Chapter 1:The Social Context of Legal Judgments

Abstract

Judgments of appellate courts are important texts in the common law system. They contain the rules as they have been declared by the judges on a case-by-case basis and are therefore a primary source of law and they provide a public account of the judgesÕ reasoning processes. This makes judgments important texts also in legal education. Despite this importance, relatively little linguistic research has so far been carried out on these texts. There has been some research into their macrostructure, communicative purpose and the use of modality. There has also been some research into the intertextual nature of judgments and the consequences of this for teaching reading in English for Academic Purposes. The concern of this study is the negotiation of tradition and authority in judgments and intersubjective positioning in relation to authority. Central to this concern is the notion of dialogue: dialogue with alternative texts and dialogue about degrees of meanings. The theoretical foundations consist of three different but complementary orientations to language and discourse: Legal discourse is concerned with the interconnnectedness of texts, interpretation and history. Critical Discourse Analysis is primarily concerned with language as a social practice rather than an individual practice and the intertextual nature of texts, and Systemic Functional Linguistics provides the linguistic tools for the analysis of intertextuality and inter-discursivity: engagement and graduation. Engagement and graduation in this thesis are reconceived as topological spaces rather than as typological systems. This makes it possible to map degrees of heteroglossic diversity, degrees of category membership and degrees of interdiscursivity between the everyday, commonsense discourse of the ÒrealÓ world and the specialized, abstract discourse of the law. Furthermore, a topological approach makes it possible to take a dynamic view of the negotiation of alternative positions as texts unfold logogenetically. All structural elements of a judgment are highly dialogic, from the social construction of facts through the statement of issue, the reasoning, to declaring winners and losers, but different elements draw on different aspects of the engagement and graduation systems. Furthermore, engagement and graduation can be resources to evaluate without appearing to be ÔsubjectiveÕ. The thesis concludes with a discussion of legal discourse as a discourse of power and solidarity.

1

Acknowledgments

Writing this thesis has felt to me like climbing Mount Everest, and like most climbs, it has involved a number of people without whom this project would not have been possible. The biggest thank you must go to Jim Martin, whose words ÒGo for a PhD, you can do itÓ, spoken during the coffee break at a Systemic Summer School, got me started. He then took on the roles of supervisor, base camp manager, belayer and head sherpa all in one, never afraid of (semiotic) heights and pushing me higher and higher. Every time I thought I had reached the summit there was another one in the distance. Jane Simpson took over the ropes during JimÕs leave and guided me during that period, equally enthusiastic and demanding. IÕve learned much from both of them.

There were also a number of law people who were helpful: Richard Holmes let me attend his tutorials, where I could experience legal reasoning in action. Lyn Bond made time for me in her busy law practice. Both were also helpful with the selection of legal casebooks. Neil Andrews made his course outline on precedent and an extensive list of references available.

Thank you to my colleagues for their encouragement at our research seminars and workshops in Sydney and the International System Functional Congresses in Cardiff and Melbourne.

And a final thank you to Armin Kšrner for introducing me to rock climbing and to the late Greg Bridge for his bushwalks. The challenges posed by these two made some of the challenges of writing a thesis about legal discourse pale into insignificance and contributed much to maintaining my sanity.

Contents

Chapter 1:The Social Context of Legal Judgments

1.1Introduction1

1.2The role of judgments in the common law2

1.3The audience of judgments4

1.4Linguistics and the law6

1.4.1The heterogeneity of legal language7

1.4.2Lawyer talk: power and control9

1.4.3The language of statutes: balancing certainty and flexibility18

1.4.4The language of judgments: declaring and justifying20

1.4.5Forensic linguistics: linguists in court21

1.4.5.1Analysing evidence22

1.4.5.2Interpreting statutes25

1.5Legal discourse26

1.6Purpose of the study29

1.7Thesis overview30

Chapter 2:Theoretical Foundations: Legal Discourse, Critical Discourse Analysis and Systemic Functional

