Dissenting with conviction: boosting in challenging the majority opinion

References

Abdi, Reza. 2002. Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity. Discourse Studies 4(2). 139–145. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101.Search in Google Scholar

Akhmetova, Svetlana. 2016. Discourse analysis of courtroom documents. Bulletin of South Ural University. Law 16(1), 12–17. https://doi.org/10.14529/law160102.Search in Google Scholar

Archer, Dawn. 2005. Questions and answers in the English courtroom (1640–1760). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.135Search in Google Scholar

Aull, Laura & Zak Lancaster. 2014. Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication 31(2). 151–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088314527055.Search in Google Scholar

Beauvais, Paul. 1989. A speech-act theory of metadiscourse. Written Communication 6(1). 11–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088389006001002.Search in Google Scholar

Biel, Łucja. 2014. The textual fit of translated EU law: A corpus-based study of deontic modality. The Translator 20(3). 332–355. https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.2014.909675.Search in Google Scholar

Boginskaya, Olga. 2021. A contrastive study of deontic modality in parallel texts. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries 18(2). 31–49. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.18.2.31-49.Search in Google Scholar

Boginskaya, Olga. 2022a. Competition – game – ritual: Three aspects of communicative interactions in the courtroom. Tomsk State University Journal of Philology 76. 5–27.10.17223/19986645/76/1Search in Google Scholar

Boginskaya, Olga. 2022b. Popularizing in legal discourse: What efforts do Russian judges make to facilitate juror’s comprehension of law-related contents? Discourse Studies 24(5). 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456221108585.Search in Google Scholar

Botezatu, Vanina Narcisa. 2016. Perspectives on legal translation. Audri 9(1). 109–116.Search in Google Scholar

Breeze, Ruth. 2013. Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(2). 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre.Search in Google Scholar

Cao, Deborah. 2007. Translating law. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599552Search in Google Scholar

Cao, Deborah. 2013. Legal translation studies. In Carmen Millan-Varela & Francesca Bartrina (eds.), The Routledge handbook of translation studies, 415–424. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203102893.ch30Search in Google Scholar

Cavalieri, Silvia. 2011. The role of metadiscourse in counsels’ questions. In Anne Wagner & Le Cheng (eds.), Exploring courtroom discourse: The language of power and control, 79–110. Abingdon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2014. Interactive patterns of the opening statement in criminal trials: A historical perspective. Discourse Studies 16(3). 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613508900.Search in Google Scholar

Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2017. Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia Linguistica 51(1). 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0003.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2008. Terminological equivalence in legal translation: A semiotic approach. Semiotica 172. 33–45. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.2008.088.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le, Lijin Sha & Yinglong Zheng. 2009. A semiotic interpretation of legal terms. Contemporary Rhetoric 2. 37–43.Search in Google Scholar

Conley, John M., William M. O’Barr & E. Allan Lind. 1979. The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal 27(6). 1375–1399. https://doi.org/10.2307/1372218.Search in Google Scholar

Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230006010Search in Google Scholar

Crismore, Avon. 1984. The rhetoric of textbooks: Metadiscourse. Journal of Curriculum Studies 16. 279–296.10.1080/0022027840160306Search in Google Scholar

Crismore, Avon. 1989. Talking with readers: Metadiscourse as rhetorical act. New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Crismore, Avon & Rodney Farnsworth. 1990. Meta- discourse in popular and professional science discourse. In William Nash (ed.), The writing scholar studies in academic discourse, 118–136. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Dafouz-Milne, Emma. 2008. The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: A cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 40(1). 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003.Search in Google Scholar

Danet, Brenda. 1980. Language in the legal process. Law & Society Review 15. 445–565. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192.Search in Google Scholar

David, Rene. 1973. Les grand systems de droit contemporains. Paris: Dalloz.Search in Google Scholar

Donadio, Paolo & Mattia Passariello. 2022. Hedges and boosters in English and Italian medical research articles: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Language Studies 16(1). 1–20.Search in Google Scholar

Eades, Diana. 2010. Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847692559Search in Google Scholar

