This study examines the relationship between person-referencing terms and attorney and judges’ stances during oral argument in three US state supreme courts as each considered whether its existing state law could restrict marriage to one man and one woman. After reviewing past work on stancetaking and person referencing, I provide background on appellate oral argument and the three cases. Combining discourse analysis with simple quantitative coding, the study shows that attorneys’ and judges’ choices of terms for gay parties and the frequency of their use marked the stance of appellate parties toward same-sex marriage. Then, I describe how person-referencing terms for gays, both in the larger society and in appellate courts, changed in the 20 years preceding the cases. The article concludes by arguing for the value of studying state appellate court discourse; I also reflect about the complexities in linking changes in usage of person-referencing terms with attitudinal stance changes.
Amsterdam, A.G. and Bruner, J. ( 2000) Minding the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
2.
Andersen, R. and Fetner, T. ( 2008) ‘Cohort Differences in Tolerance of Homosexuality: Attitudinal Change in Canada and the United States, 1981-2000’, Public Opinion Quarterly72: 311-30.
3.
Benoit, W. ( 1989) ‘Attorney Argumentation and Supreme Court Opinions’ , Argumentation and Advocacy26: 22-38.
4.
Besnier, N. ( 1989) ‘Literacy and Feeling: The Encoding of Affect in Nukulaelae Letters’, Text9: 69-91.
5.
Biber, D. and Finegan, E. ( 1989) ‘Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect’, Text9: 93-124.
6.
Brown, P. and Levinson, S.C. ( 1978) ‘Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena’ , in E.N. Goody (ed.) Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, pp. 56-310. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press.
7.
Burke, K. ( 1954) Permanence and Change. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill Co.
8.
Cantor, D.J., Cantor E., Black, J.C. and Barrett, C.D. (eds) (2006) Same-Sex Marriage: The Legal and Psychological Evolution in America. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
9.
Covarrubias, P. ( 2002) Culture, Communication, and Cooperation: Interpersonal Relations and Pronominal Address in a Mexican Organization. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
10.
Dickens, M. and Schwartz, R.E. ( 1971) ‘Oral Argument before the Supreme Court: Marshall v. Davis in the School Segregation Cases’, Quarterly Journal of Speech57: 32-42.
11.
Dickson, D. (ed.) (2001) The Supreme Court Conferences (1940-1985). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
12.
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. ( 1992) ‘Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction’ , in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 1-65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Eskridge Jr, W.N. ( 2008) Dishonorable Passions. New York: Viking.
14.
Fitch, K. ( 1998) Speaking Relationally: Culture, Communication, and Interpersonal Connection. New York: Guilford.
15.
Fitzgerald, R. and Housley, W. ( 2002) ‘Identity, Categorization and Sequential Organization: The Sequential and Categorical Flow of Identity in a Radio Phone-In’ , Discourse & Society13: 579-602.
16.
Francis, D. and Hester, S. ( 2004) An Invitation to Ethnomethodology: Language, Society and Interaction. London: SAGE.
17.
Gertsmann, E. ( 2008) Same-Sex Marriage and the Constitution, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Grice, H.P. ( 1975) ‘Logic in Conversation’, in P. Cole and J. Morgan (eds) Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts, pp. 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
19.
Haspel, K. and Tracy, K. ( 2007) ‘Marking and Shifting Lines in the Sand: Discursive Moves of Ordinary Democracy’, in K. Tracy, J. McDaniel and B. Gronbeck (eds) The Prettier Doll: Rhetoric, Discourse, and Ordinary Democracy, pp. 142-75. Tuscaloosa, AL : University of Alabama Press.
20.
Heffer, C. ( 2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
Hester, S. and Eglin, P. ( 1992) A Sociology of Crime. London: Routledge.
22.
Hester, S. and Eglin, P. (eds) (1997) Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
23.
Jaffe, A. ( 2009) ‘The Sociolinguistics of Stance’, in A. Jaffe (ed.) Stance: Sociolinguistic Perspectives, pp. 3-28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
Jayyusi, L. ( 1984) Categorization and the Moral Order. Boston, MA: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
25.
Jayyusi, L. ( 1991) ‘Values and Moral Judgement: Communicative Praxis as Moral Order’, in G. Button (ed.) Ethnomethodology and the Human Sciences, pp. 227-50. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Johnson, T.R. ( 2004) Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany: State University of New York.
27.
Keck, T.M. (2009) ‘Beyond Backlash : Assessing the Impact of Judicial Decisions on LGBT Rights’, Law and Society Review43: 151-85.
28.
