1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of (Dis)Interest and (Un)Importance frames in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

This study presents a corpus-assisted discourse analysis examining the semantic frames of (Dis)Interest and (Un)Importance in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts. With the use of two corpora — Approve (67,694 tokens) and Dismiss (143,462 tokens) — the research investigated the construction and use of (Dis)Interest and (Un)Importance frames. A further distinction of performative versus descriptive use informed the analysis. In terms of frame construction, decision writers used four frame elements: Trigger, Explanation, Degree, and Experiencer. The findings show that (Un)Importance frames appeared three times more frequently than (Dis)Interest frames. Reflecting the inherent nature of the outcome, Approve writers used significantly more performative Interest and Importance; Dismiss writers used significantly more performative Disinterest. Dismiss writers also used significantly more descriptive Importance in refutation structures. Qualitative analysis revealed that Approve decisions featured more straightforward performative framing, whereas Dismiss decisions displayed a complex interplay of performative and descriptive elements.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25079.mck
2026-02-27
2026-03-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25079.mck
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Beazley, M. B.
    (2019) A Practical guide to appellate advocacy (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bednarek, M., & Caple, H.
    (2012) News discourse. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. (2017) The Discourse of news values: How news organizations create newsworthiness. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190653934.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190653934.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Biel, Ł.
    (2017) Lexical bundles in EU Law: The impact of translation process on the patterning of legal language. InS. Goźdź-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (Eds.) Phraseology in legal and institutional settings (pp.–). Routledge. 10.4324/9781315445724‑2
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315445724-2 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bingham, T.
    (2011) The Rule of law. Penguin.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. Breeze, R.
    (2013) Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre [Google Scholar]
  7. Candiotto, L.
    (2019) The Value of emotions for knowledge. Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑030‑15667‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15667-1 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, L., & Hu, G.
    (2020) Surprise markers in applied linguistics research articles: A diachronic perspective. Lingua, , . 10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102992
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2020.102992 [Google Scholar]
  9. Cutting, J.
    (2002) Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203994597
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203994597 [Google Scholar]
  10. Feteris, E. T.
    (1999) Fundamentals of legal argumentation: A survey of theories on the justification of judicial decisions. Springer Dordrecht. 10.1007/978‑94‑015‑9219‑2
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9219-2 [Google Scholar]
  11. Fillmore, C.
    (1985) Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. Finegan, E., Lee, B. T., Coulthard, M., Sousa-Silva, R., & May, A.
    (2021) Legal writing — Attitude and emphasis: Corpus linguistic approaches to “legal language” — Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. InM. Coulthard, A. May, & R. Sousa-Silva (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (2nd ed., pp.–). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429030581‑6
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030581-6 [Google Scholar]
  13. Felton Rosulek, L.
    (2015) Dueling discourses: The construction of reality in closing arguments. Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  14. The FrameNet Team
    The FrameNet Team (2026) FrameNet. [Online lexical database] https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Garzone, G. E.
    (2016) Polyphony and dialogism in legal discourse: Focus on syntactic negation. Legal Discourse and Communication, , –. https://air.unimi.it/handle/2434/428280
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Goźdź-Roszkowski, S.
    (2021) Corpus linguistics in legal discourse. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law = Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, (), –. 10.1007/s11196‑021‑09860‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-021-09860-8 [Google Scholar]
  17. (2024) Language and legal judgments: Evaluation and argument in judicial discourse. Routledge. 10.4324/9781003333302
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003333302 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hyland, K.
    (2005) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Johnson, A.
    (2014) ‘Dr Shipman told you that…’: The organising and synthesising power of quotation in judicial summing-up. Language & Communication, , –. 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.005 [Google Scholar]
  20. Llewellyn, K. N.
    (2016) The Common law tradition: Deciding appeals. Quid Pro Books.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. MacLeod, N.
    (2024) Intentionally encouraging or assisting others to commit an offence: The anatomy of a language crime. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law = Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, (), –. 10.1007/s11196‑023‑10031‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10031-0 [Google Scholar]
  22. Mazzi, D.
    (2007) The Construction of argumentation in judicial texts: Combining a genre and a corpus perspective. Argumentation, (), –. 10.1007/s10503‑007‑9020‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-007-9020-8 [Google Scholar]
  23. (2017) “In Other Words, …”: A corpus-based study of reformulation in judicial discourse. Hermes (Århus, Denmark), (), –. 10.7146/hjlcb.v24i46.97361
     https://doi.org/10.7146/hjlcb.v24i46.97361 [Google Scholar]