Linguistics32

2.1Legal discourse33

2.1.1Legal reasoning34

2.1.1.1The traditional view34

2.1.1.2The critical view36

2.1.2The need for interpretation: the ambiguity of rules38

2.1.3Interpretation of rules and choice42

2.1.4Interpretation as social practice46

2.1.4.1Interpretation and history: a hermeneutic reading46

2.1.4.2Interpretation, rhetoric and persuasion50

2.2Critical Discourse Analysis53

2.2.1Aims of CDA54

2.2.2Mapping the territory: discourse, text and language56

2.2.3Discourse and institutions59

2.2.4Subject positions60

2.2.5Discourse and context62

2.2.6Intertextuality64

2.2.6.1Bakhtin and dialogism65

2.2.6.2Fairclough and intertextuality67

2.2.6.3Intertextuality and language69

2.3Systemic Functional Linguistics69

2.3.1Stratification71

2.3.2Metafunctions72

2.3.3Context74

2.3.3.1Register75

2.3.3.2Genre77

2.3.3.3Ideology80

2.3.4Realisation, metaredundancy and instantiation82

2.3.5Tenor84

2.3.6Objectivity versus subjectivity87

2.3.7Appraisal90

2.3.7.1Judgement: evaluating behaviour90

2.3.7.2Appreciation: evaluating things aesthetically94

2.3.7.3Affect: evaluating emotions97

2.3.7.4Semantic interaction of appraisal values99

2.3.7.5Graduation99

2.3.7.5.1Force100

2.3.7.5.2Focus103

2.3.7.6Engagement104

2.3.7.6.1Topological perspective104

2.3.7.6.2Heteroglossic perspective108

2.3.7.7Appraisal across fields and genres119

Chapter 3:Engagement and Graduation as Resources for

Dialogue121

3.1The data for this study122

3.2Engagement and graduation as resources for dialogue and

persuasion127

3.3Engagement129

3.3.1Judgments as a site of heteroglossic diversity129

3.3.2The semantics of engagement131

3.3.2.1Revisiting typology: monogloss versus heterogloss132

3.3.2.2Engagement and interdiscursivity132

3.3.2.3Heteroglossia and interdiscursivity134

3.3.2.4Extra-vocalisation and interdiscursivity137

3.3.2.5Extra-vocalisation: moving from typology to topology139

3.3.2.6Intra-vocalisation: moving from typology to topology142

3.3.2.7Heteroglossic diversity and demodalisation150

3.3.2.8Mediating own text and other texts: negotiating

extra-vocalisation and intra-vocalisation values153

3.3.2.9Extra-vocalisation and technicality156

3.3.2.10Negotiating the historicity of texts: multiple attributions160

3.4Graduation163

3.4.1Graduation as a resource for legal reasoning164

3.4.1.1Legal issues as a matter of degree165

3.4.1.2Legal rules as a matter of degree167

3.4.1.3Precedent as a matter of degree169

3.4.1.4Legal categories and degrees of proximity170

3.4.1.5The grading of facts171

3.4.2A topology of Graduation174

3.4.2.1A topology of ÔforceÕ176

3.4.2.1.1A topology of ÔgradeÕ values176

3.4.2.1.2A topology of ÔmeasureÕ values178

3.4.2.2A topology of ÔfocusÕ180

3.4.3Graduation and interdiscursivity182

3.4.4Graduation as a resource for evaluation184

Chapter 4:Legal Discourse and the Logogenesis of Dialogue:

The Social Construction of Facts187

4.1Construction of facts through engagement values190

4.1.1Negotiating the discursive history of a case190

4.1.2Negotiating the social reality of events194

4.1.2.1The monoglossic construction of facts195

4.1.2.2The heteroglossic construction of facts through extra-vocalisation values 199

4.1.2.3The heteroglossic construction of facts through intra-vocalisation values 202

