1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics
  4. Online First Articles
  5. Online First Article
image of Continuum of stance in law
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Stance is deep-rooted in law, where legal values can never stand in a vacuum. Despite a growing body of literature on stance in legal genres, cross-genre examinations conducted from a corpus-based perspective still leave room for improvement. This study conducts a cross-genre examination of how legal professionals express stance across three legal genres, i.e. legislation, judgments, and legal academic articles. By adopting a corpus-based approach, evidence-based insights are provided into the general profile of stance expressions in legal settings, as well as the distribution of stance features across the three legal genres. Additionally, this study delineates a continuum of stance in law, which illustrates the variation in stance expressions by categorizing them as objective or subjective, certain or uncertain, direct or indirect, and explicit or implicit. The findings suggest that stance may serve as a discourse anchor to help frame legal rules, construct legal facts, and convey legal values.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25091.che
2026-02-27
2026-03-07

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25091.che
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Askehave, I., & Swales, J. M.
    (2001) Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/22.2.195
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.2.195 [Google Scholar]
  2. Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z.
    (2014) Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, (), –. 10.1177/0741088314527055
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baars, B. J.
    (1993) A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bashir, I., Yunus, K., & Al-Jarrah, T. M.
    (2018) Modal verbs hedging: The uses and functions of “will” and “shall” in Nigerian legal discourse. International Journal of English Linguistics, (), –. 10.5539/ijel.v8n7p59
     https://doi.org/10.5539/ijel.v8n7p59 [Google Scholar]
  5. Berūkštienė, D.
    (2016) Legal discourse reconsidered: Genres of legal texts. Comparative Legilinguistics, (), –. 10.14746/cl.2016.28.5.
     https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2016.28.5. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bhatia, V. K.
    (1983) Simplification v. easification — The case of legal texts. Applied linguistics, (), –. 10.1093/applin/4.1.42
     https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/4.1.42 [Google Scholar]
  7. (1993) Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. (2023) Legal genres in interdiscursive contexts. InA. Wagner & A. Matulewska (Eds.), Research handbook on jurilinguistics (pp.–). Edward Elgar Publishing. 10.4337/9781802207248.00019
     https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802207248.00019 [Google Scholar]
  9. Boginskaya, O.
    (2022) Dissenting with conviction: Boosting in challenging the majority opinion. International Journal of Legal Discourse, (), –. 10.1515/ijld‑2022‑2073
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2073 [Google Scholar]
  10. (2024) Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: Closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse. Cultura Lenguaje Y Representacion-Revista de Estudios Culturales de la Universitat Jaume, , –. 10.6035/clr.7656
     https://doi.org/10.6035/clr.7656 [Google Scholar]
  11. 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]
  12. Breeze, R., Gotti, M., & Sancho, C.
    (2014) Interpersonality in legal genres. Peter Lang. 10.3726/978‑3‑0351‑0725‑8
     https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0725-8 [Google Scholar]
  13. Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Wattam, S.
    (2015) Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.20.2.01bre [Google Scholar]
  14. Cao, D.
    (2007) Translating law. Multilingual Matters.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. Chaemsaithong, K.
    (2015) Stance expressions in the courtroom. English Language and Linguistics, (), –. 10.17960/ell.2015.21.2.003
     https://doi.org/10.17960/ell.2015.21.2.003 [Google Scholar]
  16. (2017) Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia Linguistica, (), –. 10.1515/flin‑2017‑0003
     https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0003 [Google Scholar]
  17. Cheng, L.
    (2010) A semiotic interpretation of genre: Judgments as an example. Semiotica, (), –. 10.1515/semi.2010.053
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2010.053 [Google Scholar]
  18. (2012) Attribution and judicial control in Chinese court judgments: a corpus-based study. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, (), –. 10.1558/ijsll.v19i1.27
     https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v19i1.27 [Google Scholar]
  19. Cheng, L., Liu, X., & Si, C.
    (2024) Identifying stance in legislative discourse: A corpus-driven study of data protection laws. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, (), –. 10.1057/s41599‑024‑03322‑9
     https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03322-9 [Google Scholar]
  20. Cheng, L., & Sin, K.
    (2011) A sociosemiotic interpretation of linguistic modality in legal settings. Semiotica, , –. 10.1515/semi.2011.036
     https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2011.036 [Google Scholar]
  21. Coulthard, M.
    (1994) On the use of corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, (), –. 10.1558/ijsll.v1i1.27
     https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v1i1.27 [Google Scholar]
  22. Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D.
    (2017) An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. Daniel, F. O.