Kitzinger, C. ( 2005a) ‘Heteronormativity in Action: Reproducing the Heterosexual Nuclear Family in After-Hour Medical Calls’, Social Problems52: 477-98.
29.
Kitzinger, C. ( 2005b) ‘‘‘Speaking as a Heterosexual’’: (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction?’, Research on Language and Social Interaction38: 221-65.
30.
Langer, L. ( 2002) Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. Albany: State University of New York Press.
31.
Leonard, A.C. and Cain, P.A. ( 2005) Sexuality Law. Durham: North Carolina Academic Press.
32.
Lerner, G.H. and Kitzinger, C. ( 2007) ‘Introduction: Person-Reference in Conversation Analytic Research’, Discourse Studies9: 427-32.
33.
Martin, J.N., Krisek, R.L., Nakayama, T.L. and Bradford, L. ( 1999) ‘What Do White People Want to Be Called?’ , in T.K. Nakayama and J.N. Martin (eds) Whiteness: The Communication of Social Identity, pp. 27-50. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
34.
Ochs, E. and Schieffelin, B. ( 1989) ‘Language Has a Heart’, Text9: 7-25.
35.
Roca-Cuberes, C. ( 2008) ‘Membership Categorization and Professional Insanity Ascription’, Discourse Studies10: 543-70.
36.
Rollins, J. ( 2005) ‘Same-Sex Unions and the Spectacles of Recognition’ , Law & Society Review39(2): 457-83.
37.
Sacks, H. ( 1992) Lectures on Conversation (2 vols), Vol. 1. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
38.
Schegloff, E.A. ( 1996) ‘Some Practices for Referring to Persons in Talk-in-Interaction: A Partial Sketch of a Systematics’, in B. Fox (ed.) Studies in Anaphora, pp. 437-85. Amsterdam : John Benjamins.
39.
Schegloff, E.A. ( 2007) ‘A Tutorial on Membership Categorization’ , Journal of Pragmatics39(3): 462-82.
40.
Sequiera, D.L. ( 1993) ‘Personal Address as Negotiated Meaning in an American Church Community’, Research on Language and Social Interaction26: 259-85.
41.
Shullman, S.L. ( 2004) ‘The Illusion of Devil’s Advocacy: How the Justices of the Supreme Court Foreshadow Their Decisions During Oral Argument’ , The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process6: 271-93.
42.
Stetson, J. ( 1999) ‘Victim, Offender and Witness in the Emplotment of News Stories’, in P.L. Jalbert (ed.) Media Studies: Ethnomethodologcial Approaches, pp. 77-110. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.
43.
Tanno, D. ( 1997) ‘Names, Narratives, and the Evolution of Ethnic Identity’, in A. Gonzalez, M. Houston and V. Chen (eds) Our Voices: Essays in Culture, Ethnicity, and Communication , pp. 28-32. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
44.
Toobin, J. ( 2007) The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court . New York: Doubleday.
45.
Tracy, K. ( 2002) Everyday Talk: Building and Reflecting Identities. New York: Guilford.
46.
Tracy, K. ( 2007) ‘Feeling-Limned Talk: Conduct Ideals in the Steinberg Succession Meeting’, in F. Cooren (ed.) Interacting and Organizing: Analysis of a Board Meeting, pp. 77-94. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
47.
Tracy, K. (2009) ‘How Questioning ConstructsAppellate Judge Identities: The Case of a Hearing about Same-Sex Marriage’, Discourse Studies11: 199-221.
48.
Tracy, K. (in preparation) Disputing Who Can Marry: Talk in Courts and Legislative Hearings. Boulder: University of Colorado.
49.
Tracy, K. and Durfy, M. ( 2007) ‘Speaking Out in Public: Citizen Participation in Contentious School Board Meetings’, Discourse & Communication1: 223-49.
50.
Tracy, K. and Parks, R. ( 2010) ‘Stance-Taking within Neutrality-Attentive Judicial Discourse: Oral Argument about Same-Sex Marriage’, paper presented at the International Communication Association, Singapore.
51.
Wasby, S.L., D’Amato, A.A. and Metrailer, R. ( 1976) ‘The Functions of Oral Argument in the U.S. Supreme Court’, Quarterly Journal of Speech62(4): 410-24.
52.
Winiecki, D. ( 2008) ‘The Expert Witness and Courtroom Discourse: Applying Micro and Macro Forms of Discourse Analysis to Study Process and the ‘‘Doing of Doings’’ for Individuals and Society’, Discourse & Society19: 765-81.
53.
Wrightsman, L.S. ( 2008) Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
