Abstract This study presents a corpus-assisted discourse analysis examining the semantic frames of (Dis)Interest and (Un)Importance in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts. With the use of two corpora — Approve (67,694 tokens) and Dismiss (143,462 tokens) — the research investigated the construction and use of (Dis)Interest and (Un)Importance frames. A further distinction of performative versus descriptive use informed the analysis. In terms of frame construction, decision writers used four frame elements: Trigger, Explanation, Degree, and Experiencer. The findings show that (Un)Importance frames appeared three times more frequently than (Dis)Interest frames. Reflecting the inherent nature of the outcome, Approve writers used significantly more performative Interest and Importance; Dismiss writers used significantly more performative Disinterest. Dismiss writers also used significantly more descriptive Importance in refutation structures. Qualitative analysis revealed that Approve decisions featured more straightforward performative framing, whereas Dismiss decisions displayed a complex interplay of performative and descriptive elements.
McKeown et al. (Fri,) studied this question.