Question

Proponents of applying corpus linguistics to statutory interpretation argue that querying vast databases of historical texts yields an objective, empirical measure of ordinary meaning at the time of enactment. By quantifying semantic collocations and word frequencies, legal corpus linguistics promises to excise judicial subjectivity from textualism. Yet, while this methodology undeniably provides an empirical safeguard against anachronistic cherry-picking of historical dictionaries, its algorithmic veneer obscures critical hermeneutic limitations. Statistical prevalence across a heterogeneous corpus does not invariably reflect how specialized legal terms were understood within relevant legislative contexts, nor does raw frequency capture pragmatic implicature or conversational context. Thus, corpus linguistics constitutes a valuable corroborative tool rather than an autonomous arbiter of statutory meaning, requiring cautious interpretive mediation rather than uncritical deference.

Which of the following phrases most accurately characterizes the author's attitude toward the application of corpus linguistics to statutory interpretation?