  24. McKeown, J.
    (2021) A corpus-based examination of reflexive metadiscourse in majority and dissent opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.019 [Google Scholar]
  25. (2022) Stancetaking in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence: Epistemic (im)probability and evidential (dis)belief. International Journal of Legal Discourse, (), –. 10.1515/ijld‑2022‑2075
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2075 [Google Scholar]
  26. (2024) A contrastive investigation of the performative and descriptive use of surprise frames in judicial opinions of the HKSAR. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2024.08.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2024.08.008 [Google Scholar]
  27. Muis, K. R., Psaradellis, C., Lajoie, S. P., Di Leo, I., & Chevrier, M.
    (2015) The role of epistemic emotions in mathematics problem solving. Contemporary Educational Psychology, , –. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2015.06.003 [Google Scholar]
  28. Ngai, J.
    (2018) “It is Imperative to…”: Importance markers and the construction of newspaper discourse. The Asian Journal of Applied Linguistics, (), –. https://caes.hku.hk/ajal/index.php/ajal/article/view/519/
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Noordewier, M. K., Gocłowska, M. A., & Eisenberger, N. I.
    (2024) Shared and unique features of epistemic emotions: Awe, surprise, curiosity, interest, confusion, and boredom. Emotion (Washington, D.C.), (), –. 10.1037/emo0001314
     https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0001314 [Google Scholar]
  30. Nuyts, J.
    (2001) Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualisation: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.5
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.5 [Google Scholar]
  31. Pontrandolfo, G., & Goźdź-Roszkowski, S.
    (2013) Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse, (), –. https://ijlld.academics.education/729/volume-3/3-2-gozdz-roszkowski-pontrandolfo/
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Posner, R. A.
    (1995) Overcoming law. Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Rayson, P., & Garside, R.
    (2000) Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. InA. Kilgarriff & T. Berber Sardinha (Eds.) WCC ’00 Proceedings of the workshop on comparing corpora (pp.–). Association for Computational Linguistics. 10.3115/1117729.1117730
     https://doi.org/10.3115/1117729.1117730 [Google Scholar]
  34. Silvia, P. J.
    (2009) Looking past pleasure: Anger, confusion, disgust, pride, surprise, and other unusual aesthetic emotions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, (), –. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1037/a0014632. 10.1037/a0014632
     https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014632 [Google Scholar]
  35. Szczyrbak, M.
    (2016) Say and stancetaking in courtroom talk: A corpus-assisted study. Corpora, (), –. 10.3366/cor.2016.0090
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2016.0090 [Google Scholar]
  36. Tkačuková, T.
    (2015) A Corpus-assisted study of the discourse marker well as an indicator of judges’ institutional roles in court cases with litigants in person. Corpora, (), –. 10.3366/cor.2015.0072
     https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2015.0072 [Google Scholar]
  37. Van Dijk, T.
    (2014) Discourse and knowledge. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781107775404
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107775404 [Google Scholar]
  38. Vogl, E., Pekrun, R., Murayama, K., Loderer, K., & Schubert, S.
    (2019) Surprise, curiosity, and confusion promote knowledge exploration: Evidence for robust effects of epistemic emotions. Frontiers in Psychology, , . 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02474
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02474 [Google Scholar]
  39. Wang, Q.
    (2022) “The very interesting finding suggests that…”: A cognitive frame-based analysis of interest markers by authors’ geo-academic location in applied linguistics research articles. Frontiers in Psychology, , . 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1020854
     https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1020854 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, Q., & Hu, G.
    (2022) What surprises, interests and confuses researchers? A frame-based analysis of knowledge emotion markers in research articles. Lingua, , . 10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103426
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2022.103426 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2023a) Expressions of interest in research articles: Geo-academic location and time as influencing factors. Lingua, , . 10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103580
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2023.103580 [Google Scholar]
  42. (2023b) Disciplinary and gender-based variations: A frame-based analysis of interest markers in research articles. English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.006
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2022.12.006 [Google Scholar]
  43. Wright, D.
    (2017) Using word n-grams to identify authors and idiolects: A corpus approach to a forensic linguistic problem. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.22.2.03wri
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.22.2.03wri [Google Scholar]
  44. (2021) Corpus approaches to forensic linguistics: Applying corpus data and techniques in forensic contexts. InM. Coulthard, A. May, & R. Sousa-Silva (Eds.) The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (2nd ed., pp.–). Routledge. 10.4324/9780429030581‑47
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030581-47 [Google Scholar]
  45. Ye, M., & McKeown, J.
    (2023) Investigating the targeted use of (dis)agreement in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts: a corpus assisted discourse analysis. International Journal of Legal Discourse, (), –. 10.1515/ijld‑2023‑2012
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2012 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25079.mck
Loading
A corpus-assisted discourse analysis of (Dis)Interest and (Un)Importance frames in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.25079.mck
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25079.mck
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25079.mck
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: semantic frames ; (Un)Importance ; leave to appeal decisions ; (Dis)Interest ; performativity

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error