intelligence, 14(1), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1111/0824-7935.00055
Prakken, H. (2002). Incomplete arguments in legal discourse: a case study. In JURIX 2002: The Fifteenth Annual Conference on Legal Knowledge and Information Systems. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Prokofieva, E.N., Erdyneyeva, K.G., Galushkin, A.A., Prokopyev, A.I., Prasolov, V.I., Ashmarina, S.I., Ilkevich B. & Kubiatko, M. (2018). Risk based ecological economics to engineering students. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education, 14(3), 753-764. https://doi.org/10.12973/ejmste/80903
Szczyrbak, M. (2009). Genre-based Analysis of the Realisation of Concession in Judicial Discourse. Jagiellonian University Press, 126, 128-148. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10148-010-0011-z
Szczyrbak, M. (2014). Stance taking Strategies in Judicial Discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court Opinions. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 131(2014), 91-120.
Tannen, D. (1993). Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Toulmin, S.E. (2003). The uses of argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2nd edition. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511840005
Ungerer, F. & Schmidt, H.-J. (1996). An introduction to cognitive linguistic. New York: Longman.
Yamada, H., Teufel, S. & Tokunaga, T. (2019). Building a corpus of legal argumentation in Japanese judgement documents: towards structure-based summarisation. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 27(2), 141-170. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10506-019-09242-3
Downloads
Statistics
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of Human Sport and Exercise
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Each author warrants that his or her submission to the Work is original and that he or she has full power to enter into this agreement. Neither this Work nor a similar work has been published elsewhere in any language nor shall be submitted for publication elsewhere while under consideration by JHSE. Each author also accepts that the JHSE will not be held legally responsible for any claims of compensation.
Authors wishing to include figures or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright holder(s) and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors.
Please include at the end of the acknowledgements a declaration that the experiments comply with the current laws of the country in which they were performed. The editors reserve the right to reject manuscripts that do not comply with the abovementioned requirements. The author(s) will be held responsible for false statements or failure to fulfill the above-mentioned requirements.
This title is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
You are free to share, copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format. The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
NonCommercial — You may not use the material for commercial purposes.
NoDerivatives — If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.
No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
Transfer of Copyright
In consideration of JHSE’s publication of the Work, the authors hereby transfer, assign, and otherwise convey all copyright ownership worldwide, in all languages, and in all forms of media now or hereafter known, including electronic media such as CD-ROM, Internet, and Intranet, to JHSE. If JHSE should decide for any reason not to publish an author’s submission to the Work, JHSE shall give prompt notice of its decision to the corresponding author, this agreement shall terminate, and neither the author nor JHSE shall be under any further liability or obligation.
Each author certifies that he or she has no commercial associations (e.g., consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article, except as disclosed on a separate attachment. All funding sources supporting the Work and all institutional or corporate affiliations of the authors are acknowledged in a footnote in the Work.
Each author certifies that his or her institution has approved the protocol for any investigation involving humans or animals and that all experimentation was conducted in conformity with ethical and humane principles of research.
Competing Interests
Biomedical journals typically require authors and reviewers to declare if they have any competing interests with regard to their research.
JHSE require authors to agree to Copyright Notice as part of the submission process.
