Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics
Vol. 24:4 (2014) ► pp.757–783

Dramatic monologues

The grammaticalization of speaking roles in courtroom opening statements

This investigation examines different speaking roles that lawyers may shift into, and depart from, in the monologic genre of the opening statement in three American trials, incorporating Goffman’s concept of Footing (1981) into an analysis of three high-profile trials. The findings reveal that lawyers take on three distinct discursive roles: The storyteller, the interlocutor, and the animator. In addition, indexical resources commonly associated with each role are explored which serve to contextualize such role shifts. In effect, the lawyers can subtly make the discourse argumentative and suggestive of inferences. Such discursive practices appear to stand in direct contradiction to the purpose of the opening statement.

Keywords: Courtroom discourse, Speaking roles, Opening statement, Footing
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 December 2014
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.4.04cha
References
Bamford, Julia
(2000) Question and answer sequencing in academic lectures. In M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill, and F. Rock (eds.), Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer, pp. 159-169. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berg-Seligson, Susan
(2009) Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, Ruth
(2004) Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics 371: 105-124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
(2012a) Performing self on the witness stand: Stance and relational work in expert witness testimony. Discourse & Society 231: 465-486. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2012b) Beyond questions and answers: Strategic use of multiple identities in the historical courtroom. In I. Hegedüs, and A. Fodor (eds.), English Historical Linguistics 2010. Amsterdam: John Benmamins Publishing Company, pp. 349-368. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cotterill, Janet
(2001) Domestic discourse, rocky relationships: Semantic prosodies in representations of marital violence in the O.J. Simpson trial. Discourse & Society 121: 291-312. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duszak, Anna
(ed.) (2002) Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Englebretson, Robert
(ed.) (2007) Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Fuller, Janet
(1993) Hearing between the lines: Style switching in a courtroom setting. Pragmatics 31: 29-43.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goffman, Erving
(1981) Footing. In E. Goffman (ed.), Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124-159.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Gray, Bethany, and Douglas Biber
(2012) Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland, and C. Sancho Guinda (eds.), Stance and Voice in Written Academic Genres. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 15-33. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harris, Sandra
(2001) Fragmented narratives and multiple tellers: Witness and defendant accounts in trials. Discourse Studies 31: 53-74. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, Pamela
(2003) “Is that what we’re here about?”: A lawyer’s use of impression management in a closing argument at trial. Discourse & Society 141: 273-290.Google Scholar
(2008) “It’s not what you say but how you say it”: The role of personality and identity in trial success. Critical Discourse Studies 51: 231-248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hunston, Susan, and Geoffrey Thompson
(eds.) (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken
(2001) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1191-1121.Google Scholar
(2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 71: 173-192. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2008) Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction 11: 5-22. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Kärkkäinen, Elise
(2006) Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk 261: 669-731. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kitagawa, Chisato, and Adrienne Lehrer
(1990) Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 739-759. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen
(1988) Putting Linguistics on a proper footing: Explorations in Goffman’s concepts of participation. In P. Drew, and A. Wootton (eds.), Erving Goffman. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, pp. 161-227.Google Scholar
Lind, Allen, and Gina Ke
(1985) Opening and closing statements. In S. Kassin, and L. Wrightsman (eds.), The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure. London: Sage, 229-253.Google Scholar
Mao, LuMing
(1996) Chinese first person pronoun and social implicature. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 71: 106-128.Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory
(1999) The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society 281: 491-521. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(2001) Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
Mauranen, Anna
(2003) “But here’s a flawed argument”: Socialisation into and through metadiscourse. In P. Leistyna, and C.F. Meyer (eds.), Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 19-34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Meyers, Miriam
(1990) Current generic pronoun usage. American Speech 651: 228-237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pascual, Esther
(2002) Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar
(2006) Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text and Talk 261: 383-402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennington, Nancy, and Reid Hastie
(1991) A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cordoza Law Review 131: 519-557.Google Scholar
Rosulek, Laura
(2010a) Legitimation and the heteroglossic nature of closing arguments. In D. Schiffrin, A. de Fina, and A. Nylund (eds.), Telling Stories: Language, Narrative, and Social Life. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 181-193.Google Scholar
(2010b) Prosecution and defense closing speeches: The creation of contrastive closing arguments. In M. Coulthard, and A. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 218-230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Siewierska, Anna
(2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Snedaker, Kathryn
(1991) Storytelling in opening statements: Framing the argumentation of the trial. In D. Papke (ed.), Narrative and the Legal Discourse. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications, pp. 132-157.Google Scholar
Stygall, Gail
(1994) Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Spiecker, Shelley, and Debra Worthington
(2003) The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law and Human Behavior 271: 437-456. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
(2007) Talking voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thompson, Geoff, and Puleng Thetela
(1995) The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 151: 103-207.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Leeuwen, Theo
(2007) Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication 11: 91-112. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wales, Katie
(1996) Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.  BoPGoogle Scholar
White, P.R.R
(2003) Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 231: 259-284.  BoP DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna
(1974) The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics 71: 267-307. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Wortham, Stanton
(1994) Acting out Participant Examples in the Classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
(1996) Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers’ footing. Journal of Pragmatics 251: 331-248. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Zupnik, Yael-Janette
(1994) A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 211: 339-384. DOI logo  BoPGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 5 other publications

Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2017. Speech reporting in courtroom opening statements. Journal of Pragmatics 119 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2018. Use of voices in legal opening statements. Social Semiotics 28:1 ► pp. 90 ff. DOI logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2018. Dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early courtroom action game. Language and Dialogue 8:3 ► pp. 341 ff. DOI logo
Chaemsaithong, Krisda & Yoonjeong Kim
2018. From narration to argumentation: Intertextuality in two courtroom genres. Lingua 203 ► pp. 36 ff. DOI logo
Szczyrbak, Magdalena
2016. Say and stancetaking in courtroom talk: a corpus-assisted study. Corpora 11:2 ► pp. 143 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 28 may 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.