Abstract
Despite the inherently multimodal nature of the courtroom, studies of multimodality in forensic linguistics have been scarce. This study uses the stance triangle and ideological square concepts and the assumption that recurrent gestures serve as stance-taking resources to analyze conflicting embodied stances taken by the prosecutor and defense attorney in their opening remarks during the State of Minnesota v. Derek Michael Chauvin 2021 trial. Statistical results reveal that the prosecutor predominantly uses modal gestures to display a strongly aggravated oppositional stance and attempts to be more persuasive, while the defense attorney favors performative gestures. The analysis of the interplay between the verbal and gestural resources suggests that recurrent gestures such as open hand prone or supine, open hand held with vertical palms, index finger extended, and precision grip have a threefold indexical realization: prototypical, argumentative, and stance-taking. The findings contribute to a more complete understanding of persuasion in the courtroom.
Funding source: Renmin University of China
Award Identifier / Grant number: Grant 20XNL016
About the authors
Min Yang is Professor of Linguistics at the School of Foreign Languages, Renmin University of China. Her research interests include (Critical) Discourse Studies and Forensic Linguistics. She has published over 40 academic papers and four monographs.
Min Wang graduated with a Ph.D. from Renmin University of China, and currently serves as a lecturer and postdoctoral researcher at Beijing Jiaotong University. Her work focuses on forensic linguistics, especially stance-taking in courtroom interactions.
Appendix: Transcription and annotation conventions
Speech
01: line number, one tone unit
All: small capitals, the tonic syllable
--: a false start
(.): pause
Gesture phases
this case: the stroke and possible post-stroke hold
One of: the preparation
Mr. Chauvin: reparation and stroke cannot be sharply distinguished
policing: the recovery
Gesture space
The gesture space of the standing attorneys in front of the podium in the courtroom.
References
Amsterdam, Anthony G. & Randy Hertz. 2017. Opening statements. In Trial manual 6 for the defense of criminal cases, vol. 2, 825–831. Philadelphia: American Law Institute-American Bar Association Committee on Continuing Professional Education.Search in Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2014. Interactive patterns of the opening statement in criminal trials: A historical perspective. Discourse Studies 16(3). 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613508900.Search in Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2017. Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia Linguistica 51(1). 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0003.Search in Google Scholar
Djonov, Emilia & Theo van Leeuwen. 2017. The power of semiotic software. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies, 1st edn., 566–581. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315739342-39Search in Google Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (Pragmatics & beyond New Series v. 164), 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.164.07duSearch in Google Scholar
Gibbon, Dafydd. 2009. Gesture theory is linguistics: On modelling multimodality as prosody. In Proceedings of the 23rd Pacific Asia Conference on Language, Information and Computation, vol. 1, 9–18.Search in Google Scholar
Harrison, Simon & Silva H. Ladewig. 2021. Recurrent gestures throughout bodies, languages, and cultural practices. Gesture 20(2). 153–179. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.21014.har.Search in Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher & Bodo Winter. 2022. Gesture and legitimation in the anti-immigration discourse of Nigel Farage. Discourse & Society 33(1). 34–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265211048560.Search in Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The trial as complex genre. In The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse, 65–91. Berlin: Springer.10.1057/9780230502888_3Search in Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2010. Narrative in the trial: Constructing crime stories in court. In Malcolm Coulthard & Alison Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 1st edn., 227–245. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203855607-26Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, Alison. 2020. “Are you saying you were stabbed …?” Multimodality, embodied action, and dramatized formulations in “fixing” the facts in police interviews with suspects. In Marianne Mason & Frances Rock (eds.), The discourse of police interviews, 268–298. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226647821.003.0013Search in Google Scholar
Jones, Rodney H. & Neville Chi Hang Li. 2016. Evidentiary video and “professional vision” in the Hong Kong umbrella movement. Journal of Language and Politics 15(5). 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.15.5.04jon.Search in Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2004. Gesture: Visible action as utterance. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511807572Search in Google Scholar
Kendon, Adam. 2017. Pragmatic functions of gestures: Some observations on the history of their study and their nature. Gesture 16(2). 157–175. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.2.01ken.Search in Google Scholar
Ladewig, Silva H. 2014. Recurrent gestures. In Cornelia Müller, Alan Cienki, Ellen Fricke, Silva H. Ladewig, David McNeill & Jana Bressem (eds.), Body-language-communication: An international handbook on multimodality in human interaction, 1558–1575. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Search in Google Scholar
Lempert, Michael. 2011. Barack Obama, being sharp: Indexical order in the pragmatics of precision-grip gesture. Gesture 11(3). 241–270. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.11.3.01lem.Search in Google Scholar
Lempert, Michael. 2017. Uncommon resemblance: Pragmatic affinity in political gesture. Gesture 16(1). 35–67. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.16.1.02lem.Search in Google Scholar
MacLeod, Nicola & Tim Grant. 2017. ‘Go on cam but dnt be dirty’: Linguistic levels of identity assumption in undercover online operations against child sex abusers. Language and Law = Linguagem e Direito 4(2). 157–175.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Michele Zappavigna. 2019. Embodied meaning: A systemic functional perspective on paralanguage. Functional Linguistics 6(1). 1–33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0065-9.Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. 2005a. Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics 9(2). 167–193. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2005.00289.x.Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. 2005b. Nailing down an answer: Participations of power in trial talk. Discourse Studies 7(6). 733–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605055424.Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. 2010. Multimodality and forensic linguistics. In Malcolm Coulthard & Alison Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 1st edn., 541–557. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. 2013. Language and material conduct in legal discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics 17(5). 634–660. https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12054.Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. 2018. This is not a course in trial practice: Multimodal participation in objections. Journal of Pragmatics 129. 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2018.03.022.Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. & Kristin E. Gilbert. 2016. Multifunctionality of hand gestures and material conduct during closing argument. Gesture 15(1). 79–114. https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.1.04mat.Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. & Kristin E. Gilbert. 2018a. Let the fingers do the talking: Language, gesture and power in closing argument. In Janny H. C. Leung & Alan Durant (eds.), Meaning and power in the language of law, 1st edn., 137–163. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781316285756.007Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. & Kristin E. Gilbert. 2018b. ‘She does not flee the house’: A multimodal poetics of space, path and motion in opening statements. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 25(2). 123–149. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.35619.Search in Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. & Kristin E. Gilbert. 2021. Multimodality in legal interaction: Beyond written and verbal modalities. In Malcolm Coulthard, Alison May & Rui Sousa-Silva (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 2nd edn., 245–264. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780429030581-20Search in Google Scholar
Mauet, Thomas A. & Stephen D. Easton. 2021. Opening statements. In Trial techniques and trials (Aspen Coursebook Series), 11th edn., 73–108. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Search in Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 1992. Hand and mind: What gestures reveal about thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar
McNeill, David. 2005. Gesture and thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226514642.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Cornelia. 2004. Forms and uses of the Palm Up Open Hand: A case of a gesture family. In The semantics and pragmatics of everyday gestures, 233–256. Berlin: Weidler Berlin.Search in Google Scholar
Müller, Cornelia. 2018. Gesture and sign: Cataclysmic break or dynamic relations? Frontiers in Psychology 9. 1651. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01651.Search in Google Scholar
Nevile, Maurice. 2015. The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction 48(2). 121–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2015.1025499.Search in Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael. 2003. Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23(3–4). 193–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0271-5309(03)00013-2.Search in Google Scholar
Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2021. I’m thinking and you’re saying: Speaker stance and the progressive of mental verbs in courtroom interaction. Text & Talk 41(2). 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0145.Search in Google Scholar
Tanford, J. Alexander. 2002. Opening statements. In The trial process: Law, tactics and ethics, 3rd edn., 147–178. Newark: LexisNexis.Search in Google Scholar
Tracy, Karen. 2011. What’s in a name? Stance markers in oral argument about marriage laws. Discourse & Communication 5(1). 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310390167.Search in Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 2011. Discourse and ideology. In Teun A. Van Dijk (ed.), Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction, 379–407. London: Sage.10.4135/9781446289068.n18Search in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Yuan, Chuanyou. 2019. A battlefield or a lecture hall? A contrastive multimodal discourse analysis of courtroom trials. Social Semiotics 29(5). 645–669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1504653.Search in Google Scholar
Zappavigna, Michele, Chris Cléirigh, Paul Dwyer & James R. Martin. 2010. The coupling of gesture and phonology. In Monika Bednarek & James R. Martin (eds.), New discourse on language: Functional perspectives on multimodality, identity, and affiliation, 219–236. London: A&C Black.Search in Google Scholar
Zhao, Sumin, Emilia Djonov & Theo van Leeuwen. 2014. Semiotic technology and practice: A multimodal social semiotic approach to PowerPoint. Text & Talk 34(3). 349–375. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0005.Search in Google Scholar
© 2024 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