Felton Rosulek, Laura. 2009. The sociolinguistic creation of opposing representations of defendants and victims. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 16(1). 1–30.10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.1Search in Google Scholar

Felton Rosulek, Laura. 2015. Dueling discourses: The construction of reality in closing arguments (Oxford Studies in Language and Law). New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Ferguson, Robert A. 1990. The judicial opinion as a literary genre. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 2. 201–219.Search in Google Scholar

Finegan, Edward. 2010. Corpus linguistic approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. In Malcolm Coulthard & Alison Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 65–77. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Fu, Xiaoli. 2012. The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings. Discourse Studies 14(4). 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612450373.Search in Google Scholar

Fu, Xiaoli & Ken Hyland. 2014. Interaction in two journalistic genres: A study of interactional metadiscourse. English Text Construction 7(1). 122–144. https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.7.1.05fu.Search in Google Scholar

Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro-A., Marisol Velasco-Sacristan, Ascension Arribas-Bano & Eva Samaniego-Fernandez. 2001. Persuasion and advertising English: Metadiscourse in slogans and headlines. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 1291–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)80026-6.Search in Google Scholar

Goltaji, Faranak & Mozhgan Hooshmand. 2021. A comparative study of interactional metadiscourse markers in EFL textbooks written by native and Iranian authors. International Journal of Language Studies 15(2). 23–46.Search in Google Scholar

Gotti, Maurizio. 2014. Linguistic insights into legislative drafting. Theory and Practice of Legislation 2(2). 123–143.Search in Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw. 2020. Communicating dissent in judicial opinions: A comparative, genre-based analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 33(1). 381–401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09711-y.Search in Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanislaw & Gianluca Pontrandolfo. 2013. Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse 3. 9–69.Search in Google Scholar

Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2016. Patterns of thanking in the closing section of U.K. service calls: Marking conversational macro-structure vs. interpersonal relations. Pragmatics and Society 7. 664–692.10.1075/ps.7.4.07mosSearch in Google Scholar

He, Mengyu & Abdul Rahim. 2017. Exploring implicit meta-discourse in legal discourse: An analysis of the Chinese and American Constitutions. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(2). 153–216. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8138.Search in Google Scholar

Hernandez, Hjalmar Punla. 2017. A (forensic) stylistic analysis of adverbials of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court decisions in Philippine English. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 7(2). 455–466. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8354.Search in Google Scholar

Holmes, Janet. 1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal 3. 9–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202.Search in Google Scholar

Hu, Guangwei & Feng Cao. 2011. Hedging and boosting in abstracts of applied linguistics articles: A comparative study of English- and Chinese-medium journals. Journal of Pragmatics 43. 2795–2809.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.04.007Search in Google Scholar

Hu, Pi-Chan & Le Cheng. 2016. A study of legal translation from the perspective of error analysis. International Journal of Legal Discourse 1(1). 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0007.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 1998. Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter. Journal of Business Communication 35(2). 224–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Polly Tse. 2004. Metadiscourse in academic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics 25(2). 156–177.10.1093/applin/25.2.156Search in Google Scholar

Hyland, Ken & Hang Zou. 2021. “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute theses. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 50. 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973.Search in Google Scholar

Kelemen, Katalin. 2017. Judicial dissent in European Constitutional Courts: A comparative and legal perspective. London & New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315590769Search in Google Scholar

Langford, Catherine. 2009. Toward a genre of judicial dissent: Lochner and Casey as Exemplars. Communication Law Review 9(2). 1–12.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Jian & Yuxiu Sun. 2018. Presuppositions as discourse strategies in court examinations. International Journal of Legal Discourse 3(2). 197–212. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2018-2008.Search in Google Scholar

Luchjenbroers, June. 1997. In your own words: Questions and answers in a Supreme Court trial. Journal of Pragmatics 27. 477–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(96)00033-1.Search in Google Scholar

Matoesian, Gregory. 1999. The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society 28. 491–521. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404599004017.Search in Google Scholar

Mazzi, Davide. 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 23. 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0.Search in Google Scholar

Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg & Janus Mortensen. 2017. Epistemic stance in courtroom interaction. In Francesca Poggi & Alessandro Capone (eds.), Pragmatics and law: Perspectives in pragmatics, philosophy & psychology, vol. 10, 401–437. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-3-319-44601-1_16Search in Google Scholar

Palashevskaya, Irina. 2017. Correlations of status positions of courtroom discourse participants. XLingaue 10(3). 45–56. https://doi.org/10.18355/xl.2017.10.03.04.Search in Google Scholar

Peacock, Matthew. 2011. A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles. Corpora 1(1). 61–84. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2006.1.1.61.Search in Google Scholar

Pishkova, Elena & Sveta Lalayan. 2020. Judicial verdicts as a form of implementation of legal discourse. Humanities and Social Sciences 2. 224–231. https://doi.org/10.18522/2070-1403-2020-79-2-224-231.Search in Google Scholar

Pravikova, Ludmila. 2003. Judicial discourse: Linguistic aspects. Bulletin of Pyatigorsk State Linguistic University 3. 42–46.Search in Google Scholar

Qiu, Xuyan & Feng Jiang. 2021. Stance and engagement in 3MT presentations: How students communicate disciplinary knowledge to a wide audience. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 51. 100976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100976.Search in Google Scholar

Rupp, Heinz. 1966. Zur Frage der Dissenting Opinion. Die moderne Demokratie und ihr Recht. FS fur Gerhard Leibholz. Tubingen: Mohr.Search in Google Scholar

Russell, Adrienne. 2011. The Arab spring extra-national information flows, social media and the 2011 Egyptian uprising. International Journal of Communication 5. 1238–1247.Search in Google Scholar

Shatin, Yuriy & Igor Silantev. 2020. Russian judicial discourse in the light of the modern theory of argumentation. Kritika and Semiotika 2. 401–412. https://doi.org/10.25205/2307-1737-2020-2-401-412.Search in Google Scholar

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2021. I’m thinking and you’re saying: Speaker stance and the progressive of mental verbs in courtroom interaction. Text & Talk 41(2). 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0145.Search in Google Scholar

Takimoto, Masahiro. 2015. A Corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics 5(1). 95–105. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836.Search in Google Scholar

Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Toska, Bledar. 2012. Epistemic hedges and boosters as stance markers in legal argumentative discourse. Topics in Linguistics 10. 57–62.Search in Google Scholar

Tracy, Karen & Mary Caron. 2017. How the language style of small-claims court judges does ideological work. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 36(3). 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x16652191.Search in Google Scholar

Tracy, Karen & Danielle Hodge. 2018. Judge discourse moves that enact and endanger procedural justice. Discourse & Society 29(1). 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517726112.Search in Google Scholar

Vande Kopple, William. 1985. Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition & Communication 36(1). 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/357609.Search in Google Scholar

Virtanen, Tuija. 2005. Polls and surveys show: Public opinion as a persuasive device in editorial discourse. In Helena Halmari & Tuija Virtanen (eds.), Persuasion across genres, 105–134. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.130.10virSearch in Google Scholar

Wald, Patricia. 1995. The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: Judicial writings. University of Chicago Law Review 62(4). 1371–1419. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600107.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Jingjing & Le Cheng. 2020. Evidentiality of court judgments in the People’s Republic of China: A semiotic perspective. Semiotica 236-237. 477–500. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0031.Search in Google Scholar

Yang, Min & Min Wang. 2021. A science mapping of studies on courtroom discourse with CiteSpace. International Journal of Legal Discourse 6(2). 291–322. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2057.Search in Google Scholar

Zaitseva, Margarita. 2019. Judicial discourse: Speech strategies and tactics, language means of conflict expression. Actual Research in the Modern World 4-6(48). 54–60.Search in Google Scholar

Zou, Hang & Ken Hyland. 2019. Reworking research: Interactions in academic articles and blogs. Discourse Studies 21(6). 713–733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619866983.Search in Google Scholar

Zou, Hang & Ken Hyland. 2020. “Think about how fascinating this is”: Engagement in academic blogs across disciplines. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 43. 100809. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.100809.Search in Google Scholar