Between solidarity and argument: Interpersonal negotiation in two legal genres

• Krisda Chaemsaithong ^[1]
  1. [1] Hanyang University

     Hanyang University

     Corea del Sur

     
• Localización: Ibérica: Revista de la Asociación Europea de Lenguas para Fines Específicos ( AELFE ), ISSN-e 2340-2784, ISSN 1139-7241, Nº. 32, 2016, págs. 221-244
• Idioma: inglés
• Títulos paralelos:
  • Entre la solidaridad y la argumentación: la negociación interpersonal en dos géneros legales
• Enlaces
  • Texto completo (pdf)
• Resumen
  • español

    Este artículo presenta un estudio comparativo de la negociación interpersonal en dos géneros legales de naturaleza monológica, la presentación del caso y los alegatos finales. Para el estudio se utilizó un corpus de casos mediáticos americanos. Tanto el análisis cuantitativo como el cualitativo permiten identificar rasgos de la presencia del juez a nivel lexicogramatical, así como patrones de metadiscurso interaccional recurrentes, indicativo del propósito comunicativo de los dos géneros orales. Esta práctica discursiva no solo es facilitadora de la comunicación en la corte sino que constituye un pilar fundamental en el proceso de construcción del significado en estos géneros. Los resultados apuntan al papel central que juega el propósito transaccional de los discursos institucionales

  • English

    This study presents a comparative examination of interpersonal negotiation in two monologic courtroom genres: the opening statement and closing argument.

    Drawing upon a corpus of three high-profile American trials, the quantitative and qualitative analysis identifies the traces and degree of the jury’s presence through lexico-grammatical resources, and reveals distinct interactional patterns, which are indicative of the interactive goals of the two speech genres. Such relational practice does not merely “oil the wheels” of courtroom communication, but also constitutes a key way in the meaning-making process of these genres. The findings attest to the centrality of relational work in accomplishing transactional goals in institutional discourses

• Referencias bibliográficas
  • Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts (2015). “Differences between Opening Statement and Closing Arguments”. URL: http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/differences...
  • Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
  • Bamford, J. (2000). “Question and answer sequencing in academic lectures” in M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill & F. Rock (eds.), Dialogue Analysis...
  • Brown, P. & S. Levinson (1987). Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Cavalieri, S. (2011). “The role of metadiscourse in counsels’ questions” in A. Wagner & L. Cheng (eds.), Exploring Courtroom Discourse:...
  • Chaemsaithong, K. (2014). “Interactive patterns of the opening statement in criminal trials: A historical perspective”. Discourse Studies...
  • Cotterill, J. (2010). “Interpersonal issues in court: Rebellion, resistance and other ways of behaving badly” in M. Locher & S. Graham...
  • Danet, B. (1980). “Language in the legal process”. Law and Society Review 15: 445-565.
  • Dettenwanger, S. (2011). “Witnesses on trial: Address and referring terms in US cases” in A. Wagner & L. Cheng (eds.), Exploring Courtroom...
  • Duszak, A. (ed). (2002). Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
  • Fuller, J. (1993). “Hearing between the lines: Style switching in a courtroom setting”. Pragmatics 3: 29-43.
  • Gast, V., L. Deringer, F. Haas & O. Rudolf (2015). “Impersonal uses of the second person singular: A pragmatic analysis of generalization...
  • Goldberg, S. & T. McCormack (2009). The First Trial: Where do I Sit? What do I Say?, 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.
  • Halliday M.A.K. (2013). “Meaning as Choice” in L. Fontaine, T. Barlett & G. O’Grady (eds.), Systematic Functional Linguistics: Exploring...
  • Hobbs, P. (2003). “‘Is that what we’re here about?’: A lawyer’s use of impression management in a closing argument at trial”. Discourse &...
  • Hobbs, P. (2008). “‘It’s not what you say but how you say it’: The role of personality and identity in trial success”. Critical Discourse...
  • Hyland, L. (2002). “Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing”. Applied Linguistics 23: 215-239.
  • Hyland, K. (2005). “Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse”. Discourse Studies 7: 173-192.
  • Ilie, C. (1994). What Else can I tell You: A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm:...
  • Kennedy, K. (2006-2007). “Closing argument: Through the eyes of a trial advocate”. American Journal of Trial Advocacy 30: 593-608.
  • Koester, A. (2006). Investigating Workplace Discourse. London: Routledge.
  • Malamud, S. (2012). “Impersonal indexicals: One, you, man and du”. Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 15: 1-48.
  • Matoesian, G. (2001). Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Mauet, T. (2013). Trial Techniques and Trials, 9th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer.
  • Pascual, E. (2006). “Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial”. Text & Talk 26:...
  • Pennycook, A. (1994). “The Politics of Pronouns”. ELT Journal 48: 173-178.
  • Rosulek, L. (2015). Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Stygall, G. (1994). Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Tannen, D. (1985). “Relative focus on involvement in oral and written discourse” in D. Olson, N. Torrance & A. Hildyard (eds.), Literacy,...
  • Thompson, G & P. Thetela (1995). “The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse”. Text 15: 103-207.
  • Zupnik, Y.J. (1994). “A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics 21: 339-384.