Stancetaking in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence (1973-present): epistemic (im)probability and evidential (dis)belief

Jamie McKeown

doi:10.1515/ijld-2022-2075

Article

Stancetaking in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence (1973-present): epistemic (im)probability and evidential (dis)belief

Jamie McKeown
Jamie McKeown is Research Assistant Professor at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research focuses on legal discourse and media discourse (especially the interplay of the two), disinformation, and certain socio-interactional aspects of professional communication.

Published/Copyright: December 16, 2022

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal International Journal of Legal Discourse Volume 7 Issue 2

Abstract

This article investigates stancetaking by judicial opinion writers in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence. It examines the performative use of two kinds of stance evaluations, i.e., epistemic (im)probability and evidential (dis)belief. Using several sub-corpora, it contrasts the previously mentioned stance evaluations in majority opinions (168,329 words) and dissent opinions (105,517 words), thus contributing to a further understanding of the common law phenomenon of separate opinion writing. In light of the court’s decision to overrule this area of law and return it to the state level, this article also contrasts the use of performative stance evaluations in relation to two key jurisprudential issues: viability and state interests. The results show that dissent writers used a significantly greater number of stance evaluation markers. Although confidence levels varied across the different results, dissent writers also used significantly greater amounts of high certainty/strength markers when responding to majority opinions. This represented a kind of discursive escalation in which dissent writers diverged from majority opinions and expressed stronger counterstances. The article closes with a discussion of the major implications for the current law and directions for discourse research in a post-Roe legal landscape.

Keywords: epistemic modality; evidentiality; judicial discourse; Roe v Wade; stancetaking

Corresponding author: Jamie McKeown, Department of English & Communication, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hung Hom, Kowloon, Hong Kong, E-mail: Jamie.mckeown@polyu.edu.hk

Funding source: The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Start-up Fund for RAPs under the Strategic Hiring Scheme

Award Identifier / Grant number: P0038185

About the author

Jamie McKeown

Jamie McKeown is Research Assistant Professor at The Hong Kong Polytechnic University. His research focuses on legal discourse and media discourse (especially the interplay of the two), disinformation, and certain socio-interactional aspects of professional communication.

Research funding: This work was supported by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University Start-up Fund for RAPs under the Strategic Hiring Scheme, P0038185.

References

Aalto-Heinilia, Maija. 2016. Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose, or intention? International Journal of Legal Discourse 1(1). 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0004.Search in Google Scholar

Abdi, Reza. 2012. Evidence marking in research articles: An investigation of its sources and relative reliability through quality markers. The Journal of Teaching Language Skills 3(4). 1–26.Search in Google Scholar

Ädel, Annelie. 2006. Metadiscourse in L1 and L2 English. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/scl.24Search in Google Scholar

Arzuaga, Bonnie H. & Ben H. Lee. 2011. Limits of human viability in the United States: A medicolegal review. Pediatrics 128(6). 1047–1052. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2011-1689.Search in Google Scholar

Baum, Lawrence. 2018. The Supreme Court, 13th edn. London: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Black-Rupp, Nathan. 2019. When is she a woman?: Gendered subject forming language in TRAP laws. International Journal of Legal Discourse 4(1). 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2019-2014.Search in Google Scholar

Breeze, Ruth. 2019. Part-of-speech patterns in legal genres: Text-internal dynamics from a corpus-based perspective. In Teresa Fanego & Paula Rodriguez-Puente (eds.), Corpus-based research on variation in English legal discourse, 79–105. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/scl.91.04breSearch in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le. 2019. Gauging court adjudication: Qualification and quantification. International Journal of Legal Discourse 4(2). 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2019-2019.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Winnie & Le Cheng. 2014. Epistemic modality in court judgments: A corpus-driven comparison of civil cases in Hong Kong and Scotland. English for Specific Purposes 33. 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.07.006.Search in Google Scholar

D’hondt, Sigurd & Fluer van der Houwen. 2014. Quoting from the case file: How intertextual practices shape discoruse at various stages in the legal trajectory. Language & Communication 36. 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.008.Search in Google Scholar

Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebreston (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSearch in Google Scholar

Duena, Ina Francesca & Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao. 2022. The language of evaluation in a Philippine drug trial: An appraisal framework perspective. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(1). 163–193. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2068.Search in Google Scholar

