Trial Language

Differential discourse processing and discursive formation

Gail Stygall | University of Washington
ISBN 9789027250384 (Eur) | EUR 105.00
ISBN 9781556192944 (USA) | USD 158.00
ISBN 9789027282842 | EUR 105.00 | USD 158.00
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
Table of Contents
Cited by

Cited by 38 other publications

No author info given
2004. Book reviews. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law - Forensic Linguistics 11:1  pp. 146 ff. Crossref logo
No author info given
2014.  In Fictive Interaction [Human Cognitive Processing, 47], Crossref logo
No author info given
2016.  In Redefining Trial by Media [Discourse Approaches to Politics, Society and Culture, 67], Crossref logo
No author info given
2021.  In The Sociopragmatics of Stance [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 329], Crossref logo
Azuelos-Atias, Sol
2011. On the Incoherence of Legal Language to the General Public. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 24:1  pp. 41 ff. Crossref logo
Carranza, Isolda E.
2022. Metapragmatics in a courtroom genre. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)  pp. 169 ff. Crossref logo
Cecconi, Elisabetta
2008. Legal discourse and linguistic incongruities in Bardell vs. Pickwick: an analysis of address and reference strategies in The Pickwick Papers trial scene. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 17:3  pp. 205 ff. Crossref logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2018. Dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early courtroom action game. Language and Dialogue 8:3  pp. 341 ff. Crossref logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2018. Investigating audience orientation in courtroom communication. Pragmatics and Society 9:4  pp. 545 ff. Crossref logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2019. Deconstructing competing courtroom narratives: representation of social actors. Social Semiotics 29:2  pp. 240 ff. Crossref logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2022. Dramatic monologues. Pragmatics. Quarterly Publication of the International Pragmatics Association (IPrA)  pp. 757 ff. Crossref logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda & Yoonjeong Kim
2018. ‘It was him’: Representational strategies, identity, and legitimization in the Boston Marathon bombing trial narratives. Language and Literature: International Journal of Stylistics 27:4  pp. 286 ff. Crossref logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda & Yoonjeong Kim
2021. Making death (in)different: discursive legitimation in death trials. Social Semiotics  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda & Yoonjeong Kim
2021. “Let’s kill him”: self-reference pronouns and speaking roles in capital trials. Social Semiotics 31:4  pp. 585 ff. Crossref logo
Cheng, Le
2011. Administration of Justice and Multimodality in Media: Semiotic Translation, Conflict and Compatibility. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 24:4  pp. 491 ff. Crossref logo
Cotterill, Janet
2002.  In Language in the Legal Process,  pp. 147 ff. Crossref logo
Cotterill, Janet
2012.  In The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, Crossref logo
Daly, Ellen
2021. Making new meanings: The entextualisation of digital communications evidence in English sexual offences trials. Crime, Media, Culture: An International Journal  pp. 174165902110482 ff. Crossref logo
Farkas, Kerrie RH
2013. Power and access in the public hearings of city council meetings. Discourse & Society 24:4  pp. 399 ff. Crossref logo
Gaines, Phil
1996. The grammar of credibility assessment: A functional analysis of two legal questioning styles. Social Semiotics 6:2  pp. 199 ff. Crossref logo
Grund, Peter J.
2012. The Nature of Knowledge: Evidence and Evidentiality in the Witness Depositions from the Salem Witch Trials. American Speech 87:1  pp. 7 ff. Crossref logo
2001. Fragmented Narratives and Multiple Tellers: Witness and Defendant Accounts in Trials. Discourse Studies 3:1  pp. 53 ff. Crossref logo
Heffer, Chris
2015.  In The International Encyclopedia of Language and Social Interaction,  pp. 1 ff. Crossref logo
Hobbs, Pamela
2008.  In The International Encyclopedia of Communication, Crossref logo
Hobbs, Pamela
2012.  In The International Encyclopedia of Communication, Crossref logo
Hu, Pi-chan
2018. An investigation of interruption in courtroom discourse . International Journal of Legal Discourse 3:2  pp. 213 ff. Crossref logo
Hájek, Martin, Martin Havlík & Jiří Nekvapil
2012. Narrative Analysis in Sociological Research: Main Approaches and a Unifying Frame. Czech Sociological Review 48:2  pp. 199 ff. Crossref logo
Leung, Ester S. M. & John Gibbons
2007.  In The Language of Sexual Crime,  pp. 139 ff. Crossref logo
Mcmenamin, Gerald
2002.  In Forensic Linguistics, Crossref logo
Rigney, Azucena C.
1999. Questioning in interpreted testimony. Forensic Linguistics 6:1  pp. 83 ff. Crossref logo
Scheffer, Thomas, Kati Hannken-Illjes & Alexander Kozin
2009. How Courts Know. Space and Culture 12:2  pp. 183 ff. Crossref logo
Shuy, Roger W.
2005.  In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis,  pp. 437 ff. Crossref logo
Shuy, Roger W.
2007. Language in the American Courtroom. Language and Linguistics Compass 1:1-2  pp. 100 ff. Crossref logo
Shuy, Roger W.
2015.  In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis,  pp. 822 ff. Crossref logo
Shuy, Roger W.
2017.  In The Handbook of Linguistics,  pp. 627 ff. Crossref logo
Staehler, Tanja & Alexander Kozin
2015. Toward a comparative study of the courtroom space: the case of Germany, USA, and Russia. Russian Journal of Communication 7:3  pp. 337 ff. Crossref logo
2001. A Different Class of Witnesses: Experts in the Courtroom. Discourse Studies 3:3  pp. 327 ff. Crossref logo
Zeng, Fanjing, Ching-Yu Huang & Ray Bull
2021. Police interview of suspects in China: Developments and analyses. International Journal of Police Science & Management 23:1  pp. 29 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 august 2022. 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.

Subjects & Metadata
BIC Subject: CF – Linguistics
BISAC Subject: LAN009000 – LANGUAGE ARTS & DISCIPLINES / Linguistics / General
ONIX Metadata
ONIX 2.1
ONIX 3.0
U.S. Library of Congress Control Number:  94031090 | Marc record