Investigating the targeted use of (dis)agreement in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts: a corpus-assisted discourse analysis

Abstract

Abstract This study explores the use of targeted (dis)agreement by judges in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts. This is achieved by applying proclaim (i.e., pronounce, concur, and endorse) and disclaim (i.e., deny and counter) of Appraisal theory and a typology of discourse targets (i.e., General, Responsive, and Specific). The study identifies significant frequency differences in the use of targeted (dis)agreement between a corpus of grant and a corpus of dismissal decisions. Amongst other things, the findings show that, in grant decisions, judges used a greater amount of General proclaim (i.e., pronounce) to convey how applications satisfied the relevant legal requirements. Contrastively, in dismissal decisions, judges used a greater amount of General/Responsive proclaim (i.e., endorse and concur) to express agreement with the lower courts, case law, and general principles of law (which essentially functioned as rebuttals to the arguments submitted by applicants). General concur was also used to highlight general legal principles so as to classify current cases negatively. The present study also examines the impact of targeted (dis)agreement on outcomes (i.e., grant or dismiss). The findings demonstrate that General/Responsive proclaim and General/Responsive disclaim acted as independent predictors with either a positive or negative influence on the outcomes. The implications of these findings are discussed in the final section of the study.