分析最高法院口头辩论中打断行为，发现女性律师遭更多负面情绪打断
Heard or Halted? Gender, Interruptions, and Emotional Tone in U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments
- 用语义嵌入和情感词典分析1.2万段发言，量化打断影响
- 打断未改变主张内容，但女性发言者遭更强烈负面情绪表达
- 揭示精英司法场域中的性别化话语权力差异
本研究探讨美国最高法院口头辩论中打断行为如何影响律师发言的语义内容与情感基调，重点关注司法话语中的性别动态。基于2010-2019年ConvoKit Supreme Court Corpus数据，分析12,663段律师与大法官互动的发言片段，评估打断是否改变论点含义，以及针对女性律师的打断是否具有更高负面情感倾向。采用基于GloVe的句向量衡量语义变化，通过词典法分析情感极性。结果表明，打断前后发言的语义相似度保持高位，说明打断并未显著改变论证内容；但针对女性律师的打断显著包含更高负向情感。研究深化了对精英制度中性别化沟通的理解，并展示了计算语言学方法在司法权力、话语与公平研究中的价值。
原文摘要 · Abstract (English)
This study examines how interruptions during U.S. Supreme Court oral arguments shape both the semantic content and emotional tone of advocates' speech, with a focus on gendered dynamics in judicial discourse. Using the ConvoKit Supreme Court Corpus (2010-2019), we analyze 12,663 speech chunks from advocate-justice interactions to assess whether interruptions alter the meaning of an advocate's argument and whether interruptions toward female advocates exhibit more negative emotional valence. Semantic shifts are quantified using GloVe-based sentence embeddings, while sentiment is measured through lexicon-based analysis. We find that semantic similarity between pre- and post-interruption speech remains consistently high, suggesting that interruptions do not substantially alter argumentative content. However, interruptions directed at female advocates contain significantly higher levels of negative sentiment. These results deepen empirical understanding of gendered communication in elite institutional settings and demonstrate the value of computational linguistic methods for studying power, discourse, and equity in judicial proceedings.
Thank you to arXiv for use of its open access interoperability. PaperDance 不是 arXiv 官方产品；中文卡片由大模型生成，请以原文为准。