Cover not available
Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 9:4 (2018) ► pp.545–570

Investigating audience orientation in courtroom communication

The case of the closing argument

| Hanyang University

This study presents an empirical study of audience orientation, investigating lawyers’ overt interpersonal negotiation with jurors. Drawing upon a corpus of the closing arguments of five high-profile American trials, the quantitative and qualitative analysis identifies the traces and degree of the jury’s presence through pronominal choices, questions, directives, references to shared knowledge and asides. Such relational practice does not merely “oil the wheels” of courtroom communication but also constitutes a key way to the meaning-making process in this phase of the trial. The findings attest to the centrality of relational work in accomplishing transactional goals in institutional discourses.

Keywords: courtroom communication, audience orientation, interaction, directives, closing argument, aside, pronouns, questions, heteroglossic, shared knowledge, relational work, ‘marketing’
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Closing arguments
  • 3.Audience orientation
  • 4.Data and methodology
  • 5.Findings
    • Second-person pronouns
    • Inclusive first-person plural pronouns
    • Questions
    • Asides
    • References to shared knowledge
    • Directives
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2019
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16008.cha
References
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
2015 “Differences between Opening Statement and Closing Arguments.” Accessed December 23, 2015. [URL]
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bamford, Julia
2000 “Question and Answer Sequencing in Academic Lectures.” In Dialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill, and Frances Rock, 159–169. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cavalieri, Silvia
2011 “The Role of Metadiscourse in Counsels’ Questions.” In Exploring Courtroom Discourse: The Language of Power and Control, ed. by Anne Wagner and Le Cheng, 79–110. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
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 171: 205–219. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2011 “Accessing Identity through Face Work: A Case Study of Historical Courtroom Discourse.” International Review of Pragmatics 31: 240–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012 “Performing Self on the Witness Stand: Stance and Relational Work in Expert Witness Testimony.” Discourse & Society 231: 456–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Interactive Patterns of the Opening Statement in Criminal Trials: A Historical Perspective.” Discourse Studies 161: 347–364. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yanrong
2004 “Courtroom Questioning as a Culturally Situated Persuasive Genre of Talk.” Discourse & Society 151: 705–722. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cotterill, Janet
2010 “Interpersonal Issues in Court: Rebellion, Resistance and Other Ways of Behaving Badly.” In Interpersonal Pragmatics, ed. by Miriam Locher and Sage Graham, 353–380. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Crane, Lesley
2016 Knowledge and Discourse Matters: Relocating Knowledge Management’s Sphere of Interest onto Language. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda
1980 “Language in the Legal Process.” Law and Society Review 151: 445–565. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dettenwanger, Sarah
2011 “Witnesses on Trial: Address and Referring Terms in US Cases.” In: Exploring Courtroom Discourse: The Language of Power and Control, ed. by Anne Wagner and Le Cheng, 29–46. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.Google Scholar
D’hondt, Sigurd
2010 “The cultural defense as courtroom drama: The enactment of identity, sameness, and difference in criminal trial discourse.” Law & Social Inquiry. 351: 67–98. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2014 “Defending through disaffiliation: The vicissitudes of alignment and footing in Belgian criminal hearings.” Language & Communication 361: 68–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Duszak, Anna
(ed) 2002 Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ewing, Charles, and Joseph McCann
2006 Minds of Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fuller, Janet
1993 “Hearing between the Lines: Style Switching in a Courtroom Setting.” Pragmatics 31: 29–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gast, Volker, Lisa Deringer, Florian Haas, and Olga Rudolf
2015 “Impersonal Uses of the Second Person Singular: A Pragmatic Analysis of Generalization and Empathy Effects.” Journal of Pragmatics 881: 148–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gilbert, Kristin, and Gregory Matoesian
2015 “Multimodal action and speaker positioning in closing argument.” Multimodal Communication 41: 93–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Steven and Tracy McCormack
2009 The First Trial: Where do I Sit? What do I Say? 2nd ed. St. Paul, Minn.: West Academic Publishing.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K.
