@inproceedings{kranzlein-etal-2024-curiam,
    title = "{C}u{RIAM}: Corpus Re Interpretation and Metalanguage in {U}.{S}. {S}upreme {C}ourt Opinions",
    author = "Kranzlein, Michael  and
      Schneider, Nathan  and
      Tobia, Kevin",
    editor = "Calzolari, Nicoletta  and
      Kan, Min-Yen  and
      Hoste, Veronique  and
      Lenci, Alessandro  and
      Sakti, Sakriani  and
      Xue, Nianwen",
    booktitle = "Proceedings of the 2024 Joint International Conference on Computational Linguistics, Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-COLING 2024)",
    month = may,
    year = "2024",
    address = "Torino, Italia",
    publisher = "ELRA and ICCL",
    url = "https://aclanthology.org/2024.lrec-main.379",
    pages = "4247--4258",
    abstract = "Most judicial decisions involve the interpretation of legal texts. As such, judicial opinions use language as the medium to comment on or draw attention to other language (for example, through definitions and hypotheticals about the meaning of a term from a statute). Language used this way is called metalanguage. Focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court, we view metalanguage as reflective of justices{'} interpretive processes, bearing on current debates and theories about textualism in law and political science. As a step towards large-scale metalinguistic analysis with NLP, we identify 9 categories prominent in metalinguistic discussions, including key terms, definitions, and different kinds of sources. We annotate these concepts in a corpus of U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Our analysis of the corpus reveals high interannotator agreement, frequent use of quotes and sources, and several notable frequency differences between majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. We observe fewer instances than expected of several legal interpretive categories. We discuss some of the challenges in developing the annotation schema and applying it and provide recommendations for how this corpus can be used for broader analyses.",
}

Most judicial decisions involve the interpretation of legal texts. As such, judicial opinions use language as the medium to comment on or draw attention to other language (for example, through definitions and hypotheticals about the meaning of a term from a statute). Language used this way is called metalanguage. Focusing on the U.S. Supreme Court, we view metalanguage as reflective of justices{'} interpretive processes, bearing on current debates and theories about textualism in law and political science. As a step towards large-scale metalinguistic analysis with NLP, we identify 9 categories prominent in metalinguistic discussions, including key terms, definitions, and different kinds of sources. We annotate these concepts in a corpus of U.S. Supreme Court opinions. Our analysis of the corpus reveals high interannotator agreement, frequent use of quotes and sources, and several notable frequency differences between majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions. We observe fewer instances than expected of several legal interpretive categories. We discuss some of the challenges in developing the annotation schema and applying it and provide recommendations for how this corpus can be used for broader analyses.
Kranzlein, Michael Schneider, Nathan Tobia, Kevin
CuRIAM: Corpus Re Interpretation and Metalanguage in U.S. Supreme Court Opinions