The status of generic structure in expert opinions. Insights from a comparative analysis of American, Russian and Bulgarian documents

Abstract

This paper attempts to describe expert opinions from a comparative and genre-based perspective. It addresses the central question of whether expert opinions follow any specific rhetorical and organizational patterns and the extent to which these may have been imposed by the respective judicial institutions in Russia, Bulgaria and the USA.  After reviewing the institutional contexts and constraints imposed on experts and their opinions, the analysis focuses on exploring the status of generic structure in three sets of documents: US common law opinions, Russian and Bulgarian civil law opinions. The concept of ‘generic model’ has been approached from the perspective of Genre Analysis using the model of ‘rhetorical moves’ (Swales 1990; Tardy & Swales 2014). The analyses have revealed that expert witnesses can be described in terms of individual text segments, each with distinct rhetorical or communicative purpose(s). While most identified text segments are shared by all the opinions, irrespective of the legal system, the major difference is that the generic structures of Russian and Bulgarian opinions are strictly regulated by law, which results in increased levels of detail and conventionality. In contrast, the discourse community of American experts has much more leeway in shaping the conventions of the genre, as long as the experts take account of the general standards contained in the Federal Rules of Evidence. American opinions reflect not only the expertise of their authors but also their individual style.