Language and Law and the Ordinary Meaning of "Child": How Corpus Linguistics Would Have Decided Ankrom v. Alabama

Dana Roemling

doi:10.5281/ZENODO.8154513

Abstract

Determining the meaning of a word in a statute remains debated in language and law. Corpus linguistics (CL) has seen a rise in interest in US statutory interpretation in the last decade, with the first legal decision involving CL being made in 2011 (Vogel et al. 2018). Thus, CL has shown to be a useful tool to provide insights into statutory interpretation. Within this tradition I analyse the criminal case of Ankrom v. Alabama, in which the defendant was found guilty of chemically endangering her child during pregnancy by taking controlled substances (2013). In sentencing the court construed that “child” also means “unborn child”. Following criticism of this decision (Angelotta & Appelbaum 2017) I consider what the ordinary meaning of “child” is and hence contribute to the research and literature on statutory interpretation using CL.

I argue that the ordinary meaning of “child” can be established via relevant corpora (COCA, CANT, CAT), two of which were created for this analysis. First, I conduct an analysis of semantic patterns applying the methodology of Goldfarb (2017). This is a context-dependent approach to mapping meaning patterns (ibid.). Second, in a double dissociation analysis (Solan & Gales 2017) I show which other terms could have been expected in place of “child” and further disambiguate its usage. Additionally, I comment on the potential subjectivity introduced by the researcher in these kinds of analyses (Nyarko & Sanga 2020). Based on the results I argue that this is a valuable combination of approaches to solve meaning disputes in statutory interpretation.

Case
Ankrom v. Alabama, 152 So. 3d 397 (2013)

References
Angelotta, C., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2017). Criminal Charges for Child Harm from Substance Use in Pregnancy. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(2), 193–203.
Goldfarb, N. (2017). A Lawyer’s Introduction to Meaning in the Framework of Corpus Linguistics. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, 2017(6), 1359–1416.
Nyarko, J., & Sanga, S. (2020). A Statistical Test for Legal Interpretation: Theory and Applications. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3737292
Solan, L. M., & Gales, T. (2017). Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2017(6), 1311–1358.
Vogel, F., Hamann, H., & Gauer, I. (2018). Computer-Assisted Legal Linguistics: Corpus Analysis as a New Tool for Legal Studies. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(04), 1340–1363.

Original language	English
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.5281/ZENODO.8154513
Publication status	Published - 13 Sept 2021
Event	IAFL15: The Fifteenth Conference of The International Association of Forensic Linguists - Aston University, Birmingham, United Kingdom Duration: 13 Sept 2021 → 15 Sept 2021

Conference

Conference	IAFL15: The Fifteenth Conference of The International Association of Forensic Linguists
Abbreviated title	IAFL15
Country/Territory	United Kingdom
City	Birmingham
Period	13/09/21 → 15/09/21

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.5281/ZENODO.8154513Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution (CC BY)

Cite this

@conference{fcbbf083d754443489dc7030262aa03a,

title = "Language and Law and the Ordinary Meaning of {"}Child{"}: How Corpus Linguistics Would Have Decided Ankrom v. Alabama",

abstract = "Determining the meaning of a word in a statute remains debated in language and law. Corpus linguistics (CL) has seen a rise in interest in US statutory interpretation in the last decade, with the first legal decision involving CL being made in 2011 (Vogel et al. 2018). Thus, CL has shown to be a useful tool to provide insights into statutory interpretation. Within this tradition I analyse the criminal case of Ankrom v. Alabama, in which the defendant was found guilty of chemically endangering her child during pregnancy by taking controlled substances (2013). In sentencing the court construed that “child” also means “unborn child”. Following criticism of this decision (Angelotta & Appelbaum 2017) I consider what the ordinary meaning of “child” is and hence contribute to the research and literature on statutory interpretation using CL. I argue that the ordinary meaning of “child” can be established via relevant corpora (COCA, CANT, CAT), two of which were created for this analysis. First, I conduct an analysis of semantic patterns applying the methodology of Goldfarb (2017). This is a context-dependent approach to mapping meaning patterns (ibid.). Second, in a double dissociation analysis (Solan & Gales 2017) I show which other terms could have been expected in place of “child” and further disambiguate its usage. Additionally, I comment on the potential subjectivity introduced by the researcher in these kinds of analyses (Nyarko & Sanga 2020). Based on the results I argue that this is a valuable combination of approaches to solve meaning disputes in statutory interpretation. Case Ankrom v. Alabama, 152 So. 3d 397 (2013) References Angelotta, C., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2017). Criminal Charges for Child Harm from Substance Use in Pregnancy. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(2), 193–203. Goldfarb, N. (2017). A Lawyer{\textquoteright}s Introduction to Meaning in the Framework of Corpus Linguistics. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, 2017(6), 1359–1416. Nyarko, J., & Sanga, S. (2020). A Statistical Test for Legal Interpretation: Theory and Applications. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3737292 Solan, L. M., & Gales, T. (2017). Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2017(6), 1311–1358. Vogel, F., Hamann, H., & Gauer, I. (2018). Computer-Assisted Legal Linguistics: Corpus Analysis as a New Tool for Legal Studies. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(04), 1340–1363.",

author = "Dana Roemling",

year = "2021",

month = sep,

day = "13",

doi = "10.5281/ZENODO.8154513",

language = "English",

note = "IAFL15: The Fifteenth Conference of The International Association of Forensic Linguists, IAFL15 ; Conference date: 13-09-2021 Through 15-09-2021",

