1932

Abstract

Over the past decade, the idea of using corpus linguistics in legal interpretation has attracted interest on the part of judges, lawyers, and legal academics in the United States. This review provides an introduction to this nascent movement, which is generally referred to as Law and Corpus Linguistics (LCL). After briefly summarizing LCL's origin and development, I situate LCL within legal interpretation by discussing the legal concept of ordinary meaning, which establishes the framework within which LCL operates. Next, I situate LCL within linguistics by identifying the subfields that are most relevant to LCL. I then offer a linguistic justification for an idea that is implicit in the case law and that provides important support for using corpus analysis in legal interpretation: that data about patterns of usage provide evidence of how words and other expressions are ordinarily understood. I go on to discuss linguistic issues that arise from the use of corpus linguistics in disputes that involve lexical ambiguity and categorization. Finally, I point out some challenges that the growth of LCL will present for both legal professionals and linguists.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-050520-093942
2021-01-04
2024-06-15
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/linguistics/7/1/annurev-linguistics-050520-093942.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-050520-093942&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Artis v. District of Columbia 138 S. Ct. 594 2018.)
  2. Atkins BTS. 1991. Building a lexicon: the contribution of lexicography. Int. J. Lexicogr. 4:3168–204
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Atkins BTS 1992–1993. Theoretical lexicography and its relation to dictionary-making. Dictionaries 14:4–43
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Atkins BTS, Fillmore CJ, Johnson CR 2003. Lexicographic relevance: selecting information from corpus evidence. Int. J. Lexicogr. 16:3251–80
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Atkins BTS, Rundell M. 2008. The Oxford Guide to Practical Lexicography Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Berman MN. 2015. Judge Posner's simple law. Mich. Law Rev. 113:777–807
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Bernstein A. 2021. Legal corpus linguistics and the half-empirical attitude. Cornell Law Rev 106: In press
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bloom P. 2007. Water as an artifact kind. See Margolis & Laurence 2007 150–56
  9. Bright v. Sorenson No. 20180528, 2020 WL 1970585 (Utah 2020.)
  10. Brown CH. 1990. A survey of category types in natural language. Meanings and Prototypes: Studies in Linguistic Categorization S Tzohatsidis 17–47 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Caesars Entertainment Corp. v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers Local 68 Pension Fund 932 F.3d 91 (3d Cir 2019.)
  12. Clark HH. 1996. Using Language Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Cross FB. 2009. The Theory and Practice of Statutory Interpretation Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cunningham CD, Egbert J. 2020. Corpora and analyzing legal discourse in the United States. Routledge Handbook of Corpus Approaches to Discourse Analysis E Friginal, J Hardy New York: Routledge In press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Dąbrowska E, Divjak D 2015. Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Deal v. United States 508 U.S. 129 1993.)
  17. Eskridge WN Jr 2016. Interpreting Law: A Primer on How to Read Statutes and the Constitution St. Paul, MN: Foundation Press
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Evans V. 2009. How Words Mean: Lexical Concepts, Cognitive Models, and Meaning Construction Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Evans V. 2019. Cognitive Linguistics: A Complete Guide Edinburgh, UK: Edinburgh Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Fillmore CJ. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quad. Semant. 6:2224–54
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Fillmore CJ, Atkins BTS. 1992. Toward a frame-based lexicon: the semantics of RISK and its neighbors. Frames, Fields and Contrasts A Lehrer, E Kittay 75–102 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Fillmore CJ, Atkins BTS. 1994. Starting where the dictionaries stop: the challenge of corpus lexicography. Computational Approaches to the Lexicon BTS Atkins, A Zampolli 349–93 Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  23. FrameNet 2016. benefit.n (Cause_benefit_or_detriment) FrameNet Database, Int. Comput. Sci. Inst Berkeley, CA: updated Dec. 12. https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/luIndex
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Frege G. 1948 (1892). Sense and reference. Philos. Rev. 57:3209–30
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gambi C, Pickering MJ. 2018. Models linking production and comprehension. The Handbook of Psycholinguistics E Fernández, H Cairns 157–81 Oxford, UK/Hoboken, NJ: Wiley
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Garber M. 2015. It's not a sandwich. The Atlantic Nov. 5. https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2015/11/its-not-a-sandwich/414352/
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Geeraerts D. 1993. Vagueness's puzzles, polysemy's vagaries. Cogn. Linguist. 4:223–72
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Geeraerts D. 2007. Lexicography. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics D Geeraerts, H Cuyckens 1160–74 Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Geeraerts D. 2010. Theories of Lexical Semantics Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Geeraerts D, Cuyckens H 2007. The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Glynn D, Fischer K 2010. Quantitative Methods in Cognitive Semantics: Corpus-Driven Approaches Berlin/New York: De Gruyter