    (2024) That-complement clauses signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Legal Discourse, (), –. 10.1515/ijld‑2024‑2005
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2024-2005 [Google Scholar]
  24. Daniel, F. O., & Unuabonah, F. O.
    (2021) Stance and engagement in selected Nigerian Supreme Court judgments. English Text Construction, (), –. 10.1075/etc.21021.dan
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.21021.dan [Google Scholar]
  25. Diaz, B. A., & Hall, M. K.
    (2020) A corpus-driven exploration of US language planning and language ideology from 2013 to 2018. Journal of Language and Politics, (), –. 10.1075/jlp.19108.dia
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.19108.dia [Google Scholar]
  26. Finegan, E., & Lee, B. T.
    (2020) Legal writing: attitude and emphasis. Corpus linguistic approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in supreme court opinions. InM. Coulthard, & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp.–). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Frow, J.
    (2015) Genre. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. Goźdź-Roszkowski, S.
    (2017) Signalling sites of contention in judicial discourse: An exploratory corpus-based analysis of selected stance nouns in US Supreme Court opinions and Poland’s constitutional tribunal judgments. Comparative Legilinguistics, , –. 10.14746/cl.2017.32.4
     https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2017.32.4 [Google Scholar]
  29. (2018) Values and valuations in judicial discourse: A corpus-assisted study of (dis)respect in US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, (), –. 10.2478/slgr‑2018‑0004
     https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0004 [Google Scholar]
  30. (2019) “It is not just a fact that the law requires this, but it is a reasonable fact”: Using the Noun that-pattern to explore stance construction in legal writing. InT. Fanego & P. Rodríguez-Puente (Eds.), Corpus-based research on variation in English legal discourse (pp.–). John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.91.06goz
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.91.06goz [Google Scholar]
  31. (2020) Communicating dissent in judicial opinions: A comparative, genre-based analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, (), –. 10.1007/s11196‑020‑09711‑y
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09711-y [Google Scholar]
  32. (2024) Language and legal judgments: Evaluation and argument in judicial discourse. Taylor & Francis.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. Gray, B., & Biber, D.
    (2012) Current conceptions of stance. InK. Hyland, & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp.–). Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9781137030825_2
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_2 [Google Scholar]
  34. Hartnett, E. A.
    (1999) A matter of judgment, not a matter of opinion. New York University Law Review, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Holmes, J.
    (1984) Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/0378‑2166(84)90028‑6
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(84)90028-6 [Google Scholar]
  36. (1990) Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, , –. 10.1016/0271‑5309(90)90002‑S
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0271-5309(90)90002-S [Google Scholar]
  37. Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M.
    (2014) Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Routledge. 10.4324/9780203783771
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203783771 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hyland, K.
    (1998) Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, (), –. 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.3.349 [Google Scholar]
  39. (2000) Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, (), –. 10.1080/09658410008667145
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09658410008667145 [Google Scholar]
  40. (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445605050365
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  41. (2008) Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, (), –. https://revistas.um.es/ijes/article/view/49151
     [Google Scholar]
  42. (2016) Writing with attitude: Conveying a stance in academic texts. InE. Hinkel (Ed.), Teaching English grammar to speakers of other languages (pp.–). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. (2019) Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Academic.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F.
    (2016) Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, (), –. 10.1177/0741088316650399
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088316650399 [Google Scholar]
  45. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K.
    (2019) Academic discourse and global publishing: Disciplinary persuasion in changing times. Routledge. 10.4324/9780429433962
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429433962 [Google Scholar]
  46. Krapivkina, O. A.
    (2017) Semantics of the verb shall in legal discourse. Jezikoslovlje, (), –.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Kress, G.
    (1993) Genre as social process. InB. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy (RLE Edu I): A genre approach to teaching writing (pp.–). Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. Kurzon, D.
    (1997) ‘Legal language’: Varieties, genres, registers, discourses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1111/j.1473‑4192.1997.tb00111.x
     https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1997.tb00111.x [Google Scholar]
  49. Lee, S. H.
    (2015) Evaluative stances in persuasive essays by undergraduate students: Focusing on appreciation resources. Text & Talk, (), –. 10.1515/text‑2014‑0029
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0029 [Google Scholar]
  50. Li, J., Cheng, L., & Cheng, W.
    (2016) Deontic meaning making in legislative discourse. Semiotica, (), –. 10.1515/sem‑2016‑0002
     https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2016-0002 [Google Scholar]
  51. Maley, Y.
    (1994) The language of the law. InJ. P. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law (pp.–). Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. Mahlberg, M.
