Strengths and Weaknesses of Corpus Linguistics in Legal Analysis: A Case Study of the Law and Language at the European Court of Justice Project Karen McAuliffe k.mcauliffe@bham.ac.uk University of Birmingham @dr_KMcA
Goldfarb, Neal, ‘Corpus LinguisFcs in Legal InterpretaFon: When Is It (In)appropriate?’ (Paper presented at the Law & Corpus LinguisFcs Conference, BYU Law School, 5 February 2019). Available at SSRN: hZps://ssrn.com/abstract=3333512 Solan, Lawrence, ‘Legal InterpretaFon by Big Data: Promises and Perils’ (Keynote Lecture at the JurilinguisFca II Conference, Seville, 24 October 2018).
Outline 1. The LLECJ Project: brief overview 2. Focus on CL methods used in one subproject 3. Consideration of the value of the CL analysis for legal research 4. Takeaways: a note of caution
Law and Language at the ECJ Producing a Development of multilingual ‘precedent’ in jurisprudence ECJ judgments The changing role of the AG
www.llecj.karenmcauliffe.com
28 Member States 24 Official Languages
28 Member States 24 Official Languages
TranslaFon at the ECJ BG BG ES ES CS CS DA DA DE DE ET ET EL EL WORKING LANGUAGE: FRENCH EN EN FR FR GA GA HR HR IT IT LV LV JUDGMENT LT LT HU HU MT MT NL NL PL PL PT PT RO RO SK SK SL SL FI FI SV SV
Processing a case through the CJEU Allocated to judge rapporteur Report of the judge (and AG where relevant) Case brought before CJEU rapporteur prepared by Documents translated into référendaire (in French) French First version of judgment Where relevant, AG and Secret deliberaFons (in drajed by référendaire (in référendaires prepare opinion French) French) (in pivot languages) Judgment translated into language of the case (authenFc version of Final judgment drajed (in French) judgment and version signed by judges) and all other official languages
AG Opinions • Non-binding but Court must ‘take account’ of opinion before delivering judgments (in relevant cases) • Not Fed to maZers raised in a parFcular case • Historically wriZen in the style of an academic paper • The Court’s ‘sparring partner’ – creaFng a dialogue in which principles of EU law are developed • The most crea&ve point in the system of producFon of the ECJ’s jurisprudence
ECJ Judgments • WriZen in a new hybrid legal language • Built up like Lego building blocks – formulaic style, mulF- layered authorship McAuliffe, K (2011) “Hybrid Texts and Uniform Law? The producFon of a mulFlingual jurisprudence by the Court of JusFce of the European Union” Interna&onal Journal for the Semio&cs of Law 24(1), 97-115 McAuliffe, K (2013) “The LimitaFons of a MulFlingual Legal System” Interna&onal Journal for the Semio&cs of Law 26(4) 861-882
Pivot TranslaFon PIVOT LANGUAGES • EN • DE • IT • ES
Since 2004 (Convention) BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN Opinions FR EN GA drajed in DE HR IT ES pivot LV FR LT IT HU languages MT (PL) NL PL PT RO SK SL FI SV
Pre-2004: AGs always drajing in their mother tongue Post-2004: AGs drajing in one of the pivot languages of the Court (=EN/someFmes FR)
What implica4ons might changes in the linguis7c aspect of the AG’s role have for the construc4on and consolida4on of ECJ jurisprudence? 1. To what extent has language use had an impact on the usefulness of opinions? 2. Are AGs’ opinions becoming more syntheFc in construcFon and their arguments more constrained by language as a result of the fact that they no longer draj in their mother tongue? 3. Do the opinions of permanent AGs differ from those drajing in pivot languages?
LinguisFc Analysis 1. To what extent has language use had an impact on the usefulness of opinions? 2. Are AGs’ opinions becoming more syntheFc in construcFon and their arguments more constrained by language as a result of the fact that they no longer draj in their mother tongue? 3. Do the opinions of permanent AGs differ from those drajing in pivot languages?
1. Judgments are stylis4cally simpler and less ‘fluent’ than opinions 2. Ajer the 2004 language regime change opinions become more similar (linguisFcally) to judgments 3. Opinions drajed ajer 2004 by non-permanent AGs (i.e. AGs drajing in a language other than their mother tongue) are stylisFcally simpler and less ‘fluent’ than the ones drajed by AGs (drajing in their mother tongues) prior to 2004.
