Linguistic variation in functional types of statutory law

• Published in: Applied Corpus Linguistics Vol. 4; no. 1; p. 100081
• Main Author: Wood, Margaret
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Ltd 01.04.2024; Elsevier
• Subjects: Corpus linguistics; GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS; Key feature analysis; Lexico-grammatical variation; Statutory interpretation; Statutory law; Statutory law; Corpus linguistics; Statutory interpretation; Key feature analysis; Lexico-grammatical variation
• ISSN: 2666-7991; 2666-7991
• DOI: 10.1016/j.acorp.2023.100081

When the meaning of an ambiguous word, phrase or grammatical structure in a statutory provision is disputed, courts are tasked with identifying the best meaning of the contested language. A common method of resolving linguistic ambiguities is to investigate the meaning of the contested word or structure in statutory provisions with similar subject matter. While the subject matter of a text has a demonstrated effect on language use, register variation research shows that the function of a text is also highly influential in predicting linguistic variation. Thus far, the function of a statutory provision (e.g., obligation to act, authorization to act) has not been considered in legal interpretative research. In the present study, I investigate the extent to which function influences the lexico-grammatical characteristics of statutory texts. 2,573 statutory provisions from the Arizona State Code are individually assigned to one of seven categories representing their function: Duties, Permissions, Impersonal Rules, Operational Definitions, Prohibitions, Procedural Guidelines, and Criminal Offenses. Key feature analysis is used to identify and describe patterns of lexico-grammatical variation between the seven functional types. Results reveal a great deal of lexico-grammatical variation associated with function in the register of statutory law. Furthermore, some functional types of statutory provisions are more linguistically distinct than others. These findings suggest that it may be beneficial to consider communicative function when investigating legal interpretative questions.