4.1.3The social construction of facts and the negotiation of

interdiscursivity210

4.2The scaling of facts214

4.2.1Facts and ÔgradeÕ values214

4.2.2Facts and ÔmeasureÕ values221

4.2.2.1Interaction of ÔmeasureÕ and engagement221

4.2.2.2Interaction of interpersonal and experiential

orientations of ÔmeasureÕ223

4.2.3Facts and ÔfocusÕ values226

4.2.4The grading of facts and the syndrome of accumulation229

Chapter 5:Legal Discourse and the Logogenesis of Dialogue: Justifying and Declaring 233

5.1The dialogic construction of legal issues233

5.1.1Legal issues and engagement234

5.1.1.1Legal issues and intertextuality234

5.1.1.2Legal issues and interdiscursivity236

5.1.1.3Negotiating alternative legal categories240

5.1.2The scaling of legal issues243

5.2Legal reasoning: a multiplicity of dialogues246

5.2.1The dialogic nature of legal reasoning Ð visible and invisible

dialogues248

5.2.2Monoglossic utterances in legal reasoning251

5.2.3Extra-vocalisation values in legal reasoning256

5.2.3.1The dynamics of extra-vocalisation values256

5.2.3.2The dynamics of own text and other texts257

5.2.4Intra-vocalisation values in legal reasoning263

5.2.4.1Intra-vocalisation, own text and other texts265

5.2.4.2The dynamics of opening up and closing down dialogue267

5.2.4.3Negotiating divergence between own text and other texts270

5.2.5Graduation in legal reasoning272

5.2.5.1Graduation, own text and other texts273

5.2.5.2Graduation and intra-vocalisation275

5.3The social construction of winners and losers277

5.3.1Monoglossic utterances and inter-discursivity278

5.3.2The heteroglossic construction of conclusion and order280

5.3.2.1Alignment with other texts280

5.3.2.2Alternatives inscribed in own text: intra-textual and

inter-textual dialogue281

5.3.3Conclusion and graduation285

Chapter 6:Conclusion287

6.1Legal discourse and dialogism287

6.2Legal discourse, power and solidarity289

6.3Objectivity, dialogism and solidarity294

6.4Some implications296

6.4.1Applying law versus making law296

6.4.2Critical legal literacy298

6.4.3Possibility for reform?299

6.5Suggestions for further research303

Appendix I: Texts

I.1Donoghue v Stephenson:Text 1 Lord Buckmaster325

Text 2 Lord Atkin332

Text 3 Lord Tomlin343

Text 4 Lord Thankerton344

Text 5 Lord Macmillan347

I.2Bolton v Stone:Text 1 Lord Porter357

Text 2 Lord Normand360

Text 3 Lord Oaksey362

Text 4 Lord Reid363

Text 5 Lord Radcliffe366

I.3McHale v Watson:Windeyer J.367

I.4Miller v Jackson:Text 1 Lord Denning380

Text 2 Geoffrey Lane LJ387

Text 3 Cumming-Bruce LJ392

I.5Zanker v Vartsokas: White J394

I.6Roger v Whitaker:Text 1Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey

