Using Corpus Linguistics in Legal Research: Lessons from the Law and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Using Corpus Linguistics in Legal Research: Lessons from 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: overview/methodology/ language at the CJEU 2. CL Study I: Pitfalls and Lessons 3. CL Study II: Learning from Lessons 4. Takeaways: a note of caution

Law and Language at the CJEU Producing a Development of multilingual ‘precedent’ in jurisprudence ECJ judgments The changing role of the AG

Methodology Interview data Corpus ObservaFonal linguisFcs data analysis RQs SystemaFc Case law literature analysis reviews

www.llecj.karenmcauliffe.com

28 Member States 24 Official Languages

28 Member States 24 Official Languages

Flowchart of procedure Allocated to judge rapporteur Report of the judge (and AG where relevant) rapporteur prepared by Case brought before CJEU Documents translated into référendaire (in French) French First version of judgment Where relevant, AG and Secret deliberaFons (in drahed by référendaire (in référendaires prepare opinion French) French) (in pivot languages) Judgment translated into language of the case (authenFc version of Final judgment drahed (in French) judgment and version signed by judges) and all other official languages

The Layers of a Judgment

The Layers of a Judgment TRANSLATION PROCESS

TranslaFon at the ECJ BG BG ES ES CS CS DA DA DE DE ET ET EL EL EN EN WORKING LANGUAGE: FRENCH 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

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

Pivot TranslaFon PIVOT LANGUAGES • EN • DE • IT • ES

Legal Language • All legal language is formulaic (MaFlla; Hiltunen; Gom; Tiersma) • Gap in the literature

What is formulaic language? Formulaic expressions are fixed or semi-fixed mulF-word sequences that occur frequently in a corpus.

Corpus linguisFcs approach to language analysis “The principle of idiom is that a language user has available to him or her a large number of semi-preconstructed phrases that consFtute single choices, even though they might appear to be analysable into segments” (Sinclair 1991: 110).

RepeFFveness in CJEU/REF judgments 6000 4939 5000 4000 3000 2085 1835 2000 1558 1114 992 861 705 1000 751 621 358 0 CJEU_fr REF_fra REF_bg CJEU_de REF_deu REF_at CJEU_en REF_uk REF_ir CJEU_it REF_it

Features of hybridity • i) ferFlity, newness, creaFvity; • ii) strange and unexpected expressions that depart from the standard use of language; • iii) mixing of enFFes of different origin; • iv) simplificaFon of language; • v) a languages-in-contact situaFon;

<compeFFve NP> • Shared: posiFon, advantage, acFvity, condiFon, disadvantage, pressure, market, price, behaviour, process, pricing, pracFce. • CJEU only: constraint, structure, level, interacFon, force, balance, service, strength, neutrality, significance, acFon, conduct, purpose, factor, threat, context, effort, impact, mechanism, nature, opportunity • REF only: tender, tariff, criterion, point, posiFoning, business, evaluaFon, evoluFon, liFgaFon, offering, planning, swimmer, system, target, world.

<competent to> • CJEU only: adopt, apply, impose, provide, rule, declare, lay, conclude, reopen, enforce, establish, handle, proceed, raise, re-examine, use. • REF only: issue, appeal, examine, make, try, execute, perform, prove, bring, carry, act, conduct, exercise, have, dispose, exclude, form, invesFgate, order, reduce, speak, submit, understand, undertake.

<concentraFon> • CJEU only: ‘concentraFon compaFble with’, ‘compaFbility of the concentraFon’, ‘implementaFon of the concentraFon’, ‘result of the concentraFon’, ‘compaFbility of a concentraFon’, ‘effect of the concentraFon’, ‘fact that the concentraFon’, ‘link between the concentraFon’. • REF only: ‘concentraFon of alcohol’, ‘concentraFon of 107 milligrammes’, ‘concentraFon on the word’, ‘concentraFon on linguisFc features’, ‘concentraFon on an issue’.

Hybrid Language Shaping Concepts? Language shapes how those drahing the judgments talk and think about EU law The judgments The language is expressed in used/repeated that language by those shape the drahing the development of judgments. EU law. New concepts are developed and expressed in that hybrid/new language

RepeFFveness in CJEU/REF judgments 6000 4939 5000 4000 3000 2085 1835 2000 1558 1114 992 861 705 1000 751 621 358 0 CJEU_fr REF_fra REF_bg CJEU_de REF_deu REF_at CJEU_en REF_uk REF_ir CJEU_it REF_it

Features of hybridity • i) ferFlity, newness, creaFvity; • ii) strange and unexpected expressions that depart from the standard use of language; • iii) mixing of enFFes of different origin; • iv) simplificaFon of language; • v) a languages-in-contact situaFon;

<compeFFve NP> • Shared: posiFon, advantage, acFvity, condiFon, disadvantage, pressure, market, price, behaviour, process, pricing, pracFce. • CJEU only: constraint, structure, level, interacFon, force, balance, service, strength, neutrality, significance, acFon, conduct, purpose, factor, threat, context, effort, impact, mechanism, nature, opportunity • REF only: tender, tariff, criterion, point, posiFoning, business, evaluaFon, evoluFon, liFgaFon, offering, planning, swimmer, system, target, world.

CL Data: Misleading? • RepeFFve language – but what is being repeated? Does it really have any effect on the case law? • Hybrid language – can corpus linguis,cs actually speak to the impact of hybrid language on the case law? • Using different language from NaFonal SCs – is this not to be expected?

Lessons Learned • PI must be aware of conflicFng research agendas within the team (speaking to different audiences) • Research design can be very difficult across disciplinary languages ( more layers of transla,on! )

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 drahed by référendaire (in référendaires prepare opinion French) French) (in pivot languages) Judgment translated into language of the case (authenFc version of Final judgment drahed (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

CJEU 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

Since 2004 (Convention) BG ES CS DA DE ET EL EN Opinions FR EN GA drahed 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 drahing in their mother tongue Post-2004: AGs drahing in one of the pivot languages of the Court (=EN/someFmes FR)

What implicaCons might changes in the linguis7c aspect of the AG’s role have for the construcCon and consolidaCon 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 drah in their mother tongue? 3. Do the opinions of permanent AGs differ from those drahing 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 drah in their mother tongue? 3. Do the opinions of permanent AGs differ from those drahing in pivot languages?