Keywords
metadiscourse
rhetorical move analysis
judicial discourse
ECtHR
U.S. Supreme Court
human rights
How to Cite
Abstract
Dissenting opinions reveal how personal values and professional courtesy shape judicial discourse, reflecting a delicate rhetorical balance between individual judgment and institutional collegiality (Garzone, 2016; Etxabe, 2022). This balance takes on particular significance as English increasingly functions as a judicial lingua franca, notably in human rights adjudication. Yet, comparative studies investigating how judges from diverse legal traditions rhetorically calibrate their “positioning” (individual stance) and “proximity” (heteroglossic engagement with majority and dissenting voices) remain scarce (Hyland, 2015). To address this gap, the present study adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining rhetorical move analysis (Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993) with Hyland’s interpersonal metadiscourse framework (2005, 2010). Specifically, it analyzes 112 dissenting opinions from two influential courts: the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), which addresses an international readership, and the U.S. Supreme Court, whose audience is primarily domestic yet influential at a global level. Findings reveal a shared rhetorical blueprint composed of nine core moves, newly identified in this study, which extend Goźdź-Roszkowski’s (2020) taxonomy. These moves, however, are instantiated differently in the two institutional contexts analysed. U.S. dissents emphasize logical signposting and authoritative citation of precedents, whereas Strasbourg dissents foreground sustained doctrinal elaboration and explicit judicial self-reference. These variations illustrate how judges strategically craft their moves to reconcile institutional norms with individual stance-taking and audience expectations, deepening our understanding of judicial dissent as a distinctive genre and pointing to promising avenues for further research.
Funding
none
References
Anthony, L. (2017). AntConc (Version 3.5.0) [Computer software]. Waseda University. http://www.antlab.sci.waseda.ac.jp/
Bakhtin, M. M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. (M. Holquist, Ed.; C. Emerson & M. Holquist, Trans.). Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Bazerman, C., & Russell, D. R. (Eds.). (2003). Writing selves/writing societies: Research from activity perspectives. Fort Collins: The WAC Clearinghouse. DOI: https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2003.2317
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman.
Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of written discourse: A genre-based view. London: Continuum.
Bhatia, V. K., & Gotti, M. (Eds.). (2006). Explorations in specialized genres. Bern: Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-0351-0270-3
Brannan, J. (2023). The day-to-day practice of jurilinguistics at the European Court of Human Rights: Challenges and constraints for translators. In A. Wagner & A. Matulewska (Eds.), Research handbook on jurilinguistics (pp. 321–334). Edward Elgar. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781802207248.00030
Bondi, M. (2007). Authority and expert voices in the discourse of history. In K. Fløttum (Ed.), Language and discipline perspectives on academic discourse (pp. 66–88). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Bondi, M. (2008). Emphatics in academic discourse: Integrating corpus and discourse tools in the study of cross-disciplinary variation. In A. O’Keeffe & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Corpora and discourse: The challenges of different settings (pp. 31–55). John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.31.04bon
Bondi, M. (2012). Voice in textbooks: Between exposition and argument. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda (Eds.), Stance and voice in written academic genres (pp. 101–115). Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137030825_7
Carter, J. W. (1952). Dissenting opinions. Hastings LJ, 4, 118.
Crismore, A., Markkanen, R., & Steffensen, M. S. (1993). Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students. Written Communication, 10(1), 39–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088393010001002
Etxabe, J. (2022). The dialogical language of law. Osgoode Hall Law Journal, 59(2), 429–515. DOI: https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3783
Feteris, E. T. (1999). Fundamentals of legal argumentation. Dordrecht: Springer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-9219-2
Garzone, G. E. (2016). Polyphony and dialogism in legal discourse: Focus on syntactic negation. In G. Tessuto et al. (Eds.), Constructing legal discourses and social practices: Issues and perspectives (pp. 2–27). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Gerken, H. K. (2004). Dissenting by deciding. Stanford Law Review, 57(6), 1745–1785.
Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (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(66), 61–79. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2018-0004
Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (2020). Communicating dissent in judicial opinions: A comparative, genre-based analysis. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 33(2), 381–401. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09711-y
Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (2024). Language and legal judgments: Evaluation and argument in judicial discourse. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003333302
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction and engagement in academic writing. Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse: English in a global context. London: Continuum.
Hyland, K. (2010). Metadiscourse: Mapping interactions in academic writing. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 9(2), 125–143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.35360/njes.220
Hyland, K. (2015). Genre, discipline and identity. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 32–43. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2015.02.005
Hyland, K., & Tse, P. (2004). Metadiscourse in scholastic writing: A reappraisal. Applied Linguistics, 25(2), 156–177. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.2.156
Kubal, A. (2023). Dissenting consciousness: A socio-legal analysis of Russian migration cases before the European Court of Human Rights. International Journal of Interdisciplinary Civic and Political Studies, 18(2). DOI: https://doi.org/10.18848/2327-0071/CGP/v18i02/57-77
Matsuda, P. K. (2001). Voice in Japanese written discourse: Implications for second language writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 10(1–2), 35–53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1060-3743(00)00036-9
Mazzi, D. (2018). Phraseology, argumentation and identity in Supreme Court of Ireland’s judgments on language policy. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, 11(3), 315–337. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.32729
Mazzi, D. (2022). “Without proof of negligence or a causative connection”: On causal argumentation in the discourse of the Supreme Court of Ireland’s judgments on data protection. In S. Goźdź-Roszkowski & G. Pontrandolfo (Eds.), Law, language and the courtroom: Legal linguistics and the discourse of judges (pp. 112–125). Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003153771-10
McKeown, J. (2021). A corpus-based examination of reflexive metadiscourse in majority and dissent opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Pragmatics, 186, 224–235. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378216621003593?via%3Dihub DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.019
Moneva, M. Á. R. (2013). Cognition and context of legal texts: Spanish and English judgments compared. Revista de Lingüística y Lenguas Aplicadas, 8, 76–92. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4995/rlyla.2013.1245
Nikitina, J. (2022). Case communication at the European Court of Human Rights: Genre-based and translation perspectives. Lingue e Linguaggi, 52, 229–248.