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Goldberg AE. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Goldberg AE. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Goldberg AE. 2019. Explain Me This: Creativity, Competition, and the Partial Productivity of Constructions Princeton, NJ/Oxford, UK: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Goldfarb N. 2017a. A lawyer's introduction to meaning in the framework of corpus analysis. BYU Law Rev 2017:61359–416
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Goldfarb N. 2017b. The semantics of sleeping in railway stations. LAWnLinguistics Blog June 5. https://lawnlinguistics.com/2017/06/05/the-semantics-of-sleeping-in-railway-stations/
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Goldfarb N. 2017c. Some comments on Hessick on corpus linguistics. LAWnLinguistics Blog Sept. 13. https://lawnlinguistics.com/2017/09/13/some-comments-on-hessick-on-corpus-linguistics/
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Goldfarb N. 2018a. Corpus linguistics: empiricism and frequency. LAWnLinguistics Blog Mar. 22. https://lawnlinguistics.com/2018/03/22/corpus-linguistics-empiricism-and-frequency/
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Goldfarb N. 2018b. Responding further to Hessick on corpus linguistics. LAWnLinguistics Blog Jan. 19. https://lawnlinguistics.com/2018/01/19/responding-further-to-hessick-on-corpus-linguistics-the-first-in-a-series/
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Goldfarb N. 2019. Corpus linguistics in legal interpretation: When is it (in)appropriate? Work. Pap. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3333512
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Goldfarb N. 2020a. Varieties of ordinary meaning: comments on Kevin P. Tobia, ‘Testing Ordinary Meaning.’ Work. Pap. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3553016
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Goldfarb N. 2020b. Fish as “tangible objects,” blotter acid as a “mixture”: out-of-the-ordinary meanings Work. Pap .
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Goldfarb N. 2020c. A partial catalogue of the ways in which U.S. courts refer to and describe the concept of ‘ordinary meaning.’ Work. Pap .
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Goldstone RL, Son JY. 2012. Similarity. The Oxford Handbook of Thinking and Reasoning KJ Holyoak, RG Morrison 155–76 Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Gries STH. 2012. Corpus linguistics, theoretical linguistics, and cognitive/psycholinguistics: towards more and more fruitful exchanges. Corpus Linguistics and Variation in English: Theory and Description J Mukherjee, M Huber 41–63 Amsterdam: Rodopi
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Gries STH. 2020a. Corpus approaches to ordinary meaning in legal interpretation. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics M Coulthard, A May, R Sousa-Silva New York: Routledge, 2nd. ed. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Gries STH. 2020b. In defense of corpus-linguistic approaches to ordinary meaning: what critics say and a cheatsheet for how to preempt them or respond Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Conference on Law and Corpus Linguistics, Brigh. Young Univ. Law Sch Provo, UT: Feb. 6–7
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Gries STH, Slocum BG. 2017. Ordinary meaning and corpus linguistics. BYU Law Rev 2017:61417–71
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Hall v. United States 566 U.S. 506 2012.)
  50. Hanks P 1992–1993. Lexicography: theory and practice. Dictionaries 14:97–112
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Hanks P. 1987. Definitions and explanations. See Sinclair 1987 116–36
  52. Hanks P. 2000. Contributions of lexicography and corpus linguistics to a theory of language performance. Proceedings of the 9th EURALEX International Congress3–13 Stuttgart, Ger: Inst. Masch. Sprachverarbeitung, Univ. Stuttgart
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Hanks P. 2004. Corpus Pattern Analysis. Proceedings of the 11th EURALEX International Congress G Williams, S Vessier 87–97 Lorient, Fr: Univ. Bretagne-Sud
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Hanks P. 2007. Preference syntagmatics. Words and Intelligence II: Essays in Honor of Yorick Wilks K Ahmad, C Brewster, M Stevenson 119–35 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Hanks P. 2009. The impact of corpora on dictionaries. Contemporary Studies in Linguistics P Baker 214–36 London: Continuum
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Hanks P. 2010. Terminology, phraseology, and lexicography. Proceedings of the 14th EURALEX International Congress A Dykstra, T Schoonheim 1299–308 Leeuwarden, Neth: Fryske Akad./Afûk
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Hanks P. 2012. How people use words to make meanings: Semantic types meet valencies. Input, Process and Product: Developments in Teaching and Language Corpora A Boulton, J Thomas 54–67 Brno, Czech Repub: Masaryk Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Hanks P. 2013. Lexical Analysis: Norms and Exploitations Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Hanks P. 2015. Cognitive semantics and the lexicon. Int. J. Lexicogr. 28:186–106
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hanks P. 2020. Pattern Dictionary of English Verbs http://www.pdev.org.uk/
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Herenstein EJ. 2017. The faulty frequency hypothesis: difficulties in operationalizing ordinary meaning through corpus linguistics. Stanford Law Rev. Online 70:112–22
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Hessick CB. 2017. Corpus linguistics and the criminal law. BYU Law Rev 2017:61503–30
    [Google Scholar]
