Emerging technologies have had a discernible impact on how judicial systems operate and how judges serve their functions. Improvements in software and the evolution of artificial intelligence tools may unlock the full potential for judicial systems to deliver more efficient and potentially more effective justice. The challenges posed by AI, however, can be just as significant. In the Republic of Ireland, the use of AI in legal submissions, along with its less-than-accurate results, has so far mainly been flagged in two cases, i.e. Coulston et al. v. Elliott and Elliott and Reddan v. An Bord Pleanála. In this work, a qualitative analysis of Coulston and Reddan through the pragma-dialectical framework [1, 2] led to uncover the structure of the High Court’s argumentation. As far as the alleged use of AI-generated materials on the losing litigant’s part is concerned, evidence shows that the Court deployed argumentation from coherence [3]. In both cases, the Court was observed to have resorted to the negative variant of the argument, according to which a solution put forward by a party is not required (or rather discouraged) by the coherence of the legal system. Moreover, both cases confirm that the argument from coherence is a form of complex argumentation including a main argument and a subordinate argument, whereby several reasons are put forward in defence of the standpoint that the case should be dismissed because of a putatively inappropriate use of artificial intelligence in the relevant submissions

The aim of this paper is to combine a quantitative analysis of indicators of pragmatic argumentation with a qualitative investigation of the argument scheme in a corpus of Supreme Court of Ireland's judgments. The quantitative analysis indicates that the Supreme Court's argumentation tends to support judicial standpoints by focusing on the negative impact of alternative lines of argument, whether from other judgments or the parties' submissions. Alternatively, the argumentation draws the relevant audience's attention to legal values and principles underlying legislation or the Constitution. The qualitative study of Heneghan v. Minister for Housing, furthermore, shows how the Court's pragmatic argumentation combined its positive and negative variant, and responded to the relevant critical questions. Overall, the use of corpus-informed tools played a central role in the study of indicators of argumentation as "'entry points" into the construction of judicial argumentation (Go & zacute;d & zacute;-Roszkowski, 2021), which is fruitfully integrated with insights from argumentation theory.

This paper aims to perform a multi-level analysis of the Irish public discourse on Covid-19. Despite widespread agreement that Ireland's response was rapid and effective, the country's journey through the pandemic has been no easy ride. In order to contain the virus, the Government's emergency legislation imposed draconian measures including the detention and isolation of people deemed to be even "a potential source of infection" and a significant extension of An Garda Síochána's power of arrest. In April 2020, journalists John Waters and Gemma O'Doherty initiated judicial review proceedings before the High Court to challenge such legislation, which they defined as unconstitutional, "disproportionate" and based on "fraudulent science". The proceedings attracted widespread media coverage in what soon became a debate on the legitimacy of emergency legislation and the notion of 'fake news' itself. After a brief survey of the legislative background to Ireland's Covid response, the argumentative strategy is analysed through which the High Court eventually dismissed Mr Waters and Ms O'Doherty's challenge. Focusing on the process of justification of the judicial decision, the paper provides a descriptive account of the argument structure of the Court's decision. This sheds light on the pattern of multiple argumentation through which the Court interpreted relevant norms in the Constitution and at once re-established the primacy of "facts" informing political decision-making at a time of national emergency.

The Irish judiciary's approach to bilingualism as the constitutional guarantee of the right to use either Irish or English for any official purpose has proved highly flexible. However, while emphasis has been laid on principles of constitutional interpretation from the practitioner's perspective, the discursive dimension of cases involving language policy has yet to be fully elucidated. This paper combines quantitative analysis with a qualitative perspective to focus on phraseological and argumentative patterns in Supreme Court judgments on language policy, based on a small corpus. First, the ten most frequent lexical bundles of the corpus were extracted to study the main discourse functions of phraseology in context. Second, a manual text analysis was conducted of the two cases where recurrent phraseological patterns were most widely attested. This allowed for the isolation of the argument schemes underlying the structure of the Justices' opinions. While phraseology points to a shared institutional identity of Irish Justices as gatekeepers of the Constitution, the use of argumentative patterns suggests that they may forge heterogeneous professional identities, by shifting from a rigouristic view of language rights to forms of judicial pragmatism.

This paper is aimed at analysing the discourse tools and argumentative resources at work in the debate on the Ketogenic Diet (KD), an increasingly popular regimen with far-reaching clinical implications. The study centred on two small comparable corpora including web-based materials from relevant stakeholders in the debate on the KD, namely health institutions, charities and the press from the UK and Ireland. From a methodological point of view, the study consisted of two main stages: first of all, a quantitative analysis of phraseology focusing on lexical bundles; secondly, a qualitative study of patterns of argumentative discourse, for the purpose of identifying common argument schemes and their relationship in the overall argument structure. On the one hand, the British discourse on the KD broadly reflects the deeply-held conviction that the diet should be given proper consideration, especially in the treatment of drug-resistant epilepsy. On the other hand, the Irish discourse on the diet appears to be more complex and multilayered. The role of the KD as a significant component of epilepsy treatment is acknowledged, but at the same time citations from influential figures often fulfil different argumentative commitments.

