The Rhetorical Construction of Legal Culture: Ideographs and Relationships in Appellate Opinions Addressing Same-Sex Marriage and English-Only Legislation.
详细信息
- 作者：Cavanagh ; Michael A.
- 学历：Doctor
- 年：2012
- 导师：Sharer, Wendy,eadvisorSmith, Catherine F.ecommittee memberHarrington, Danaecommittee memberShouse, Ericecommittee member
- 毕业院校：The University of North Carolina
- Department：English: Technical and Professional Discourse
- ISBN：9781267871602
- CBH：3550207
- Country：USA
- 语种：English
- FileSize：3558683
- Pages：212
文摘
In my dissertation, I present a critical method that presents a framework for both a legal and rhetorical analysis of appellate opinions. The legal analysis will be a traditional form of legal analysis of an opinion, including a discussion of the facts of the case, the procedural status of an opinion, and, finally, a presentation of the holding of the court&mdash；the ultimate decision of which party prevails and the appropriate remedy provided by the court. For the rhetorical analysis, I adapt and expand on James Boyd Whites methodology of examining phrases of central meaning and value and the relationships created by a given text by suggesting the application of specific methodological approaches. Specifically, I apply Michael Calvin McGees theory of "ideographs" to examine phrases of central meaning and value in appellate opinions. Then, based on the work of James Boyd White, I identify and analyze the relationships created by the ideographs used by appellate courts. Finally, guided by the goal of critical discourse analysis to intervene on behalf of dominated and oppressed groups, I conclude the rhetorical analysis by suggesting an interpretation of the opinions in a way that protects both the majority and the minority of citizens. Specifically, I examine two state appellate opinions, In re Marriages, a California Supreme Court opinion addressing same-sex marriage, and Ruiz v. Hull, an Arizona Supreme Court opinion addressing "English-only" legislation. Each of these cases was initiated by plaintiffs who were part of an oppressed minority, and, in both cases, the plaintiffs challenged a law they believed deprived them of a basic right given to the majority of citizens, but denied to them. I chose these two opinions because of their significance in the current cultural conversation as we grapple with the rights of minority populations seeking legitimacy and rights commensurate with the majority&mdash；gay couples seeking the right to legitimize their family relationships through state-sanctioned marriage and non-English speaking citizens the right to interact with their government in a language meaningful to them.