Main objecFves 1. Determining the stylisFc complexity and the fluency of the judgments and the opinions before and ajer the linguisFc reform 2. Comparing the results between judgments/opinions between the opinions drajed before/ ajer the 2004 linguisFc reform
Research quesFons • Which linguisFc features do represent the fluency DeterminaFon and the stylisFc simplicity/complexity of a text? of stylisFc • How can such features be idenFfied in the complexity considered opinions and judgments? and fluency • Do the judgments present less features represenFng stylisFc complexity and fluency than the opinions? Comparison • Do the opinions become more similar to the of the results judgments ajer the 2004 linguisFc reform? • Do the opinions drajed before 2004 present more features represenFng stylisFc complexity and fluency than the ones drajed ajer 2004?
Analysed archive of corpora Judgments ………………………………………………………........................................ (2208 texts, > 10 million words) …. (341 texts, 2 drajed before 2004 ……….……………………………….…. EN million words) (276 texts, > 2,5 drajed ajer 2004 from naFve AGs ……….... Opinions million words) (367 texts, > 3 drajed ajer 2004 from non-naFve AGs ….. million words) Judgments ……………………………………………………………………………………………….. (2357 texts, > 10 million words) drajed before 2004 …………………………………………… (410 texts, > 2,5 FR million words) Opinions drajed ajer 2004 from naFve AGs …………. (339 texts, > 3,5 million words) drajed ajer 2004 from naFve AGs ……….... (345 texts, > 3,5 million words)
Methodology 1. DeterminaFon of the features related to fluency and stylisFc simplicity/complexity 2. Search of each one of the determined features in each corpus 3. Comparison of the obtained between the four sets of texts analyzed for each language 4. Extra exams suggested by the obtained results
Results Judgments are stylisFcally simpler and less fluent than the opinions • Lexical variety à More repeFFons • Lexical density • Sentence length In English • Lower presence of hypotacFc structures In French
Results Opinions drajed ajer 2004 by non naFve authors are stylisFcally simpler and less fluent than the ones drajed before 2004 in a naFve language • Lexical variety • Lexical density • Sentence length • Lower presence of hypotacFc structures Opinions become more and more similar (linguisFcally) to judgments
Results LEXICAL VARIETY CreaFon of a WORD LIST 𝑈𝑈𝑆 = 𝑢𝑧𝑞𝑓𝑡/ 𝑢𝑝𝑙𝑓𝑜𝑡 ×100 English corpus lexical variety French corpus lexical variety 1.103 1.4 1.2 1.146 1.2 1 0.893 0.788 1 0.86 0.849 0.8 0.8 0.6 0.43 0.43 0.6 0.468 0.468 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0 0 0 0 before 2004 ajer 2004 before 2004 ajer 2004 Judgments NaFve opinions Non NaFve opinions Judgments NaFve opinions Non NaFve opinions
Results Sentence length Mean sentence length of English corpus 36.22 before 2004 33.63 0 45.01 ajer 2004 55.07 52.01 Judgments NaFve opinions Non naFve opinions 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Mean sentence length of French corpus 36.09 before 2004 33.92 0 46.24 ajer 2004 64.13 57.32 Judgments NaFve opinions Non naFve opinions 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Results HYPOTACTIC STRUCTURES • Choice of an exhausFve list of subordinate conjuncFons (e.g. when, than, because, etc.) • IdenFficaFon of each conjuncFon within 2882 + the wordlist and of its frequency 2767 + • Sum of the frequency of each ……. = subordinate conjuncFon included in the considered list Sta4s4cal significance Minimal LL value = 6,63, the greater the LL value, the greater the difference In the French corpus: Opinions drajed before 2004 1192,59 Judgments vs. NaFve opinions drajed ajer 2004 134,2 8 Non-naFve opinions drajed ajer 2004 0,19
Results HYPOTACTIC STRUCTURES In the English corpus: NaFve opinions 965.49 Opinions drajed drajed ajer 2004 vs. before 2004 Non naFve opinions 978.25 drajed ajer 2004
Results Lexical density: no fix paZern 1.06 1.02 1.04 1 1.02 0.98 1 0.98 0.96 0.96 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.92 0.9 0.9 0.88 0.86 0.88 English French Judgments Judgments Opinions before 2004 Opinions before 2004 NaFve opinions ajer 2004 NaFve opinions ajer 2004 Non naFve opinions ajer 2004 Non naFve opinions ajer 2004
Resuming…. Opinions become gradually more similar to judgments (i.e. stylisFcally simpler and less fluent) as for: • A decreasing lexical variety • An increasing quanFty of repeFFons • An increasing sentence length • A decreasing quanFty of hypotacFc structures
Recommend
More recommend
