Differential discourse processing and discursive formation
Gail Stygall | University of Washington
This study of Anglo-American legal discourse is the first comprehensive discourse analysis of American legal language in its prototypical setting, the trial by jury. With ethnographic data gathered in a civil jury trial, the book compares the discourse processing of the legal participants and the lay jurors in the trial.This study, examining an entire trial, finds that it is constraints at the level of a Foucauldian discursive formation that prevent lay understanding. Those constraints include the allocation of narrative speaking roles primarily to legal speakers in genres in which no sworn evidence is given, the suppression of narrative in ordinary witnesses, a set of restraints on witnesses' use of certain categories of evidentials, the legal topic originating in textual authority unknown to the lay participants, specific distribution of verb forms by legal genre, and a linguistic “burden” accompanying the legal “burden of proof” in the requirement that the lawyer of the moving party also use and explain technical legal terms to the jury at the same time as he or she presents evidence. All of these factors contribute to the incomprehensibility of legal discourse to lay auditors, resulting in the jury making their decision based on a commonsense script of the events precipitating the trial.The study concludes by arguing for a Foucauldian discourse analysis of institutional languages, a social theory powerful enough to account for the power and tenacity of these languages, where traditional linguistic explanation has failed.
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 26] 1994. xii, 226 pp.
Publishing status: Available
© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments | p. vi
Abbreviations | p. xi
Legal Language, Discourse Analysis and Social Theory | p. 1
From Text to Tallk: Juror Qualification Rites in an Indiana Court | p. 45
Text in Talk: Preliminary instructions and opening statements | p. 81
Stories by question and answer: The Evidence Stage | p. 117
Last Word: Final Argument and Instructions | p. 155
Legal Discourse and Discursive Formations | p. 191
Notes | p. 215
Index | p. 225
Cited by 39 other publications
2022. A transitivity-based exploration of a wrongful conviction for arson and murder. Language, Context and Text. The Social Semiotics Forum 4:2 ► pp. 304 ff.
Carranza, Isolda E.
2022. Metapragmatics in a courtroom genre. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 169 ff.
2018. Investigating audience orientation in courtroom communication. Pragmatics and Society 9:4 ► pp. 545 ff.
2018. Dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early courtroom action game. Language and Dialogue 8:3 ► pp. 341 ff.
2022. Dramatic monologues. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA) ► pp. 757 ff.
Chaemsaithong, Krisda & Yoonjeong Kim
Farkas, Kerrie RH
Grund, Peter J.
Hájek, Martin, Martin Havlík & Jiří Nekvapil
Leung, Ester S. M. & John Gibbons
Rigney, Azucena C.
Scheffer, Thomas, Kati Hannken-Illjes & Alexander Kozin
Shuy, Roger W.
Staehler, Tanja & Alexander Kozin
Zeng, Fanjing, Ching-Yu Huang & Ray Bull
[no author supplied]
2014. Fictive Interaction [Human Cognitive Processing, 47],
2021. The Sociopragmatics of Stance [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 329],
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 6 march 2023. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
Main BIC Subject
Main BISAC Subject
LAN009000: LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number: 94031090 | Marc record