This study uses the method of novel Multi-Dimensional Analysis to compare the discourses of justices, appellant’s attorneys, and respondent’s attorneys to provide a corpus-based description of linguistic co-occurrence patterns in their registers during oral arguments based on the extracted seven functional dimensions: (1) Instructive argumentation versus Informational production; (2) Elaborative exposition; (3) Concern with degree; (4) Concern with projection; (5) Narrative versus Non-narrative expression; (6) Impersonal expression; and (7) Stance-focused expression. Three profession-based legal corpora, totaling 32,107,839 words, were built using case transcripts from oral arguments between 1979 and 2014. The results show that justices are more argumentative, concerned with degrees, projection-, and stance-focused than attorneys. Attorneys are more informative, elaborative, narrative, and impersonal than justices. Among attorneys, appellant’s attorneys are relatively more informative, elaborative and impersonal, and less projection-concerned than respondent’s attorneys. This study has implications for MD analysis, courtroom discourse analysis, language pedagogy, and accounting research.

中文翻译：

---

法律专业人士在最高法院口头辩论中的语言变异：一种新颖的多维分析

本研究采用新颖的多维分析方法来比较法官、上诉律师和被告律师的话语，根据提取的七个功能维度，提供基于语料库的口头辩论期间语言共现模式的描述：（1）指导性论证与信息生产；(2) 详尽阐述；(3) 关心学位；(4) 关注投影；(5) 叙事与非叙事表达；(6) 非个人化的表达；(7)以立场为中心的表达。使用 1979 年至 2014 年间口头辩论的案件笔录构建了三个基于专业的法律语料库，总计 32,107,839 个单词。结果表明，法官比律师更具争议性，更关心学位、预测和立场。律师比法官更信息丰富、更详尽、更叙述性和更客观。在律师中，上诉人的律师相对于被诉人的律师来说信息量更大、更详尽、更客观，并且不太关心预测。这项研究对 MD 分析、法庭话语分析、语言教育学和会计研究都有影响。