Home Linguistics & Semiotics Chapter 3 Using grammar patterns to analyse evaluation in judicial argumentation across English and Polish Eurolects
Chapter
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Chapter 3 Using grammar patterns to analyse evaluation in judicial argumentation across English and Polish Eurolects

  • Dariusz Koźbiał
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Explore this Subject How to publish with us
In the Minds of Judges
This chapter is in the book In the Minds of Judges

Abstract

The chapter examines linguistic markers of evaluation in English and Polish judicial Eurolects, represented by Advocate Generals’ (AGs’) opinions and judgments issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as well as in national judgments, from a comparative, corpus- and genre-based perspective. Based on corpus data, it analyses the distribution of pre-defined, potentially evaluative grammar patterns in English (N that, e.g., fact that; it v-link ADJ that, e.g., it is true that) and their Polish counterparts (N że/iż, e.g., fakt, że/iż; jest ADJ że/iż, and ADJ jest że/iż, e.g., jest oczywiste, że/iż or oczywiste jest, że/iż). The findings confirm that the applicability of the English grammar patterns extends to Polish, revealing evaluation-related discursive practices along the supranational-national axis. First, there is noticeable divergence between translated and non-translated judicial texts, and between the two languages. Non-translated Polish is less evaluative than translated EU judgments in terms of adjectives, although it features more types of evaluative nouns. Conversely, non-translated English judgments are markedly more evaluative than translated CJEU texts. Polish diverges from English, with evaluative grammar patterns being more frequent and varied in the latter. Second, AGs’ opinions show more stylistic individuality but no greater evaluative richness than CJEU judgments. Third, status-indicating nouns, which epistemically qualify or downgrade others’ propositions, emerge as central to judicial argumentation, reinforcing the evaluative and authoritative nature of legal discourse. Overall, evaluation boosts the persuasiveness and non-negotiability of AGs’ opinions and CJEU judgments. Its embeddedness in grammar patterns underscores its crucial role in constructing authoritative judicial argumentation.

Abstract

The chapter examines linguistic markers of evaluation in English and Polish judicial Eurolects, represented by Advocate Generals’ (AGs’) opinions and judgments issued by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), as well as in national judgments, from a comparative, corpus- and genre-based perspective. Based on corpus data, it analyses the distribution of pre-defined, potentially evaluative grammar patterns in English (N that, e.g., fact that; it v-link ADJ that, e.g., it is true that) and their Polish counterparts (N że/iż, e.g., fakt, że/iż; jest ADJ że/iż, and ADJ jest że/iż, e.g., jest oczywiste, że/iż or oczywiste jest, że/iż). The findings confirm that the applicability of the English grammar patterns extends to Polish, revealing evaluation-related discursive practices along the supranational-national axis. First, there is noticeable divergence between translated and non-translated judicial texts, and between the two languages. Non-translated Polish is less evaluative than translated EU judgments in terms of adjectives, although it features more types of evaluative nouns. Conversely, non-translated English judgments are markedly more evaluative than translated CJEU texts. Polish diverges from English, with evaluative grammar patterns being more frequent and varied in the latter. Second, AGs’ opinions show more stylistic individuality but no greater evaluative richness than CJEU judgments. Third, status-indicating nouns, which epistemically qualify or downgrade others’ propositions, emerge as central to judicial argumentation, reinforcing the evaluative and authoritative nature of legal discourse. Overall, evaluation boosts the persuasiveness and non-negotiability of AGs’ opinions and CJEU judgments. Its embeddedness in grammar patterns underscores its crucial role in constructing authoritative judicial argumentation.

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter I
  2. Contents V
  3. Introduction 1
  4. Section 1: Argument evaluation and evaluation in argument
  5. Chapter 1 “The analogy … is imperfect”: On criticisms of argumentation by comparison in Supreme Court of Ireland’s judgments on human rights 13
  6. Chapter 2 Indicators of confrontation in separate judicial opinions. A pragma-dialectical exploratory study 35
  7. Chapter 3 Using grammar patterns to analyse evaluation in judicial argumentation across English and Polish Eurolects 61
  8. Chapter 4 Exploring large language models as reformulation assistants for the popularization of judicial texts 93
  9. Section 2: Legal interpretation and judicial reasoning
  10. Chapter 5 Hypotheticals and judicial reasoning in US Supreme Court oral arguments 125
  11. Chapter 6 Interpretation of time in law. Global meanings and local practises 153
  12. Chapter 7 Computational methods in empirical studies on legal interpretation: Before transformers and after 175
  13. Chapter 8 Dialogical reasoning in separate judicial opinions: The path of negation 201
  14. Section 3: Human rights in judicial argumentation
  15. Chapter 9 International judicial discourse and non-derogatory language use: A case study on ECtHR judgments 225
  16. Chapter 10 Theoretical and methodological challenges of interdisciplinary legal-linguistic research: Reflections from the GenDJus project 257
  17. Index
https://doi.org/10.1515/9783111569628-004

Chapters in this book

  1. Frontmatter I
  2. Contents V
  3. Introduction 1
  4. Section 1: Argument evaluation and evaluation in argument
  5. Chapter 1 “The analogy … is imperfect”: On criticisms of argumentation by comparison in Supreme Court of Ireland’s judgments on human rights 13
  6. Chapter 2 Indicators of confrontation in separate judicial opinions. A pragma-dialectical exploratory study 35
  7. Chapter 3 Using grammar patterns to analyse evaluation in judicial argumentation across English and Polish Eurolects 61
  8. Chapter 4 Exploring large language models as reformulation assistants for the popularization of judicial texts 93
  9. Section 2: Legal interpretation and judicial reasoning
  10. Chapter 5 Hypotheticals and judicial reasoning in US Supreme Court oral arguments 125
  11. Chapter 6 Interpretation of time in law. Global meanings and local practises 153
  12. Chapter 7 Computational methods in empirical studies on legal interpretation: Before transformers and after 175
  13. Chapter 8 Dialogical reasoning in separate judicial opinions: The path of negation 201
  14. Section 3: Human rights in judicial argumentation
  15. Chapter 9 International judicial discourse and non-derogatory language use: A case study on ECtHR judgments 225
  16. Chapter 10 Theoretical and methodological challenges of interdisciplinary legal-linguistic research: Reflections from the GenDJus project 257
  17. Index
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2026 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 8.1.2026 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111569628-004/html
Scroll to top button