and McHugh JJ401

Text 2Gaudron J408

Appendix II: Engagement and Graduation

II.1Donoghue v Stephenson:Text 1 Lord Buckmaster410

Text 2 Lord Atkin422

Text 3 Lord Tomlin442

Text 4 Lord Thankerton444

Text 5 Lord Macmillan448

II.2Bolton v Stone:Text 1 Lord Porter464

Text 2 Lord Normand470

Text 3 Lord Oaksey473

Text 4 Lord Reid475

Text 5 Lord Radcliffe481

II.3McHale v Watson:Windeyer J.483

II.4Miller v Jackson:Text 1 Lord Denning504

Text 2 Geoffrey Lane LJ515

Text 3 Cumming-Bruce LJ524

II.5Zanker v Vartsokas: White J527

II.6Roger v Whitaker:Text 1 Mason CJ, Brennan, Dawson, Toohey

and McHugh JJ538

Text 2 Gaudron J549

List of Figures

2.1Linguistic strata

2.2Metafunctional diversification of the content plane

2.3Language and social context

2.4Metafunctional solidarity across planes

2.5Register as functional variation and as connotative semiotic

2.6Language and stratified context plane

2.7Time frames and semogenesis

2.8Language, register and genre as projection across time frames

2.9System, instance and instantiation

2.10Affectual basis of judgement and appreciation

2.11Cline from representation to assimilation

2.12Space between ideational and interpersonal sourcing

3.1A topology of extra-vocalisation

3.2A topology of values opening heteroglossic diversity

3.3A topology of values closing down heteroglossic diversity

3.4A topology of intra-vocalisation values

3.5Cline of demodalisation

3.6aClines of extra-vocalisation and demodalisation

3.6bClines of intra-vocalisation and demodalisation

3.6cDemodalisation and heteroglossic diversity

3.7Negotiating heteroglossic diversity along two dimensions

3.8Logico-semantic relations of projection and expansion

3.9Multiple projections: degrees of attribution

3.10Extra-vocalisation and proximity cline

3.11Degrees of attribution and degrees of assimilation

3.12Clines of extra-vocalisation and proximity

3.13Multiple grading

3.14ÔGradeÕ and ÔmeasureÕ values: expanding meaning potential

3.15A topology of categorization

4.1Discursive reconstruction of reality

4.2Structural elements of a judgment

4.3Extra-vocalisation values and the discursive history of a decision

4.4Extra-vocalisation values and the discursive construction of events

4.5Dynamic deployment of extra-vocalisation values

4.6Intra-vocalisation values attributed to external texts

4.7Intra-vocalisation values inscribed in writerÕs words

4.8Decreasing intra-vocal negotiation of facts

4.9A topology of extra-vocalisation and the negotiation of inter-discursivity

4.10Extra-vocalisation values and the assessment of facts

4.11Intra-vocalisation values and the assessment of facts

4.12Dialogic dynamics: openÐclose

4.13Dialogic dynamics: closeÐopen

5.1A topology of inter-discursivity

5.2Alternative legal categories and intra-vocalisation

5.3Intra-vocalisation and typological statement of issue

5.4Intra-vocalisation and topological statement of issue

5.5Interaction of graduation and intra-vocalisation in the topological construction of legal issues

5.6Dialogic dynamics: openÐclose

5.7Dialogic dynamics: closeÐopen

5.8Dialogic dynamics

5.9Dynamic deployment of extra-vocalisation values in legal reasoning

5.10Dynamic deployment of own text and other texts

5.11Dynamic deployment of own text and other texts

5.12Intra-vocalisation dynamics

5.13Intra-vocalisation dynamics

5.14Extra-vocalisation values and the inter-textual nature of the conclusion

5.15Intersubjective positioning along two axes

List of Tables

2.1Metafunctions

2.2Metafunctions and lexicogrammar

2.3Interpersonal resources across strata

2.4Sytem of judgement

3.1Overview of date

3.2Engagement choices and mood

3.3Extra-vocalisation: moving from typology to topology

3.4Three values of modality

3.5An overview of grading possibilities

3.6Experiential and interpersonal orientation to ÔmeasureÕ values

3.7Typolgical overview of ÔfocusÕ values and discourses

3.8ÔMeasureÕ values and inter-discursivity

List of Cases

Bolton v Stone [1951] 1 All E.R. 1078

CES v Superclinics (1995) 38 NSWLR 47

Green v The Queen [1996-1997] 191 CLR 334; (1998) 72 ALJR 19

Mabo v Queensland (No2)(1992) 175 CLR 1; 107 ALR 1

MÕAlister (or Donoghue) v Stevenson [1932] A.C. 562

McHale v Watson and others [1964] 111 CLR 384

Miller v Jackson [1977] 3 All ER 338

Osland v The Queen [1998] 197 CLR 316

R v Miller [1954] 2 AER 529

Rogers v Whitaker [1992] 175 CLR 479

Wik Peoples and Thayorre People v Queensland (1996) 141 ALR 129

Zanker v Vartsokas (1988) 34 A Crim R 11 Supreme Court of South Australia

1