2013 “Meaning as Choice.” In Systematic Linguistics: Exploring Choice, ed. by Lise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett and Gerard O’Grady, 15–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heffer, Chris
2005 The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle 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
Hyland, Ken
2001 “Bringing in the Reader: Address Features in Academic Articles.” Written Communication 181: 549–574. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 71: 173–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ilie, Cornelia
1994 What Else can I Tell You: A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.Google Scholar
Jackson, Bernard
1988 Law, Fact, and Narrative Coherence. Liverpool: Deborah Charles.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Kevin
2006/2007 “Closing Argument: Through the Eyes of a Trial Advocate.” American Journal of Trial Advocacy 301: 593–608.Google Scholar
Koester, Almut
2006 Investigating Workplace Discourse. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Malamud, Sophia
2012 “Impersonal Indexicals: One, You, Man and Du .” Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 151: 1–48. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Manzo, John
1994 “ ‘You Wouldn’t Take a Seven-Year-Old and Ask Him All These Questions’: Jurors’ Use of Practical Reasoning in Supporting Their Arguments.” Law & Social Inquiry 19(3): 639–663. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mao, LuMing R.
1996 “Chinese First Person Pronoun and Social Implicature.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 7(3–4): 106–128.Google Scholar
Martin, G. Arthur
1967 “Closing Argument to the Jury for the Defense in Criminal Cases.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 581: 2–17. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R.
2003 “Introduction.” Text 231: 171–181. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, J. R., and Peter R. R. White
2005 The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory
2001 Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory, and Kristin Gilbert
2016 “Multifunctionality of hand gestures and material conduct during closing argument.” Gesture 151: 79–114. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mauet, Thomas
2013 Trial Techniques and Trials. 9th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar
Meyers, Miriam
1990 “Current Generic Pronoun Usage.” American Speech 651: 228–237. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Montz, Craig
2001 “Why Lawyers Continue to Cross the Line in Closing Argument: An Examination of Federal and State Cases.” Ohio Northern Law Review 281: 67–131.Google 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 & Talk 261: 383–402. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 “Text for context, trial for trialogue: An ethnographic study of a fictive interaction blend.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 61: 50–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 “ ‘I was in that room!’: Conceptual integration of content and context in a writer’s vs a prosecutor’s description of a murder.” In New Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by Vyvyan Evans and Stephanie Pourcel, 499–514. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair
1994 “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal 481: 173–178. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Riggins, Stephen
(ed) 1997 The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Rosulek, Laura
2010 “Prosecution and Defense Closing Speeches: The Creation of Contrastive Closing Arguments.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 218–230. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1976 “The Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 51: 1–24. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Guang
2012 “An Analysis of Modality in Chinese Courtroom Discourse.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 71: 161–178. DOI logoGoogle 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
Stygall, Gail
1994 Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Trenholm, Sarah
1989 Persuasion and Social Influence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Wood, Steve, Lorie Sicafuse, Monica Miller, and Juliana Chomos
2011 “The Influence of Jurors’ Perceptions of Attorneys and Their Performance on Verdict.” Jury Expert 231: 23–41.Google Scholar
Zupnik, Yael-Janette
1994 “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Person Deixis in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 211: 339–384. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Han, Yanmei & Tao Xiong
2022. Using wǒmen (we) to mean s/he in Chinese parents’ interaction. Pragmatics and Society 13:1 ► pp. 126 ff. DOI logo
Wright, David, Jeremy Robson, Helen Murray-Edwards & Natalie Braber
2022. The pragmatic functions of ‘respect’ in lawyers' courtroom discourse: A case study of Brexit hearings. Journal of Pragmatics 187 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Yuan, Chuanyou & Huishu Cao
2023. Justice must be seen to be done: a multimodal attitude analysis of attorneys’ closing arguments. Semiotica 2023:255 ► pp. 17 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 13 april 2024. 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.