AbstractOver the last twenty years, medical discourse has attracted a great deal of scholarly research. Language in healthcare settings has been more generally analysed through genres – whether in terms of expert-to-expert or expert-to-lay communication – whereas more specific aspects include the study of discourse strategies behind the expression of empathy, problems of media representation of healthcare issues, and the role played by cultural variables in healthcare contexts. While substantial research exists on medical discourse and the transmission of medical knowledge, a number of works still tend to focus on accuracy and comprehensiveness of content rather than on the linguistic analysis of communication strategies. In light of that, the aim of this work is to substantiate the findings in the literature published so far by bringing a genuinely discourse-based perspective to bear on them. To achieve this goal, a corpus investigation was carried out of web-based resources employed by a leading nationwide organisation to communicate to the public about cancer. The study focuses on the discourse functions of frequently occurring phraseology, in the attempt to address the following questions: (a) Are there any recurrent discourse patterns that tend to be reiterated across the sections of informative healthcare materials? (b) How are patients’ needs addressed through the language of such materials? (c) More generally, how can findings be interpreted with a view to both their relevance to the context under analysis and their possible application in the language-learning classroom?

Abstract - Over the last twenty years, the interest in the disciplinary practices of history has been documented by a wide array of works. However, in spite of the inspiring nature of these rich accounts, only tangentially have scholars become interested in the inherently textual dimension of historical argumentation. In an attempt to bridge some of the gaps left by existing research, this paper calls for phraseology as a suitable candidate for the study of the argumentative peculiarities of historical prose. The qualitative and quantitative study of recurrent phraseology in a synchronic corpus of research articles from a set of specialised journals provides evidence that historians appear to be keenly observant of the practice of speculating about their own job in terms of either a successful quest for research answers or its potential dead ends. Moreover, data show that historians position themselves as disciplinary experts at a variety of levels, as they attempt to establish their credentials in the eyes of their intended readership: first, when they compare sources and thereby carve out a niche of expertise from their interpretation of them; secondly, when they proceed to singling out what they see as a key-moment in the historical processes under investigation; and finally, in the act of shaping their discourse from the viewpoint of an omniscient narrator.Riassunto - Nel corso degli ultimi vent’anni, l’interesse per le pratiche disciplinari della storia è stato documentato da una vasta gamma di lavori. Tuttavia, a fronte del grande interesse suscitato da molti di essi, solo in parte gli studiosi si sono interessati alla dimensione più propriamente testuale dell’argomentazione storica. Nel tentativo di colmare parte delle lacune lasciate dalle ricerche condotte finora su questo aspetto, questo studio si focalizza sulla fraseologia quale candidato per lo studio delle peculiarità argomentative dalla prosa storica. Lo studio qualitativo e quantitativo della fraseologia più ricorrente identificata in un corpus di articoli di ricerca tratti da riviste specialistiche internazionali mostra la consuetudine dello storico di riflettere sul proprio lavoro di ricerca, soffermandosi sia sugli aspetti positivi che sulle criticità che lo caratterizzano. Inoltre, i dati mostrano che gli storici si pongano quali esperti della propria disciplina a più livelli, contestualmente all’atto di stabilire le proprie credenziali di fronte ai destinatari della loro scrittura: in primo luogo, quando essi confrontano le fonti e costruiscono la propria credibilità nell’atto di fornirne un’interpretazione; in secondo luogo, quando essi si sforzano di identificare i momenti chiave dei processi storici di loro interesse; ed infine, nel tentativo di modellare il proprio discorso dalla prospettiva di ‘narratori onniscienti’.

Of the various subtypes of causal argumentation, one that has been sparking the interest of a large number of scholars across various contexts is pragmatic argumentation. This paper aims at undertaking an exploratory study of discursive indicators of pragmatic argumentation in a synchronic corpus of judgments by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. The study began with a qualitative overview to be followed by a more quantitative investigation, in which discursive indicators of pragmatic argumentation were lemmatized and searched for at a corpus level. Data show both the tendency of lemmas to occur within larger patterns, and the way these are correlated with an outline of both desirable and undesirable consequences the judge may draw the attention to. Findings thus appear to offer food for thought in the three largely interrelated areas of argumentation, discourse studies and legal theory.

