Cover not available

Article published In: International Journal of Corpus Linguistics: Online-First Articles

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload EPUB
authorization required

Continuum of stance in law

A corpus-based study across written legal genres

ORCiD logo with link | Zhejiang University
ORCiD logo with link | Zhejiang Gongshang University
ORCiD logo with link | Zhejiang Gongshang University
Published online: 27 February 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.25091.che
Abstract
Stance is deep-rooted in law, where legal values can never stand in a vacuum. Despite a growing body of literature on stance in legal genres, cross-genre examinations conducted from a corpus-based perspective still leave room for improvement. This study conducts a cross-genre examination of how legal professionals express stance across three legal genres, i.e. legislation, judgments, and legal academic articles. By adopting a corpus-based approach, evidence-based insights are provided into the general profile of stance expressions in legal settings, as well as the distribution of stance features across the three legal genres. Additionally, this study delineates a continuum of stance in law, which illustrates the variation in stance expressions by categorizing them as objective or subjective, certain or uncertain, direct or indirect, and explicit or implicit. The findings suggest that stance may serve as a discourse anchor to help frame legal rules, construct legal facts, and convey legal values.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Stance in written legal genres
    • 2.1Classification of legal genres
    • 2.2Studies on stance in written legal genres
  • 3.Methodology
    • 3.1Corpora
    • 3.2A corpus-based approach to stance in legal genres
  • 4.Results and analysis
    • 4.1Cross-genre comparison of stance markers
    • 4.2Cross-corpus comparison of stance features
      • 4.2.1Evidentiality
      • 4.2.2Affect
      • 4.2.3Presence
  • 5.Discussion: Continuum of stance in law
  • 6.Conclusions
  • References
References (78)
References
Askehave, I., & Swales, J. M. (2001). Genre identification and communicative purpose: A problem and a possible solution. Applied linguistics, 22(2), 195–212. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Aull, L. L., & Lancaster, Z. (2014). Linguistic markers of stance in early and advanced academic writing: A corpus-based comparison. Written Communication, 31(2), 151–183. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Baars, B. J. (1993). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bashir, I., Yunus, K., & Al-Jarrah, T. M. (2018). Modal verbs hedging: The uses and functions of “will” and “shall” in Nigerian legal discourse. International Journal of English Linguistics, 8(7), 59–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berūkštienė, D. (2016). Legal discourse reconsidered: Genres of legal texts. Comparative Legilinguistics, 28(1), 89–119. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, V. K. (1983). Simplification v. easification — The case of legal texts. Applied linguistics, 4(1), 42–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1993). Analyzing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Legal genres in interdiscursive contexts. In A. Wagner & A. Matulewska (Eds.), Research handbook on jurilinguistics (pp. 159–178). Edward Elgar Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boginskaya, O. (2022). Dissenting with conviction: Boosting in challenging the majority opinion. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 7(2), 257–279. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: Closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse. Cultura Lenguaje Y Representacion-Revista de Estudios Culturales de la Universitat Jaume, 331, 31–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breeze, R. (2013). Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(2), 229–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breeze, R., Gotti, M., & Sancho, C. (2014). Interpersonality in legal genres. Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brezina, V., McEnery, T., & Wattam, S. (2015). Collocations in context: A new perspective on collocation networks. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 20(2), 139–173. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cao, D. (2007). Translating law. Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, K. (2015). Stance expressions in the courtroom. English Language and Linguistics, 21(2), 41–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2017). Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia Linguistica, 51(1), 103–132. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, L. (2010). A semiotic interpretation of genre: Judgments as an example. Semiotica, 182(1–4), 89–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Attribution and judicial control in Chinese court judgments: a corpus-based study. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 19(1), 27–49. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, L., Liu, X., & Si, C. (2024). Identifying stance in legislative discourse: A corpus-driven study of data protection laws. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1–13. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, L., & Sin, K. (2011). A sociosemiotic interpretation of linguistic modality in legal settings. Semiotica, 1851, 123–146. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. (1994). On the use of corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 1(1), 27–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daniel, F. O. (2024). That-complement clauses signalling stance in Nigerian Supreme Court lead judgements: A corpus-based study. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 9(1), 121–144. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daniel, F. O., & Unuabonah, F. O. (2021). Stance and engagement in selected Nigerian Supreme Court judgments. English Text Construction, 14(2), 231–252. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diaz, B. A., & Hall, M. K. (2020). A corpus-driven exploration of US language planning and language ideology from 2013 to 2018. Journal of Language and Politics, 19(6), 915–936. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finegan, E., & Lee, B. T. (2020). Legal writing: attitude and emphasis. Corpus linguistic approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in supreme court opinions. In M. Coulthard, & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 48–63). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frow, J. (2015). Genre. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (2017). Signalling sites of contention in judicial discourse: An exploratory corpus-based analysis of selected stance nouns in US Supreme Court opinions and Poland’s constitutional tribunal judgments. Comparative Legilinguistics, 321, 91–117. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). Values and valuations in judicial discourse: A corpus-assisted study of (dis)respect in US Supreme Court decisions on same-sex marriage. Studies in Logic, Grammar and Rhetoric, 53(1), 61–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). “It is not just a fact that the law requires this, but it is a reasonable fact”: Using the Noun that-pattern to explore stance construction in legal writing. In T. Fanego & P. Rodríguez-Puente (Eds.), Corpus-based research on variation in English legal discourse (pp. 123–146). John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). Communicating dissent in judicial opinions: A comparative, genre-based analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 33(2), 381–401. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Language and legal judgments: Evaluation and argument in judicial discourse. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gray, B., & Biber, D. (2012). Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland, & C. S. Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 15–33). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hartnett, E. A. (1999). A matter of judgment, not a matter of opinion. New York University Law Review, 741, 123–160.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmes, J. (1984). Modifying illocutionary force. Journal of Pragmatics, 81, 345–365. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1990). Hedges and boosters in women’s and men’s speech. Language & Communication, 101, 185–205. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., & Matthiessen, C. M. (2014). Halliday’s introduction to functional grammar. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (1998). Boosting, hedging and the negotiation of academic knowledge. TEXT, 18(3), 349–382. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2000). Hedges, boosters and lexical invisibility: Noticing modifiers in academic texts. Language Awareness, 9(4), 179–197. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7(2), 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2008). Persuasion, interaction and the construction of knowledge: Representing self and others in research writing. International Journal of English Studies, 8(2), 1–23. [URL]
(2016). Writing with attitude: Conveying a stance in academic texts. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Teaching English grammar to speakers of other languages (pp. 246–265). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2019). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. Bloomsbury Academic.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. (2016). Change of attitude? A diachronic study of stance. Written Communication, 33(3), 251–274. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. K. (2019). Academic discourse and global publishing: Disciplinary persuasion in changing times. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krapivkina, O. A. (2017). Semantics of the verb shall in legal discourse. Jezikoslovlje, 18(2), 305–317.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kress, G. (1993). Genre as social process. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), The powers of literacy (RLE Edu I): A genre approach to teaching writing (pp. 22–37). Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kurzon, D. (1997). ‘Legal language’: Varieties, genres, registers, discourses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 119–139. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lee, S. H. (2015). Evaluative stances in persuasive essays by undergraduate students: Focusing on appreciation resources. Text & Talk, 35(1), 49–76. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, J., Cheng, L., & Cheng, W. (2016). Deontic meaning making in legislative discourse. Semiotica, 2016(209), 323–340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maley, Y. (1994). The language of the law. In J. P. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law (pp. 11–50). Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mahlberg, M., & Wiegand, V. (2022). Exploring narrative fiction: Corpora and digital humanities projects. In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of corpus linguistics (pp. 532–546). Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marín-Arrese, J. I. (2009). Commitment and subjectivity in the discourse of a judicial inquiry. In R. Salkie, P. Busuttil & J. Van er Auwera (Eds.), Modality in English (pp. 237–268). Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marín Arrese, J. I. (2015). Epistemicity and stance: A cross-linguistic study of epistemic stance strategies in journalistic discourse in English and Spanish. Discourse Studies, 17(2), 210–225. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mazzi, D. (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-Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique, 231, 373–385. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKeown, J. (2021). A corpus-based examination of reflexive metadiscourse in majority and dissent opinions of the US Supreme Court. Journal of Pragmatics, 1861, 224–235. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meza, P., Gladic, J., Gladic, D., & Gutierrez, I. (2023). Estrategias de Posicionamiento del Autor en el Género Jurídico Contestación de la Demanda: Comparación entre Estudiantes de Derecho y Abogados [Author’s stance strategies in the legal genre suit’s reply: Comparison between law students and lawyers]. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación, 931, 53–68. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 701, 151–167. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Orta, I. V. (2013). Authoritative intervention in legal discourse: A genre-based study of judgements and arbitration awards. Revista española de lingüística aplicada, 11, 91–104.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Poole, R. (2021). A corpus-aided study of stance adverbs in judicial opinions and the implications for English for Legal Purposes instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 621, 117–127. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rayson, P. (2009). Wmatrix: A web-based corpus processing environment [Computing software]. Lancaster University. [URL]
Solan, L. M. (2010). The language of judges. University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2018). The interpretation of legal language. Annual Review of Linguistics, 4(1), 337–355. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solin, A. (2011). Genre. In J. Zienkowski, J. Verschueren, & J. O. Östman (Eds.), Discursive pragmatics (pp. 119–134). John Benjamins Publishing Company. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Szczyrbak, M. (2014). Stancetaking strategies in judicial discourse: Evidence from US Supreme Court opinions. Studia Linguistica Universitatis Iagellonicae Cracoviensis, 131(1), 91–120. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Epistemological stance and passive reporting verbs in judicial opinions: the case of BE expected to and BE supposed to. Text & Talk, 44(1), 47–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Teubert, W., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2007). Corpus linguistics: Critical concepts in linguistics. Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Toska, B. (2012). Epistemic hedges and boosters as stance markers in legal argumentative discourse. Topics in Linguistics, 101, 57–62.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College, Composition and Communication, 361, 82–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Walton, D. (2010). Legal argumentation and evidence. The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wilkinson, M. (2019). ‘Bisexual oysters’: A diachronic corpus-based critical discourse analysis of bisexual representation in The Times between 1957 and 2017. Discourse & Communication, 13(2), 249–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, P. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text & Talk, 23(2), 259–284. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2020). The putative reader in mass media persuasion — stance, argumentation and ideology. Discourse & Communication, 14(4), 404–423. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zou, H., & Hyland, K. (2024). Stance in article highlights: The promotion of Covid-19 research. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(2), 466–483. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue