With the greatest respect, I cannot agree...

An investigation into the discourse of dissenting in selected Malaysian judicial opinions

Noraini Ibrahim, Abdul Hadi Awang

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    Abstract

    Modern judicial opinions are by tradition, a reflection of hundreds of years of history and tradition. Judges usually give their decision and order verbally in court, and legally significant and important judgments notably from the higher courts, are then published in law reports and become the substance of common law. 'Dissent' is the written expression of a judicial opinion that results in the court not arriving at a unanimous decision. Hence, the dissenting judge will have to state his disagreement by focusing on the issue(s) of law before proceeding to provide an explanation. Literature has shown that dissenting opinions are not a feature of all legal jurisdictions nor are they presented in the same way. This paper aims to discuss the discourse of 'dissenting' from an analysis of selected Malaysian judicial opinions. In this respect a mixed-method approach was employed to gather the data, while data analysis and the linguistic features were drawn from Trosborg's (1997) text typology. The main findings reveal that modality, adverbials as well as context-specific structures alluding to adherence and mutual respect, are employed to temper the emotive tone of the judges. Interestingly however, and contrary to literature, non-adherence to such practice has also been located. The question is, is such a position ideological?

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)45-60
    Number of pages16
    Journal3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature
    Volume17
    Issue numberSPEC. ISSUE
    Publication statusPublished - 2011

    Fingerprint

    respect
    discourse
    Law
    common law
    jurisdiction
    typology
    data analysis
    linguistics
    Discourse
    history
    literature
    History
    Written Expression
    Adverbials
    Modality
    Linguistic Features
    Adherence
    Dissent
    Mixed Methods
    Common Law

    Keywords

    • Adverbials
    • Adverbs
    • Courtroom discourse
    • Dissent
    • Judicial opinion

    ASJC Scopus subject areas

    • Language and Linguistics
    • Literature and Literary Theory
    • Linguistics and Language

    Cite this

    With the greatest respect, I cannot agree... An investigation into the discourse of dissenting in selected Malaysian judicial opinions. / Ibrahim, Noraini; Awang, Abdul Hadi.

    In: 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature, Vol. 17, No. SPEC. ISSUE, 2011, p. 45-60.

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

    @article{cdefeb17d9be496aa6a166424365f6e7,
    title = "With the greatest respect, I cannot agree...: An investigation into the discourse of dissenting in selected Malaysian judicial opinions",
    abstract = "Modern judicial opinions are by tradition, a reflection of hundreds of years of history and tradition. Judges usually give their decision and order verbally in court, and legally significant and important judgments notably from the higher courts, are then published in law reports and become the substance of common law. 'Dissent' is the written expression of a judicial opinion that results in the court not arriving at a unanimous decision. Hence, the dissenting judge will have to state his disagreement by focusing on the issue(s) of law before proceeding to provide an explanation. Literature has shown that dissenting opinions are not a feature of all legal jurisdictions nor are they presented in the same way. This paper aims to discuss the discourse of 'dissenting' from an analysis of selected Malaysian judicial opinions. In this respect a mixed-method approach was employed to gather the data, while data analysis and the linguistic features were drawn from Trosborg's (1997) text typology. The main findings reveal that modality, adverbials as well as context-specific structures alluding to adherence and mutual respect, are employed to temper the emotive tone of the judges. Interestingly however, and contrary to literature, non-adherence to such practice has also been located. The question is, is such a position ideological?",
    keywords = "Adverbials, Adverbs, Courtroom discourse, Dissent, Judicial opinion",
    author = "Noraini Ibrahim and Awang, {Abdul Hadi}",
    year = "2011",
    language = "English",
    volume = "17",
    pages = "45--60",
    journal = "3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature",
    issn = "0128-5157",
    publisher = "Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia",
    number = "SPEC. ISSUE",

    }

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - With the greatest respect, I cannot agree...

    T2 - An investigation into the discourse of dissenting in selected Malaysian judicial opinions

    AU - Ibrahim, Noraini

    AU - Awang, Abdul Hadi

    PY - 2011

    Y1 - 2011

    N2 - Modern judicial opinions are by tradition, a reflection of hundreds of years of history and tradition. Judges usually give their decision and order verbally in court, and legally significant and important judgments notably from the higher courts, are then published in law reports and become the substance of common law. 'Dissent' is the written expression of a judicial opinion that results in the court not arriving at a unanimous decision. Hence, the dissenting judge will have to state his disagreement by focusing on the issue(s) of law before proceeding to provide an explanation. Literature has shown that dissenting opinions are not a feature of all legal jurisdictions nor are they presented in the same way. This paper aims to discuss the discourse of 'dissenting' from an analysis of selected Malaysian judicial opinions. In this respect a mixed-method approach was employed to gather the data, while data analysis and the linguistic features were drawn from Trosborg's (1997) text typology. The main findings reveal that modality, adverbials as well as context-specific structures alluding to adherence and mutual respect, are employed to temper the emotive tone of the judges. Interestingly however, and contrary to literature, non-adherence to such practice has also been located. The question is, is such a position ideological?

    AB - Modern judicial opinions are by tradition, a reflection of hundreds of years of history and tradition. Judges usually give their decision and order verbally in court, and legally significant and important judgments notably from the higher courts, are then published in law reports and become the substance of common law. 'Dissent' is the written expression of a judicial opinion that results in the court not arriving at a unanimous decision. Hence, the dissenting judge will have to state his disagreement by focusing on the issue(s) of law before proceeding to provide an explanation. Literature has shown that dissenting opinions are not a feature of all legal jurisdictions nor are they presented in the same way. This paper aims to discuss the discourse of 'dissenting' from an analysis of selected Malaysian judicial opinions. In this respect a mixed-method approach was employed to gather the data, while data analysis and the linguistic features were drawn from Trosborg's (1997) text typology. The main findings reveal that modality, adverbials as well as context-specific structures alluding to adherence and mutual respect, are employed to temper the emotive tone of the judges. Interestingly however, and contrary to literature, non-adherence to such practice has also been located. The question is, is such a position ideological?

    KW - Adverbials

    KW - Adverbs

    KW - Courtroom discourse

    KW - Dissent

    KW - Judicial opinion

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80755171519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80755171519&partnerID=8YFLogxK

    M3 - Article

    VL - 17

    SP - 45

    EP - 60

    JO - 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature

    JF - 3L: Language, Linguistics, Literature

    SN - 0128-5157

    IS - SPEC. ISSUE

    ER -