Nikitina, J. (2025). Human rights discourse: Linguistics, genre and translation at the European Court of Human Rights. Routledge. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003434788
Pontrandolfo, G., & Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (2013). Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse, 3(2), 9–69.
Rosenfeld, M. (2006). Comparing constitutional review by the European Court of Justice and the US Supreme Court. International Journal of Constitutional Law, 4(4), 618–651. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/icon/mol027
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139524827
Thompson, G., & Thetela, P. (1995). The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text & Talk, 15(1), 103–128. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103
Vande Kopple, W. J. (1985). Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse. College Composition and Communication, 36(2), 82–93. DOI: https://doi.org/10.58680/ccc198511781
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Fabiola Notari
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
When submitting a paper the author agrees to the following publishing agreement and processing personal data.
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT, COPYRIGHT LICENSE, PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING CONSENT
This is a publication agreement and copyright license (“Agreement”) regarding a written manuscript currently submitted via Pressto platform
(“Article”) to be published in Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Journal”).
The parties to this Agreement are:
the Author or Authors of the submitted article (individually, or if more than one author, collectively, “Author”) and Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Publisher”), address al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, represented by its editor in chief Aleksandra Matulewska.
§1. LICENSE OF COPYRIGHT
a) The Author and the Publisher agree that the Author grants a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is incorporated herein by reference and is further specified at Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 copyright license in the Article to the general public.
b) The Author grants to the Publisher a royalty-free, worldwide nonexclusive license to publish, reproduce, display, distribute, translate and use the Article in any form, either separately or as part of a collective work, including but not limited to a nonexclusive license to publish the Article in an issue of the Journal, copy and distribute individual reprints of the Article, authorize reproduction of the entire Article in another publication, and authorize reproduction and distribution of the Article or an abstract thereof by means of computerized retrieval systems (such as Westlaw, Lexis and SSRN). The Author retains ownership of all rights under copyright in the Article, and all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author grants to the Publisher the power to assign, sublicense or otherwise transfer any and all licenses expressly granted to the Publisher under this Agreement.
d) Republication. The Author agrees to require that the Publisher be given credit as the original publisher in any republication of the Article authorized by the Author. If the Publisher authorizes any other party to republish the Article under the terms of paragraphs 1c and 1 of this Agreement, the Publisher shall require such party to ensure that the Author is credited as the Author.
§2. EDITING OF THE ARTICLE
a) The Author agrees that the Publisher may edit the Article as suitable for publication in the Journal. To the extent that the Publisher’s edits amount to copyrightable works of authorship, the Publisher hereby assigns all right, title, and interest in such edits to the Author.
§3. WARRANTIES
a) The Author represents and warrants that to the best of the Author’s knowledge the Article does not defame any person, does not invade the privacy of any person, and does not in any other manner infringe upon the rights of any person. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher against all such claims.
b) The Author represents and warrants that the Author has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to grant the licenses granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author represents and warrants that the Article furnished to the Publisher has not been published previously. For purposes of this paragraph, making a copy of the Article accessible over the Internet, including, but not limited to, posting the Article to a database accessible over the Internet, does not constitute prior publication so long as the as such copy indicates that the Article is not in final form, such as by designating such copy to be a “draft,” a “working paper,” or “work-in-progress”. The Author agrees to hold harmless the Publisher, its licensees and distributees, from any claim, action, or proceeding alleging facts that constitute a breach of any warranty enumerated in this paragraph.
§4. TERM
a) The agreement was concluded for an unspecified time.
§5. PAYMENT
a) The Author agrees and acknowledges that the Author will receive no payment from the Publisher for use of the Article or the licenses granted in this Agreement.
b) The Publisher agrees and acknowledges that the Publisher will not receive any payment from the Author for publication by the Publisher.
§6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
a) This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Author and the Publisher with respect to the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the warranties and agreements between the parties with respect to the Article, and each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements have been made by or on behalf of any party except those warranties and agreements embodied in this Agreement.
b) In all cases not regulated by this Agreement, legal provisions of Polish Copyright Act and Polish Civil Code shall apply.
c) Any disputes arising from the enforcement of obligations connected with this Agreement shall be resolved by a court competent for the headquarters of the Publisher.
d) Any amendments or additions to the Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorised representative of both parties, otherwise being ineffective.
e) This Agreement is signed electronically and the submission of the article via the PRESSto platform is considered as the conclusion of the Agreement by the Author and the Publisher.
f) Clause for consent to the processing of personal data - general
g) The Author shall give his or her consent to the processing of their personal data in accordance with the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of persons physical in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation) for the purpose and in connection with making publications available on the PRESSto scientific journals platform and DeGruyter platform, guaranteeing the security of services rendered, and improving them.
I HAVE READ AND AGREE FULLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
The Author The Publisher