    (2006) Lexical cohesion: Corpus linguistic theory and its application in English language teaching. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, (), –. 10.1075/ijcl.11.3.08mah
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.11.3.08mah [Google Scholar]
  53. Mahlberg, M., & Wiegand, V.
    (2022) Exploring narrative fiction: Corpora and digital humanities projects. InA. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp.–). Routledge. 10.4324/9780367076399‑37
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367076399-37 [Google Scholar]
  54. Marín-Arrese, J. I.
    (2009) Commitment and subjectivity in the discourse of a judicial inquiry. InR. Salkie, P. Busuttil & J. Van er Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English (pp.–). Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213331.237
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213331.237 [Google Scholar]
  55. Marín Arrese, J. I.
    (2015) Epistemicity and stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. Discourse Studies, (), –. 10.1177/1461445614564523
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445614564523 [Google Scholar]
  56. 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, , –. 10.1007/s11196‑010‑9162‑0
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0 [Google Scholar]
  57. McKeown, J.
    (2021) A corpus-based examination of reflexive metadiscourse in majority and dissent opinions of the US Supreme Court. Journal of Pragmatics, , –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.019
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.019 [Google Scholar]
  58. Meza, P., Gladic, J., Gladic, D., & Gutierrez, I.
    (2023) Estrategias de Posicionamiento del Autor en el Género Jurídico Contestación de la Demanda: Comparación entre Estudiantes de Derecho y Abogados [Author’s stance strategies in the legal genre suit’s reply: Comparison between law students and lawyers]. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, , –. 10.5209/clac.85565
     https://doi.org/10.5209/clac.85565 [Google Scholar]
  59. Miller, C. R.
    (1984) Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, , –. 10.1080/00335638409383686
     https://doi.org/10.1080/00335638409383686 [Google Scholar]
  60. Orta, I. V.
    (2013) Authoritative intervention in legal discourse: A genre-based study of judgements and arbitration awards. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Poole, R.
    (2021) A corpus-aided study of stance adverbs in judicial opinions and the implications for English for Legal Purposes instruction. English for Specific Purposes, , –. 10.1016/j.esp.2021.01.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.01.002 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rayson, P.
    (2009) Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment [Computing software]. Lancaster University. ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/wmatrix
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Schröter, M., & Storjohann, P.
    (2015) Patterns of discourse semantics: A corpus-assisted study of financial crisis in British newspaper discourse in 2009. Pragmatics and Society, (), –. 10.1075/ps.6.1.03sch
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.6.1.03sch [Google Scholar]
  64. Solan, L. M.
    (2010) The language of judges. University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. (2018) The interpretation of legal language. Annual Review of Linguistics, (), –. 10.1146/annurev‑linguistics‑011817‑045649
     https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-011817-045649 [Google Scholar]
  66. Solin, A.
    (2011) Genre. InJ. Zienkowski, J. Verschueren, & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp.–). John Benjamins Publishing Company. 10.1075/hoph.8.07sol
     https://doi.org/10.1075/hoph.8.07sol [Google Scholar]
  67. Szczyrbak, M.
    (2014) Stancetaking strategies in judicial discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court opinions. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, (), –. 10.4467/20834624SL.14.005.1377
     https://doi.org/10.4467/20834624SL.14.005.1377 [Google Scholar]
  68. (2021) I’m thinking and you’re saying: Speaker stance and the progressive of mental verbs in courtroom interaction. Text & Talk, (), –. 10.1515/text‑2019‑0145
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0145 [Google Scholar]
  69. (2024) Epistemological stance and passive reporting verbs in judicial opinions: the case of BE expected to and BE supposed to. Text & Talk, (), –. 10.1515/text‑2021‑0064
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2021-0064 [Google Scholar]
  70. Teubert, W., & Krishnamurthy, R.
    (2007) Corpus linguistics: Critical concepts in linguistics. Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Toska, B.
    (2012) Epistemic hedges and boosters as stance markers in legal argumentative discourse. Topics in Linguistics, , –.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. Vande Kopple, W. J.
    (1985) Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College, Composition and Communication, , –. 10.58680/ccc198511781
     https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198511781 [Google Scholar]
  73. Walton, D.
    (2010) Legal argumentation and evidence. The Pennsylvania State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Wilkinson, M.
    (2019) ‘Bisexual oysters’: A diachronic corpus-based critical discourse analysis of bisexual representation in The Times between 1957 and 2017. Discourse & Communication, (), –. 10.1177/1750481318817624
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481318817624 [Google Scholar]
  75. White, P. R.
    (2003) Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text & Talk, (), –. 10.1515/text.2003.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.011 [Google Scholar]
  76. (2020) The putative reader in mass media persuasion — stance, argumentation and ideology. Discourse & Communication, (), –. 10.1177/1750481320910512
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481320910512 [Google Scholar]
  77. 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]
  78. Zou, H., & Hyland, K.
    (2024) Stance in article highlights: The promotion of Covid-19 research. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, (), –. 10.1111/ijal.12502
     https://doi.org/10.1111/ijal.12502 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25091.che
Loading
Continuum of stance in law
John Benjamins ; https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.25091.che
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25091.che
/content/journals/10.1075/ijcl.25091.che
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: linguistic markers ; stance ; corpus ; written legal genres

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