Discourse analysis reveals dynamic shifts in semantic density across judicial judgments, suggesting that semantic waves underpin successful legal argumentation.
Key Points
Investigate the underlying organizing principles of legal argumentation by analyzing how varying degrees of meaning complexity structure judicial decision-making.
Analyzed N=18 written judicial judgments using the semantic density dimension of Legitimation Code Theory (LCT).
Mapped shifts in meaning complexity and conceptual condensation across sequential phases of legal argumentation.
Judicial argumentation progresses across distinct phases, each defined by characteristic strengths of semantic density.
Judges generate semantic waves by weaving concrete case facts with abstract legal principles to construct legitimate arguments.