Journal of Human Sport and Exercise

Distribution analysis of argumentation frames in the text of court decision: Comparative analysis of law and sports science

Larisa Lutskovskaia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2021.16.Proc3.46

Abstract

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.


Keywords

Argumentation frame; Sports science; Court decision; Distribution pattern; Argumentation discourse

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




DOI: https://doi.org/10.14198/jhse.2021.16.Proc3.46





Copyright (c) 2021 Journal of Human Sport and Exercise

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.