“I think Gray is just against you there”: Intertextuality and personification in legal discourse

This study examines a unique form of intertextual reference – the personification of case names in legal discourse. In the U.S. legal system, the holdings of courts in prior cases can function as binding law, and the resolution of most legal issues relies on an overt, conventionalized system of intertextual citations to these cases. I analyze references to case names in an oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court that involve personification, which I operationalize as subject-verb pairings of case names with verbs that are normally associated with animacy or agency. I find that cases which appear more frequently in the oral argument are more likely to be personified, with the most frequent cases being bestowed with traits that are increasingly explicit in their humanization, such as the ability to communicate, make utterances which can then be presented as direct reported speech, and express emotions and intentions. I argue that the existence of this cline suggests that the participants in the oral argument use personification as a means of managing information in sequences that are particularly dense with intertextual references to case law. Implications for research on intertextuality, personification, and legal discourse are then explored.