A corpus-based examination of reflexive metadiscourse in majority and dissent opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court

McKeown, Jamie

doi:10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.019

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Each sub-corpora contained five conservative and five liberal leaning opinions. As in McKeown (2021), I only included sections of the judgments containing the written judicial opinions, that is, the parts which are written by the judges to explain 'the law as applied to the case. .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, Goźdź-Roszkowski (2020) comparatively examines dissents in Poland’s supreme judicial body and SCOTUS. McKeown (2021) examines SCOTUS majority and dissent opinions. Although, Szczyrbak (2014) examines SCOTUS concurring opinions, she does not distinguish between the two types of concurrences.…”

Section: Scotus Opinion Writing and Judicial Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%

“…117–118). Proceeding from this insight, reflexive models of metadiscourse are concerned with ‘the various discourse functions communicators enact when they explicitly refer to themselves (as communicators) and to their communication (as communication)’ (McKeown, 2021: 224). I principally draw upon the approach of Ädel (2006, 2008, 2017).…”

Section: Reflexive Metadiscourse and Discourse Targetsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…That said, in this study, I examine the use of a specific subcategory of reflexive metadiscourse, that is, clarifying (Ädel, 2006: 75). Previous research (McKeown, 2021) has shown clarifying devices as highly frequent in judicial discourse and as devices of discursive control and subversion. Broadly understood, clarifying can be defined as explicit attempts by communicators to specify what is or is not being communicated.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A comparative investigation of metadiscursive clarifying devices in the abortion discourse of the U.S. Supreme Court

McKeown

2022

Discourse & Communication

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Based on previous research that identified metadiscursive clarifiers as a means of discursive control and subversion, this study investigates the use of the devices in the abortion discourse of the U.S. Supreme court. It examines four sub-genres of judicial opinion (majority opinions, dissents, regular concurrences, and special concurrences) and their contribution to the development of this area of law. The quantitative analysis reveals that the separate opinions contained significantly more clarifying devices than the majority opinions. This represented a missed opportunity for majority writers to control positions asserted in separate opinions. More qualitatively oriented analysis shows the use of the devices as reflecting the nature of the sub-genres examined: regular concurrence writers used clarifiers to support the majority opinion; special concurrence and dissent writers both used clarifiers to attack the majority opinion. The analysis also reveals that clarifiers often reveal prescient tensions within the law; positions expressed with the use of the devices often became majority positions in subsequent cases.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Scotus Opinion Writing and Judicial Discoursementioning

confidence: 99%