Amicus Brief of Scholars of Corpus Linguistics

This content has been archived. It may no longer be accurate or relevant.

While more than a little of what attorneys do when they write legal documents is dull craftsmanship, every once in a while, they’ll do something enormously interesting (at least for PG).

The following OP refers to an Amicus Brief filed in the United States Supreme Court. Amicus is short for amicus curiae, Latin for “Friend of the Court.”  Amicus briefs are legal documents filed in appellate court cases by non-litigants (thus, “friends” of the court, not those involved in the court fight) with a strong interest and special expertise in the subject matter which is part of the litigation. The briefs advise the court of relevant additional information or arguments that the court might wish to consider.

This particular amicus brief relates to a large software copyright infringement case, Rimini Street, Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. Oracle sued Rimini for copyright infringement and ultimately received a damages award of $124 million.

Under a provision of the Copyright Act, a prevailing litigant is entitled to “full costs” in addition to actual damages incurred as a result of the copyright infringement.

Litigation “Costs” in US federal courts definitely include what are called, “taxable costs” – Statutory fees for the court clerk and marshall, attendance fees for witnesses under subpoena as set by statute ($40.00 per day and $.57½ per mile, round trip from the witness’ residence to where they must appear), etc.

However, actual costs in major litigation are much greater than the taxable costs described in various statutes.

Expert witnesses can charge the litigants tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars (depending on how rare their particular brand of expertise is) to help the litigants craft the technical elements of legal documents, answer interrogatories (written questions from the opposing parties that must be answered in writing and accurately) participate in depositions, testify at trial, etc.

Some prior court decisions have held that “full costs” only refer to taxable costs while others have held that taxable costs are only one part of “full costs” and the statutory language means the prevailing party is entitled to recover other necessary costs arising from the litigation.

The question that the parties want the US Supreme Court to decide is whether the “full costs” provision in the Copyright Act means “taxable costs” or the actual litigation costs of Oracle, the prevailing party at trial.

With that somewhat dull background, the Amicus Brief referenced in the OP is filed on behalf of eleven “scholars of a methodology for answering questions of interpretation in a systematic, rigorous manner—a methodology known as “corpus linguistics.”

[C]orpus linguistics is an empirical approach to the study of language that involves large, electronic databases,” which are used to “draw inferences about language from data gleaned from real-world language in its natural habitat―in books, magazines, newspapers, and even transcripts of spoken language. Because judges―like linguists and lexicographers―are interested in the “original public meaning” of historic texts and the “ordinary meaning” of modern texts, amici believe these databases can be invaluable in resolving difficult questions of constitutional and statutory interpretation.

So, how do the corpus linguistics scholars summarize their findings about the meaning of “full costs?”

The meaning of adjectives is determined by the nouns they modify, not the other way around. That is why we judge a “tall seven year old” by a different standard of tallness than a “tall NBA player” and why the word “long” means one thing when modifying “story” and something else entirely when modifying “table.” Furthermore, the linguistic evidence shows that “full” in Section 505 should be considered a “delexicalized” adjective — meaning its purpose is to draw attention to and underline an attribute that is already fundamental to and embedded in the nature of the noun. “Full” often serves to emphasize the completeness of an object that is already presumed to be complete, like “full deck of cards,” “full set of teeth,” and “full costs. As applied here, then, “full costs” merely means all the costs that are otherwise authorized by the relevant law—not all costs that might be imagined. “

Now that he has come to the end of his pontifications, PG is having second thoughts about how universal his reaction to this matter as “enormously interesting” might be.

Nonetheless, here’s the Amicus Brief.

[documentcloud url=”http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/5663497-Amicus-Brief-of-Scholars-of-Corpus-Linguistics.html” responsive=true sidebar=false]

9 thoughts on “Amicus Brief of Scholars of Corpus Linguistics”

  1. I never studied English formally until one brief course in college (which it turned out I didn’t need to take), so haven’t had the pleasure of thinking about things such as that adjectives’ meaning is based on the noun they modify – I picked all that up instinctively from reading, and learning to speak.

    It is interesting to know people spend their entire careers on making these distinctions – that the rest of us take for granted.

    But the conclusion summarizes a result in a way that requires you to have read the argument – ‘the decision should be reversed’ – rather than answers the original question.

    The conclusion should restate the question and then answer it. Logically. IMNV traditionally legal O.

    • Apparently lawyers and expert witnesses do not use the “hourglass format” taught to history students. Open with your thesis, then narrow down and state your data points that support your argument. Conclude with a restatement of your thesis.

      Or as one professor said, “Tell ’em what you are gonna’ tell ’em, tell it to ’em, then tell ’em what you told ’em.”

      • This also is classic advice for sermons. It is good for many sorts of expository prose or public speaking.

    • It is interesting to know people spend their entire careers on making these distinctions – that the rest of us take for granted.

      And we pay for a lot of those careers. They take it for granted.

    • “It is interesting to know people spend their entire careers on making these distinctions – that the rest of us take for granted.”

      Many areas of study are like that. A pitcher throws a curve ball without knowing how it works. He leaves that to a physicist.

      In the case of linguistics, a grammar of a language is an explicit codification of stuff that native speakers just know. (I am talking about real grammars here, not usage manuals, which are essentially etiquette guides.) The stuff that you just know can be quite nuanced. Consider the four sentences, the last one being ungrammatical:

      (1) John put his shirt on.
      (2) John put on his shirt.
      (3) John put it on.
      (4) *John put on it.

      This pattern is so ingrained in native speakers that we don’t notice it. Even linguists didn’t tweak to it until about a half century or so back. But it gives ESL learners fits.

Comments are closed.