English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Appellate court opinions are written records based on the debates and discussions on hard cases among nine Justices in the US Supreme Court. This important genre type resists any easy paradigm of examination due to its extreme complexity in both language and law. In this paper, we propose an analytical path built upon White’s framework ( 2006 ) of “evaluative semantics and ideological positioning.” In particular, we attend to evaluative mechanisms employed by Supreme Court Justices to legitimize their decision and interpretation of complicated jurisprudences. The functionality of these mechanisms and their rhetorical potential are elaborated in the context of multiple opinions of  Bush v. Gore 2000 . The analysis in this paper complements Miller’s ( 2002 ) pioneering endeavor to analyze this case. In addition, it bears out Crompton’s ( 2004 ) prediction of the existence of Rhematic Progression (RP) in the discourse, and beyond which, its intensified form – Rhematic Progression with Derived Rhemes (RPDRs) – occurs in the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens.

A discursive analytical path of appellate court opinions: evaluation of ideological positioning in Bush v. Gore 2000