Abstract
This essay reports on the cognitive grammar associated with the concept of judicial objectivity in Australia. The study analysed a sample of 100 cases. The evidence gathered shows that Australian judges share a set of grammar cognitive activities with British common law. However, over time, these cognitive practices diverged from the practices in contemporary Britain. The reason for such divergence is the object of much criticism by judges and academics. This essay is divided into three sections preceded by an introduction and followed by a conclusion. The introduction provides a theoretical overview of the debates across the concept of judicial objectivity. The methodology section explains how cases were selected and analysed. The text analysis is based on Ronald Langacker’s research on cognitive grammar and Stephen Levison’s examination on the pragmatics implications of texts. The third section analysed two groups of cognitive activities that Australian judges associated with the concept of objectivity.
References
Abadee, K. (2000). Lessons from the Pinochet case for the bias rule of procedural fairness in its application to Australian judges. Australian Journal of Administrative Law, 8, 19–33.
Allan, J., & Aroney, N. (2008). An uncommon court: How the High Court of Australia has undermined Australian federalism. Sydney Law Review, 30, 245–294.
Azuelos-Atias, S. (2010). Semantically cued contextual implicatures in legal texts. Journal of Pragmatics, 42, 728–743. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.07.009
Bankowski, Z. (1991). Revolutions in law and legal thought. Aberdeen University Press.
Borg, E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/0199270252.001.0001
Boyle, J. (1985). The politics of reason: Critical legal theory and local social thought. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 133, 685–780. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3312124
Breda, V. (2017b). The objectivity of judicial decisions: A comparative analysis of nine jurisdictions. Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/b10610
Breda, V. (2016). The concept of objectivity in the UK Supreme Court through a comparative looking glass. In V. Breda & L. Rodak (Eds.), Diverse narratives of legal objectivity: An interdisciplinary perspective (pp. 211–225). Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2710532
Breda, V. (2017a). The grammar of bias: Judicial impartiality in European legal systems. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 30, 245–260. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-016-9489-2
Breda, V. (2019b). Introduction, Legal transplants in East Asia and Oceania. Cambridge University Press.
Breda, V. (2019a). Conclusion, Legal transplants in East Asia and Oceania. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108605991
Breda, V., & Rodak, L. (2016). Diverse narratives of legal objectivity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Peter Lang. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3726/978-3-653-04533-8
Brodermann, E. (2011). The impact of the UNIDROIT Principles on international contract and arbitration practice—the experience of a German lawyer. Uniform Law Review, 16, 589–612. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ulr/16.3.589
Carroll, L. (2018). Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland & other stories. Barnes & Noble Inc.
Christodoulidis, E. (1998). Law and reflexive politics. Kluwer. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-3967-0
Christodoulidis, E. (2003). Constitutional irresolution: Law and the framing of civil society. European Law Journal, 9, 401–432. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0386.00184
Coleman, J. L. (1995). Truth and objectivity in law. Legal Theory, 1, 33–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325200000069
Coleman, J. L., & Leiter, B. (1993). Determinacy, objectivity, and authority. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 549–637. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3312546
Douglas, G., Pearce, J., & Woodward, H. (2009). Cohabitants, property and the law: A study of injustice. Modern Law Review, 72, 24–47. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2009.00732.x
Dworkin, R. (1996). Objectivity and truth: You’d better believe it. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 25, 87–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.1996.tb00036.x
Dyzenhaus, D. (2010). Hard cases in wicked legal systems: Pathologies of legality. Oxford University Press.
Eerland, A., & Rassin, E. (2012). Biased evaluation of incriminating and exonerating (non)evidence. Psychology, Crime & Law, 18, 351–358. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2010.493889
Englich, B., Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. (2016). Playing dice with criminal sentences: The influence of irrelevant anchors on experts’ judicial decision making. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 188–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282152
Evans, N., & Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance for cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32, 429–448. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999094X
Friston, M. (1999). New rules for expert witnesses: The last shots of the medicolegal hired gun. BMJ: British Medical Journal, 318, 1365–1366. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7195.1365
Gazal-Ayal, O., & Sulitzeanu-Kenan, R. (2010). Let my people go: Ethnic in-group bias in judicial decisions—evidence from a randomized natural experiment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 7, 403–428. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2010.01183.x
Glenn, H. P. (2010). Legal traditions of the world: Sustainable diversity in law. Oxford University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/he/9780199580804.001.0001
Gramsci, A. (1999). Antonio Gramsci. ElecBook, the Electric Book Co.
Griffiths, J. (2010). Apprehended bias in Australian administrative law. Federal Law Review, 38, 353–369. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205X1003800305
Groves, M. (2009). The rule against bias. Hong Kong Law Journal, 39, 485–514.
Groves, M. (2014). Public statements by judges and the bias rule. Monash University Law Review, 40, 115–147.
