Matching Items (3)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Law
Description
A critical discourse analysis (CDA) was employed to examine judicial opinions in the United States and Russia on the free speech provisions in their respective constitutions. As a research perspective, CDA is designed to directly speak to social change, focusing on power, history, ideology, and language’s role as a social phenomenon in expressing values of individuals and social groups (Wodak & Meyer, 2001). Fairclough’s (2001) methodological approach to CDA was selected for its consistency and structure in examining societal issues in CDA; namely, a five-stage approach that includes: (1) focusing on a social problem that possesses a semiotic aspect; (2) identifying obstacles to addressing the problem through text as semiosis (in relation to his three-part model addressed above); (3) considering whether the social structure “needs” the problem; (4) identifying potential routes to overcome the obstacles, and (5) reflecting critically on the first four stages. This methodological framework was utilized in answering the following research questions: (1) What are the textual and constructive differences in the U.S. and Russian constitutional free speech provisions and judicial systems? (2) How do the differences in (1) affect the protection of individual speech rights? (3)What are avenues to protect or improve speech rights in the future? The results of this study manifested similar structures of power and methods of defending the courts’ authority, notwithstanding different cultural understanding of free speech and jurisprudential approaches.
ContributorsWeaver, Amanda (Author) / Sipka, Danko (Thesis advisor) / Adams, Karen (Committee member) / Bambauer, Jane (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
Contributing to the small but growing body of research on linguistic discrimination in legal settings, this thesis conducts a sociolinguistic investigation of the impact of an individual's accent on juror perceptions of defendant favorability and innocence. The study used an online questionnaire in which sixty mock jurors were each asked to evaluate the audio testimony of a defendant representing one of three English ethnolects: African American, British South African, or Caucasian American. In addition to rating the defendant's persuasiveness, honesty, credibility, trustworthiness, and guilt, participants were also asked to determine an appropriate punishment (if any) for the defendant. Results indicate a preference of participants to issue an unsure or caveat opinion for the African American speaker but not to the British South African or Caucasian American speaker. The implications of these findings, as well as the correlations between each variable are discussed. The paper concludes with a recommendation for legal training and a revision of courtroom practices.
ContributorsMaerowitz, Max Robert (Author) / Prior, Matthew (Thesis director) / Adams, Karen (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / Department of English (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
This thesis argues for the utility of syntactic cartography in representing and analyzing the disputed language of legal statutes. It presents an analysis of two appellate court cases, Flores-Figueroa v. United States (2009) and In re Sanders (2008). Each case involves a difference of opinion with respect to the position and function of prepositions found in 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1) and 11 U.S.C. § 1328(f), respectively. Informing the tree structures are Merlo and Ferrer's (2006) six diagnostics for PP attachment: head dependence, optionality, iterativity, ordering, copular paraphrase, and deverbal nouns. In Flores-Figueroa, the analysis yields a conclusion that affirms the court's decision, as does the analysis in Sanders, although it only concurs in part. Implications of the study and the overall cartography approach are discussed, including how it could impact the drafting of jury instructions and future legislation. The paper also addresses the unique heritage of legal language, the ways in which it contrasts with civic, non-legal English, and how its characteristics give rise to ambiguity and vagueness, two suitable phenomena for linguistic analysis. Further, it discusses the potential for providing linguistic input on active cases to the Supreme Court and other judicial bodies.
ContributorsPetersen, Justin Bruce (Author) / Gelderen, Elly van (Thesis advisor) / Renaud, Claire (Committee member) / Adams, Karen (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017