Abstract
Adopting a functional view of language, this study critically explores clausal patterns in lawyers’ opening address in an American criminal trial. Underpinned by the assumption that no linguistic options are value-free, the quantitative and qualitative analysis uncovers the syntactic choices employed by the opposing sides and accounts for them in terms of the presenters’ ideological positions concerning the guilt and innocence of the defendant. The findings reveal stark differences between the two sides. Such systematic differences in clausal configurations not only constitute a prime meaning-making strategy that serves to construct polarized positioning of the same people and events, but are also likely to strike a profound impact with the jurors, potentially leading them to make tentative conclusions at this initial stage of case presentation.
References
Aldridge, M. and J. Luchjeonbroers. 2007. “Linguistic manipulations in legal discourse: Framing questions and ‘smuggling’ information”. International Journal of Speech, Language, and Law 14. 83–105.10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.85Search in Google Scholar
Beach, W. 1985. “Temporal density in courtroom interaction: Constraints on the recovery of past events in legal discourse”. Communication Monographs 52. 1–18.10.1080/03637758509376093Search in Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. 2003. Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230006010Search in Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., A. Johnson, and D. Wright. 2017. An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. (2nd ed.) New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Danet, B. 1976. “Speaking of Watergate: language and moral accountability”. Centrum 4. 105–138.Search in Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S. 2001. Representing rape: Language and sexual consent New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2000. New labour, new language London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203697078Search in Google Scholar
Figueiredo, D. 1998. “An analysis of transitivity choices in five appellate decisions in rape cases”. Revista Fragmentos 8. 97–113.Search in Google Scholar
Fowler, R. 1986. Linguistic criticism Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Gitchel, D. and M. O’Brien. 2006. Trial advocacy basics South Bend, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.Search in Google Scholar
Griffin, L. 2013. “Narrative, truth, and trial”. Georgetown Law Journal 101. 281–334.Search in Google Scholar
Guang, S. 2010. “An analysis of the transitivity system in courtroom discourse”. Chinese Semiotic Studies 4. 245–257.10.1515/css-2010-0214Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, M. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Hasan, R. 1988. The analysis of one poem: Theoretical issues in practice. In: Birch, D. and M. O’Tool (eds.), Functions and styles London: Edward Arnold. 45–73.Search in Google Scholar
Haydock, R. and J. Sonsteng. 1990. Trial theories, tactics and techniques St. Paul, MN: West.Search in Google Scholar
Heffer, C. 2005. The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. New York: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230502888Search in Google Scholar
Heffer, C. 2010. “Narrative in the trial: Constructing crime stories in court”. In: Coulthard, M. and A. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics New York: Routledge. 199–217.10.4324/9780203855607.ch14Search in Google Scholar
Henley, N., M. Miller, and J. Beazley. 1995. “Syntax, semantics and sexual violence agency and the passive voice”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14. 60–84.10.1177/0261927X95141004Search in Google Scholar
Komter, M. 1998. Dilemmas in the courtroom: A study of trials of violence crimes in the Netherlands. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar
Kubicek, T. 2006. Adversarial justice: American’s court system on trial New York: Algora.Search in Google Scholar
LaFrance, M. and E. Hahn. 1994. “The disappearing agent: Gender stereotypes, interpersonal verbs and implicit causality”. In: Roman C., S. Juhasz, and C. Miller (eds.), The woman and language debate: A sourcebook New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 348–362.Search in Google Scholar
Landsman, S. 1984. The adversary system: A description and defense Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Lind, A. and G. Ke. 1985. “Opening and closing statements”. In: Kassin, S.M., and L.S. Wrightsman (eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure London: Sage. 229–253.Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. 2005. “Nailing down and answer: Participations of power in trial talk”. Discourse Studies 7. 733–759.10.1177/1461445605055424Search in Google Scholar
O’Barr, W. 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language, power and strategy in the courtroom New York: Academic Press.Search in Google Scholar
Pennington, N. and R. Hastie. 1991. “A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story mode”. Cordoza Law Review 13. 519–557.Search in Google Scholar
Rosulek, L. 2008. “Manipulating silence and social representation in the closing arguments of a child sexual abuse case”. Text and Talk 28. 529–550.10.1515/TEXT.2008.026Search in Google Scholar
Rosulek, L. 2015. Dueling discourses: The construction of reality in closing arguments Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Solan, L. 2010. “The forensic linguist: The expert linguist meets the adversarial system”. In: Coulthard, M. and A. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics New York: Routledge. 395–407.10.4324/9780203855607.ch26Search in Google Scholar
Spiecker, S. and D. Worthington. 2003. “The influence of opening statement/closing argument organization strategy on juror verdict and damage awards”. Law and Human Behavior 24(4). 437–456.10.1023/A:1024041201605Search in Google Scholar
Stygall G. 2012. “Discourse in the US courtroom”. In: Tiersma, P. and L. Solan (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law Oxford: Oxford University Press. 369–380.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0027Search in Google Scholar
Szczyrbak, M. 2013. “‘I think my own view is that...’: On the linguistic construction of evidence in courtroom discourse”. Topics in Linguistics 12: 65–74Search in Google Scholar
Szczyrbak, M. 2016. “Say and stancetaking in courtroom talk. A corpus-assisted study”. Corpora 11. 143–168.10.3366/cor.2016.0090Search in Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. 1999. Legal language Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
© 2019 Faculty of English, Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznań, Poland