  63. In re Adoption of Baby E.Z. 266 P.3d 702 (Utah 2011.)
  64. Jellum LD, Hricik DC. 2009. Modern Statutory Interpretation: Problems, Theories, and Lawyering Strategies Durham, NC: Carolina Acad, 2nd. ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Jones v. United States 527 U.S. 373 1999.)
  66. Keller DR, Egbert JE. 2020. Hypothesis testing ordinary meaning Paper presented at the Fifth Annual Conference on Law and Corpus Linguistics, Brigh. Young Univ. Law Sch Provo, UT: Feb. 6–7
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Kilgarriff A. 1997. I don't believe in word senses. Comput. Humanit. 31:291–113
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Kilgarriff A. 2007. Word senses. Word Sense Disambiguation: Algorithms and Applications E Agirre, P Edmonds 29–46 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Klapper S. 2019. (Mis)judging ordinary meaning?: Corpus linguistics, the frequency fallacy, and the extension-abstraction distinction in “ordinary meaning” textualism. Br. J. Am. Leg. Stud. 8:2327–69
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Lee TR, Mouritsen SC. 2018. Judging ordinary meaning. Yale Law J 127:4788–879
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Lee TR, Mouritsen SC. 2020. The corpus and the critics. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 87: In press
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Littlefield v. Littlefield 28 Me. 180 1848.)
  73. Lumbra v. United States 290 U.S. 551 1934.)
  74. Malt BC. 1995. Category coherence in cross-linguistic perspective. Cogn. Psychol. 29:85–148
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Malt BC, Sloman SA. 2007. Artifact categorization: the good, the bad, and the ugly. See Margolis & Laurence 2007 85–123
  76. Margolis E, Laurence S 2007. Creations of the Mind: Theories of Artifacts and Their Representation Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Marvel A, Koenig JP. 2015. Event categorization beyond verb senses. Proceedings of NAACL-HLT 201577–86 Stroudsburg, PA: Assoc. Comput. Linguist.
    [Google Scholar]
  78. McBoyle v. United States 283 U.S. 25 1931.)
  79. Merriam-Webster 2016. To chew on: 10 kinds of sandwiches. Words at Play Blog https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/to-chew-on-10-kinds-of-sandwiches/sandwich
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Metlitsky A. 2016. The Roberts Court and the new textualism. Cardozo Law Rev 38:671–89
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Moon R. 1987. The analysis of meaning. See Sinclair 1987 86–103
  82. Mouritsen SC. 2010. The dictionary is not a fortress: definitional fallacies and a corpus-based approach to plain meaning. BYU Law Rev 2010:51915–79
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Mouritsen SC. 2011. Hard cases and hard data: assessing corpus linguistics as an empirical path to plain meaning. Columbia Sci. Technol. Law Rev. 13:156–205
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Mouritsen SC. 2017. Corpus linguistics in legal interpretation—an evolving interpretative framework. Int. J. Lang. Law. 6:67–89
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Murray v. BEJ Minerals, LLC No. OP-0304, 2020 MT 131 (Mont 2020.)
  86. Muscarello v. United States 524 U.S. 125 1998.)
  87. Newell E, Cheung JCK. 2018. Constructing a lexicon of relational nouns. Proceedings of LREC 20183405–10 Paris, Fr: Eur. Lang. Resour. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Nix v. Hedden 149 U.S. 304 1896.)