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

Ginsburg, Ruth B. 1985. Some thoughts on autonomy and equality in relation to Roe V Wade. North Caroline Law Review 63(2). 375–386.Search in Google Scholar

Ginsburg, Ruth B. 1990. Remarks on writing separately. Washington Law Review 65(1). 133–150.Search in Google Scholar

Ginsburg, Ruth B. 2010. The role of dissenting opinions. Minnesota Law Review 95(1). 1–8.Search in Google Scholar

Gong, Mingyu, Winnie Cheng & Le Cheng. 2020. Development of deontic modality in Chinese civil law: A corpus study. Pragmatics & Society 11(3). 337–362. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16058.gon.Search in Google Scholar

Goźdź-Roszkowski, Stanisław. 2017. Signalling sites of contention in judicial discourse. An exploratory corpus-based analysis of selected stance nouns in U.S. Supreme Court opinions and Poland’s constitutional tribunal judgments. Comparative Legilinguistics 32. 91–117. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2017.32.4.Search in Google Scholar

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

Hatipoğlu, Çiler & Sedef Algı. 2017. Contextual and pragmatic functions of modal epistemic hedges in argumentative paragraphs in Turkish. In Çiler Hatipoğlu, Erdem Akbas & Yasemin Bayyurt (eds.), Metadiscourse across genres: Uncovering textual and interactional aspects of texts, 85–109. Oxford: Peter Lang.10.3726/b11093Search in Google Scholar

Hunston, Susan. 2000. Evaluation in text. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780198238546.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

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

Kärkkäinen, Elise. 2003. Epistemic stance in English conversation: A description of its interactional functions, with a focus on I think. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.115Search in Google Scholar

Lau, Monica & Johan Rooryck. 2016. Aspect, evidentiality, and mirativity. Lingua 186–187. 110–119.10.1016/j.lingua.2016.11.009Search in Google Scholar

Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Macagno, Fabrizio. 2016. Defining marriage: Classification, interpretation, and definitional disputes. Informal Logic 36(3). 309–332. https://doi.org/10.22329/il.v36i3.4721.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James Robert & Paul White. 2005. The language of evaluation. Appraisal in English. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910Search in Google Scholar

Mazzi, Davide. 2010. “This argument fails for two reasons…” A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation in strategies in U.S. Supreme Court Judgments. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 23(4). 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0.Search in Google Scholar

McEnery, Tony, Richard Xiao & Yukio Tono. 2006. Corpus-based language studies: An advanced resource book. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

McKeown, Jamie. 2018. A corpus-based investigation of techno-optimism and propositional certainty in the National Intelligence Council’s ‘Future Global Trends Reports’ (2010–2035). Discourse & Communication 12(1). 39–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481317735625.Search in Google Scholar

McKeown, Jamie. 2022. A comparative investigation of metadiscursive clarifying devices in the abortion discourse of the U.S. Supreme Court. Discourse & Communication 16(6). 652–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/17504813221108827.Search in Google Scholar

McKeown, Jamie & Hans Ladegaard. 2017. Evidentiality and identity positioning in online disputes about language use in Hong Kong. Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 14(1). 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1558/jalpp.35604.Search in Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 2000. Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Search in Google Scholar

Nuyts, Jan. 2001. Subjectivity as an evidential dimension in epistemic modal expressions. Journal of Pragmatics 33. 383–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(00)00009-6.Search in Google Scholar

Roberts, Simon. 2016. The changing face of the English court in the early twenty-first century: A neo Pluralistic approach. International Journal of Legal Discourse 1(1). 87–115. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0008.Search in Google Scholar

Stein, Marc. 2010. Sexual injustice: Supreme Court decisions from Griswold to Roe. Chapel Hill: The University of North Caroline Press.Search in Google Scholar

Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2014. Stancetaking strategies in judicial discourse: Evidence from U.S. Supreme Court Opinion. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Cracoviensis 131. 91–120.Search in Google Scholar

Tannen, Deborah. 1999. The argument culture: Stopping America’s War of words. New York: Ballentine Books.Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Tuen. 2014. Discourse and knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781107775404Search 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

Ziegler, Mary. 2020. Abortion and the law in America: Roe V Wade to the present. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108653138Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2022-07-09

Accepted: 2022-10-30

Published Online: 2022-12-16

Published in Print: 2022-12-16

You are currently not able to access this content.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2075

Keywords for this article

epistemic modality; evidentiality; judicial discourse; Roe v Wade; stancetaking