Abstract

Legal language exists in a peculiar state of tension. It is theoretically expected to meet the specific technical needs of a range of professions while simultaneously remaining entirely accessible to the public at large. Its success at that latter aim is at best limited, with laypeople generally more able to recognize that a given text is legal in character than they are to grasp its technical content. For such readers, the primary semiotic function of legal language is an indexical one, indicating that a text possesses a particular authoritative status even if its intended legal function remains opaque. This paper explores that authoritative indexicality of legal language through the multisemiotic analysis of two corpora: a corpus of legitimate legal documents filed in an American courthouse written by licensed attorneys and a corpus of pseudolegal documents filed in that same courthouse written by members of the Sovereign Citizen conspiracy movement. Sovereign Citizens appropriate features characteristic of legitimate legal language in their pseudolegal writings in an effort to imbue them with real legal authority. The comparison of these two corpora therefore provides a unique perspective on which features of legal writing most clearly communicate authority to non-lawyers. In addition to discussing the ways in which legal authority is manifested in these two corpora, this paper also outlines a novel method for the visualization of the spatial distribution of target features in a corpus of static multimodal texts by employing probability density estimation to generate a series of feature-based heatmaps.