  89. Origgi G, Sperber D. 2000. Evolution, communication, and the proper function of language. Evolution and the Human Mind: Language, Modularity and Meta-Cognition P Carruthers, A Chamberlain 140–69 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  90. People v. Harris 885 N.W.2d 832, 838–39 (Mich 2016.)
  91. Phillips JC, White S. 2017. The meaning of the three emoluments clauses in the U.S. Constitution: a corpus linguistic analysis of American English from 1760–1799. South Tex. Law Rev. 59:181–236
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Rosch E. 1978. Principles of categorization. Cognition and Categorization E Rosch, BB Lloyd 27–48 Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Ryle G. 1953. Ordinary language. Philos. Rev. 62:167–86
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Scalia A, Garner BA. 2012. Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts St. Paul, MN: Thompson/West
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Schauer F. 2015. Is law a technical language. San Diego Law Rev 52:501–13
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Schmid HJ. 2020. The Dynamics of the Linguistic System: Usage, Conventionalization, and Entrenchment Oxford, UK/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Schönefeld D. 1999. Corpus linguistics and cognitivism. Int. J. Corpus Linguist. 4:1137–71
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Sinclair JM 1987. Looking Up: An Account of the COBUILD Project in Lexical Computing London/Glasgow, UK: Collins ELT
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Sinclair JM, Hanks P, Fox G, Moon R, Stock P 1987. Collins Cobuild English Language Dictionary London/Glasgow, UK: Collins
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Slocum BG. 2015. Ordinary Meaning: A Theory of the Most Fundamental Principle of Legal Interpretation Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Smith v. United States 508 U.S. 223 1993.)
  102. Solan LM. 2005. The new textualists’ new text. Loyola Los Angel. Law Rev. 38:2027–62
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Solan LM. 2017. Patterns in language and law. Int. J. Lang. Law 6:46–66
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Solan LM. 2018. The interpretation of legal language. Annu. Rev. Linguist. 4:337–55
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Solan LM. 2019. Legal linguistics in the US. Looking back, looking ahead. Legal Linguistics Beyond Borders: Language and Law in a World of Media, Globalisation and Social Conflicts F Vogel 20–39 Berlin: Duncker & Humblot
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Solan LM, Gales T. 2017. Corpus linguistics as a tool in legal interpretation. BYU Law Rev 2017:61311–57
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Sperber D. 2007. Seedless grapes: nature and culture. See Margolis & Laurence 2007 124–37
  108. State v. Lantis 447 P.3d 875, 880–81 (Idaho 2019.)
  109. State v. Rasabout 356 P.3d 1258 (Utah 2015.)
  110. Stefanowitsch A, Flach S. 2017. The corpus-based perspective on entrenchment. Entrenchment and the Psychology of Language Learning: How We Reorganize and Adapt Linguistic Knowledge H Schmid 101–27 Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Stock PF. 1983. Polysemy. LEXeter ’83 Proceedings: Papers from the International Conference on Lexicography at Exeter131–40 Tübingen, Ger: Niemeyer
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Strauss P. 2015. Review of Judging Statutes, by Robert Katzmann. J. Leg. Educ. 65:443–59
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., 566 U.S. 560 2012.)
  114. Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Division, Avco Corp. v. UAW 523 U.S. 653 1998.)
  115. Tiersma PM. 1999. Legal Language Chicago/London: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Tobia KP. 2020. Testing ordinary meaning: an experimental assessment of what dictionary definitions and linguistic usage data tell legal interpreters. Harv. Law Rev. 134:2726806
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Tuggy D. 1993. Ambiguity, polysemy, and vagueness. Cogn. Linguist. 4:3273–90
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Violi P. 2000. Prototypicality, typicality, and context. Meaning and Cognition: A Multidisciplinary Approach L Albertazzi 103–22 Amsterdam/Philadelphia: Benjamin
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Watson v. United States 552 U.S. 74 2007.)
  120. Weidemaier B, Lardner M. 2018. Why can't we settle the “is a hot dog a sandwich?” debate. dscout https://dscout.com/people-nerds/is-a-hot-dog-a-sandwich-great-debate
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Wilson v. Safelite Group, Inc. 930 F.3d 429 (6th Cir 2019.)
  122. Wisconsin Central Ltd. v. United States 138 S. Ct. 2067 2018.)
  123. Yates v. United States 574 U.S. 528 2015.)
  124. Zoldan E. 2019. Corpus linguistics and the dream of objectivity. Seton Hall Law Rev 50:2401–48
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-linguistics-050520-093942
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error