Legal communication is an area where English has increasingly been employed by both native and non-native speakers. In an attempt to carry out a comparative study, the aim of this paper is to focus on language variation in the genre of judgments. For this purpose, a key feature of judicial texts, namely conditionality, was studied. On the basis of a collection of recent EU and Irish judgments, a large sample of conditional subordinators was analysed. Data showed that conditional clauses mainly express what Quirk et al. (1985) call direct open conditions. More specifically, there is evidence that conditionals occur in four outstanding contexts: the expression of obligations; the formulation of conditions under which permissions are granted; the laying down of prohibitions; and the expression of the judge’s recommendations. Finally, an important role is also played by the second category of direct condition identified by Quirk at al. (1985), i.e. hypothetical conditions. Taken together, data appear to suggest that language-relevant findings are indicative of interesting differences also to be read in terms of underlying legal culture.

Over the last few decades, there has been a remarkable spate of interest for history. Thus, this academic discipline has been tackled for the captivating co-presence of narrative and argumentative components in professional historians' scientific prose. Additionally, a few attempts have been made to classify the most widely spread forms of argument. However, in spite of the inspiring nature of available studies, only tangentially have scholars examined the inherently textual dimension of historical argumentation. The aim of this paper is thus to bring insights into the linguistic construction of argumentation in historical text, by choosing argument by analogy as a case in point. The study is based on a corpus of authentic research articles taken from specialised journals. By combining quantitative with qualitative methods, findings show that the reiterated expression of analogy serves as a clue to understand some crucial features of the organisation of historical text, e.g. the formulation of the writer's own evaluation and the overall fleshing out of the meta-discursive substance characterising the interactive plane of historical text. The thesis argued here is that analogy is a chiefly interactive device, which combines with a set of discursive tools securing a fruitful relationship between writers and readers in the development of historical narrative and argument.

Over the last few decades, there has been a remarkable spate of interest for history. Thus, this academic discipline has been tackled for the captivating copresence of narrative and argumentative components in professional historians' scientific prose. Additionally, a few attempts have been made to classify the most widely spread forms of argument. However, in spite of the inspiring nature of available studies, only tangentially have scholars examined the inherently textual dimension of historical argumentation. The aim of this paper is thus to bring insights into the linguistic construction of argumentation in historical text, by choosing argument by analogy as a case in point. The study is based on a corpus of authentic research articles taken from specialised journals. By combining quantitative with qualitative methods, findings show that the reiterated expression of analogy serves as a clue to understand some crucial features of the organisation of historical text, e.g. the formulation of the writer's own evaluation and the overall fleshing out of the meta-discursive substance characterising the interactive plane of historical text. The thesis argued here is that analogy is a chiefly interactive device, which combines with a set of discursive tools securing a fruitful relationship between writers and readers in the development of historical narrative and argument.

The language of the law has been a favourite subject of investigation for both legal professionals and linguists for more than a decade now. Linguists, for instance, have paid increasing attention to the interplay of precise and flexible terms in legal drafting, and language variation across the genres of legal discourse. Among the latter, judgments have been discussed as a case in point by argumentation scholars, although the linguistic components of judicial argumentative discourse have often been overlooked. In the light of this, the aim of this paper is to carry out a corpus-based analysis of the open-ended category of reformulation markers as outstanding discursive items of judicial discourse in two comparable corpora of authentic judgments issued by two different courts of last resort, namely the Court of Justice of the European Communities and Ireland’s Supreme Court. By combining a qualitative with a quantitative analysis, the study shows that reformulation markers tend to activate a variety of discursive configurations across the two courts. Hence, data reveal that reformulation strengthens the quality of both judicial narrative, as it were – as is clear from its deployment in clarifying the normative background and specifying the factual framework of disputes – and at once judicial argument, when judges characterise, refine or grade reported arguments/interpretations or they wish to make their reasoning more solid and convincing.

The centrality of argumentation in the judicial process is an age-old acquisition of research on legal discourse. Notwithstanding the deep insights provided by legal theoretical and philosophical works, only recently has judicial argumentation been tackled in its linguistic dimension. This paper aims to contribute to the development of linguistic studies of judicial argumentation, by shedding light on evaluation as a prominent aspect in the construction of the judge’s argumentative position. Evaluation as a deep structure of judicial argumentation is studied from a discursive point of view entailing the analysis of a sample of authentic judicial language. Evaluative lexis is investigated within a single genre of judicial discourse, i.e. judgments, instantiated by a corpus of US Supreme Court judgments. Findings show that judges use diversified strategies to take stance as they organise their argumentative discourse: from easily recognisable verbal and adjectival tools to more finely-grained discourse elements such as the encapsulating pattern ‘ this/these/that/those + labelling noun’.