This article reports a corpus-aided analysis of stance adverbs within published judicial opinions from the 12 geographically-apportioned districts of the United States (US) Federal Courts of Appeals. The study first analyzes stance adverbs previously investigated in US Supreme Court decisions in order to more comprehensively explore these interactional features across multiple levels of the judicial system. Following this initial analysis, the study then examines variation in the use of stance adverbs between majority and dissenting opinions in Courts of Appeals opinions to identify salient similarities and differences in frequency and function in the two opinion types. The initial analysis reveals divergence in stance adverb use between the Courts of Appeals and the Supreme Court and between legal writing and other registers, indicating the prevalence and importance of stance adverbs within legal writing. Additionally, the study notes variation in stance adverbs between majority and dissenting opinions. This article details the variation of stance adverbs across these aforementioned contexts, discusses how the variation noted in the corpus analysis at times conflicts with the advice of legal writing style guides, and offers pedagogical implications of these findings for English for Legal Purposes instruction.

本文报告了来自美国联邦上诉法院的12个地理上相称地区的已发布司法意见中姿态副词的语料库辅助分析。这项研究首先分析了先前在美国最高法院的判决中调查过的立场副词，以便更全面地探讨司法系统多个层面上的这些相互作用特征。在进行了初步分析之后，该研究随后考察了上诉法院意见中多数意见与反对意见之间立场副词用法的差异，以查明两种意见类型在频率和功能上的显着相似之处和不同之处。初步分析显示，上诉法院和最高法院之间以及法律写作和其他登记簿之间的立场副词用法存在差异，表明法律写作中立场副词的普遍性和重要性。此外，该研究还指出了多数人和反对意见之间立场副词的差异。本文详细介绍了上述副词中立场副词的变体，讨论了语料库分析中指出的变体有时与法律写作风格指南的建议相抵触，并为法律目的英语教学提供了这些发现的教学意义。