}

TY - CONF

T1 - Language and Law and the Ordinary Meaning of "Child"

T2 - IAFL15: The Fifteenth Conference of The International Association of Forensic Linguists

AU - Roemling, Dana

PY - 2021/9/13

Y1 - 2021/9/13

N2 - Determining the meaning of a word in a statute remains debated in language and law. Corpus linguistics (CL) has seen a rise in interest in US statutory interpretation in the last decade, with the first legal decision involving CL being made in 2011 (Vogel et al. 2018). Thus, CL has shown to be a useful tool to provide insights into statutory interpretation. Within this tradition I analyse the criminal case of Ankrom v. Alabama, in which the defendant was found guilty of chemically endangering her child during pregnancy by taking controlled substances (2013). In sentencing the court construed that “child” also means “unborn child”. Following criticism of this decision (Angelotta & Appelbaum 2017) I consider what the ordinary meaning of “child” is and hence contribute to the research and literature on statutory interpretation using CL. I argue that the ordinary meaning of “child” can be established via relevant corpora (COCA, CANT, CAT), two of which were created for this analysis. First, I conduct an analysis of semantic patterns applying the methodology of Goldfarb (2017). This is a context-dependent approach to mapping meaning patterns (ibid.). Second, in a double dissociation analysis (Solan & Gales 2017) I show which other terms could have been expected in place of “child” and further disambiguate its usage. Additionally, I comment on the potential subjectivity introduced by the researcher in these kinds of analyses (Nyarko & Sanga 2020). Based on the results I argue that this is a valuable combination of approaches to solve meaning disputes in statutory interpretation. Case Ankrom v. Alabama, 152 So. 3d 397 (2013) References Angelotta, C., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2017). Criminal Charges for Child Harm from Substance Use in Pregnancy. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(2), 193–203. Goldfarb, N. (2017). A Lawyer’s Introduction to Meaning in the Framework of Corpus Linguistics. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, 2017(6), 1359–1416. Nyarko, J., & Sanga, S. (2020). A Statistical Test for Legal Interpretation: Theory and Applications. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3737292 Solan, L. M., & Gales, T. (2017). Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2017(6), 1311–1358. Vogel, F., Hamann, H., & Gauer, I. (2018). Computer-Assisted Legal Linguistics: Corpus Analysis as a New Tool for Legal Studies. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(04), 1340–1363.

AB - Determining the meaning of a word in a statute remains debated in language and law. Corpus linguistics (CL) has seen a rise in interest in US statutory interpretation in the last decade, with the first legal decision involving CL being made in 2011 (Vogel et al. 2018). Thus, CL has shown to be a useful tool to provide insights into statutory interpretation. Within this tradition I analyse the criminal case of Ankrom v. Alabama, in which the defendant was found guilty of chemically endangering her child during pregnancy by taking controlled substances (2013). In sentencing the court construed that “child” also means “unborn child”. Following criticism of this decision (Angelotta & Appelbaum 2017) I consider what the ordinary meaning of “child” is and hence contribute to the research and literature on statutory interpretation using CL. I argue that the ordinary meaning of “child” can be established via relevant corpora (COCA, CANT, CAT), two of which were created for this analysis. First, I conduct an analysis of semantic patterns applying the methodology of Goldfarb (2017). This is a context-dependent approach to mapping meaning patterns (ibid.). Second, in a double dissociation analysis (Solan & Gales 2017) I show which other terms could have been expected in place of “child” and further disambiguate its usage. Additionally, I comment on the potential subjectivity introduced by the researcher in these kinds of analyses (Nyarko & Sanga 2020). Based on the results I argue that this is a valuable combination of approaches to solve meaning disputes in statutory interpretation. Case Ankrom v. Alabama, 152 So. 3d 397 (2013) References Angelotta, C., & Appelbaum, P. S. (2017). Criminal Charges for Child Harm from Substance Use in Pregnancy. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(2), 193–203. Goldfarb, N. (2017). A Lawyer’s Introduction to Meaning in the Framework of Corpus Linguistics. BRIGHAM YOUNG UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, 2017(6), 1359–1416. Nyarko, J., & Sanga, S. (2020). A Statistical Test for Legal Interpretation: Theory and Applications. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3737292 Solan, L. M., & Gales, T. (2017). Corpus Linguistics as a Tool in Legal Interpretation. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2017(6), 1311–1358. Vogel, F., Hamann, H., & Gauer, I. (2018). Computer-Assisted Legal Linguistics: Corpus Analysis as a New Tool for Legal Studies. Law & Social Inquiry, 43(04), 1340–1363.

U2 - 10.5281/ZENODO.8154513

DO - 10.5281/ZENODO.8154513

M3 - Abstract

Y2 - 13 September 2021 through 15 September 2021

ER -