Gutteridge, H. C. (1946). Comparative law: An introduction to the comparative method of legal study and research. Cambridge University Press.
Hart, H. L. A. (1958). Positivism and the separation of law and morals. Harvard Law Review, 71, 593–629. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1338225
Hirschl, R. (2010). The methodology of comparativism. In S. Choudhry (Ed.), The migration of constitutional ideas (pp. 39–67). Cambridge University Press.
Husa, J. (2018). Advanced introduction to law and globalisation. Edward Elgar Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788116473
Irwin, J. F., & Real, D. L. (2011). Unconscious influences on judicial decision-making: The illusion of objectivity. McGeorge Law Review, 42, 1.
Kahneman, D. (2015). Thinking, fast and slow. Penguin Books.
Lacey, N. (2004). A life of H.L.A. Hart: The nightmare and the noble dream. Oxford University Press.
Langacker, R. W. (1991). Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume II: Descriptive application. Stanford University Press.
Legrand, P. (2008). European legal systems are not converging. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 45, 52–81. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589300058656
Legrand, P. (1997). Against a European civil code. Modern Law Review, 60, 44–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.00065
Leiter, B. (2007). Objectivity in law and morals. Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313
Levinson, S. C. (2013). Recursion in pragmatics. Language, 89(1), 149–162. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2013.0005
LexPredict. (n.d.). LexNLP: An NLP toolkit for legal. Retrieved March 22, 2019, from https://www.lexpredict.com/portfolio/lexnlp-an-nlp-toolkit-for-legal/
Lucy, W. (2005). The possibility of impartiality. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 25, 3–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi002
MacCormick, N. (1999). Reasonableness and objectivity. Notre Dame Law Review, 74, 1575.
MacIntyre, A. C. (1981). After virtue: A study in moral theory. Gerald Duckworth & Co.
Moorhead, R., Vaughan, S., & Godinho, C. (2018). In-house lawyers’ ethics: Institutional logics, legal risk and the tournament of influence. Hart Publishing.
Natural Language Toolkit — NLTK 3.0 documentation. (n.d.). Retrieved June 4, 2016, from https://www.nltk.org/
Olowofoyeku, A. A. (2009). Bias and the informed observer: A call for a return to Gough. Cambridge Law Journal, 68, 388–409. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197309000373
Olowofoyeku, A. A. (2016). Bias in collegiate courts. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 65, 895–926. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589316000300
Recanati, F. (2002). Unarticulated constituents. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25, 299–345. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1015267930510
Rorty, R. (1991). Objectivity, relativism, and truth. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173643
Skoczeń, I. (2016). Minimal semantics and legal interpretation. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Juridique, 29, 615–633. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-015-9448-3
Tarrant, J. (2012). Disqualification for bias. The Federation Press.
Thomas, G. C. (2000). Realism about rape law: A comment on “Redefining rape”. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 3, 527–555. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2000.3.2.527
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
Viven-Wilksch, J. (2019). How long is too long to determine the success of a legal transplant? International doctrines and contract law in Oceania. In V. Breda (Ed.), Legal transplants in East Asia and Oceania (pp. 132–157). Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108605991.007
Williams, G., Brennan, S., & Lynch, A. (2018). Blackshield and Williams Australian constitutional law and theory. Federation Press.
Young, S. (2018). The evolution of bias: Spectrums, species and the weary lay observer. Melbourne University Law Review, 41, 928–956.
Abigroup Contractors Pty Ltd v Transfield Pty Ltd (1998) 217 ALR 435.
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Pratt (2008) 250 ALR 661.
British American Tobacco Australia Services Ltd v Laurie (as administratrix of the estate of Laurie and on her own behalf) and Others (2011) 273 ALR 429.
Dimes v Proprietors of Grand Junction Canal and others (1852) 3 HLC 759.
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 176 ALR 644.
Esso Australia Resources v Commissioner Of Taxation (2011) 279 ALR 519.
Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886.
Jones v Kernott [2011] UKSC 53.
Lion Nathan Australia Pty Ltd v Coopers Brewery Ltd (2006) 236 ALR 561.
Mandla (Sewa Singh) and another v Dowell Lee and others [1983] 2 AC 548.
Mengiste v Endowment Fund for the Rehabilitation of Tigray [2013] EWCA Civ 1003.
Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs v Jia Legeng (2001) 178 ALR 421.
Pacific Carriers Ltd v BNP Paribas (2004) 208 ALR 213.
R v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and others ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No 2) [1999] All ER 577.
Re Colina and Another; Ex parte Torney (1999) 166 ALR 545.
Repatriation Commission v Vietnam Veterans’ Association of Australia NSW Branch inc and others (2000) 171 ALR 523.
Singh v The Commonwealth [2004] HCA 43; (2004) 222 CLR 322. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-4632.2004.2401b.x
Smits and Another v Roach and Others (2006) 228 ALR 262.
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Eddie Fraser
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