FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3046392657> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3046392657 abstract "The practice of legal interpretation has long sought legitimization through devices that seek to distance interpretations from the personal predilections of judges. Most notably, with the rise of textualism, courts have habitually relied on dictionary definitions to provide word meanings that are external to a judge’s own intuitions. Similarly, some scholars and judges have recently argued that corpus linguistics can provide especially powerful and objective information to judges about the ordinary meanings of statutory and constitutional texts. For instance, in their influential article, Judging Ordinary Meaning, Thomas R. Lee and Stephen Mouritsen argue that courts should “import” into the law of interpretation computer-aided means (primarily, corpus analysis) of determining “the sense of a word or phrase that is most likely implicated in a given linguistic context.” In the view of Lee and Mouritsen, statutory interpretation is an “empirical question” (the authors assert this more than forty times), which makes it natural that courts should rely on scientifically-based interpretive sources such as corpus linguistics.The potential judicial adoption of interdisciplinary knowledge and techniques from fields such as linguistics is intriguing, and the resulting discussions from such proposals will enhance both the theory and practice of legal interpretation. Nevertheless, anyone advocating for the judicial adoption of a significant and novel interpretive source bears the burden of offering a compelling explication of the interpretive source and its role within the structure of interpretation. This demonstration should establish that the new interpretive source offers some comparative advantage to existing interpretive sources and is feasible in the sense that judges can competently use it. The advocate must therefore offer a compelling theory of how the interpretive source fits into existing processes of interpretation and explain whether the new interpretive source requires a new way of viewing those processes. With corpus linguistics, some of the issues that should be addressed therefore include: (1) how corpus linguistic analysis is relevant to some objective of interpretation currently identified by judges, such as the determination of ordinary meaning; (2) whether corpus linguistics should displace long-standing interpretive sources, such as dictionaries and textual canons; (3) the extent to which corpus linguistics can take account of the relevant context of a statutory provision; (4) to what extent determining statutory meaning is an empirical endeavor (with or without corpus linguistics); and (5) whether judges have both the technical ability to conduct competent corpus analyses and sufficient linguistic expertise to evaluate the raw data and make judgments of the kind made by trained linguists. In this short essay, in the spirit of offering general concerns about corpus analysis and legal interpretation, we largely focus on Lee and Mouritsen’s efforts in addressing the above issues. We argue that Lee and Mouritsen’s conceptualization of the potential role for corpus linguistics within legal interpretation is inadequate and underestimates the difficulty of judicial adoption of corpus analysis methods. Corpus analysis can provide useful information about the functioning of language, but it is crucial to neither understate the role of context in determining statutory meaning nor overstate the potential contribution of corpus analysis to legal interpretation." @default.
• W3046392657 created "2020-08-07" @default.
• W3046392657 creator A5020804056 @default.
• W3046392657 creator A5075335677 @default.
• W3046392657 date "2020-07-06" @default.
• W3046392657 modified "2023-09-23" @default.
• W3046392657 title "Judging Corpus Linguistics" @default.
• W3046392657 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3046392657 type Work @default.
• W3046392657 sameAs 3046392657 @default.
• W3046392657 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W3046392657 crossrefType "posted-content" @default.
• W3046392657 hasAuthorship W3046392657A5020804056 @default.
• W3046392657 hasAuthorship W3046392657A5075335677 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C167055898 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C2776217807 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C2779204856 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C2780876879 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C2781374135 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C527412718 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C532629269 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C111472728 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C138885662 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C144024400 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C166957645 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C167055898 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C17744445 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C199539241 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C2776217807 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C2779204856 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C2779343474 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C2780876879 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C2781374135 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C41895202 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C527412718 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C532629269 @default.
• W3046392657 hasConceptScore W3046392657C95457728 @default.
• W3046392657 hasLocation W30463926571 @default.
• W3046392657 hasOpenAccess W3046392657 @default.
• W3046392657 hasPrimaryLocation W30463926571 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W1526227786 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W2336890111 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W2560476765 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W2755377241 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W2904425933 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W2962310281 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W2965876341 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W2971208556 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3040772517 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3122838872 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3122984312 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3124551250 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3141981875 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3161000670 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3172906621 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3175809134 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3189437102 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W3194961291 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W649101689 @default.
• W3046392657 hasRelatedWork W964804978 @default.
• W3046392657 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3046392657 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3046392657 magId "3046392657" @default.
• W3046392657 workType "article" @default.