Cover not available

In:Framing in Interaction: Pragmatic approaches to framing analysis
Edited by Simon Borchmann, Anne H. Fabricius and Ida Klitgård
[Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 354] 2025
► pp. 179–212

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
authorization required

Chapter 7
Framing agency, identity and credibility in court

Closing arguments in Danish rape trials

 | Roskilde University
 | Roskilde University
Published online: 30 October 2025
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.354.07mor
Abstract
This study is a linguistic investigation of rape trial discourse, based on a framing analytical approach incorporating pragmatic, functional linguistic and forensic linguistic analysis. As the first linguistic treatment of Danish rape trials, the chapter explores persuasive framing strategies, and the framing devices realising them, in the closing arguments by prosecutors and defence lawyers in two district court trials concerning acquaintance rape. Focusing on three central themes — agency and volition, identity, and credibility — linguistic framing choices employed by the opposing counsel in the two trials are analysed in comparison and as reflections of underlying cultural, social and legal institutional norms. Finally, the notion of credibility, and its recent implementation in Danish rape law, is discussed based on the analytical findings.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Closing arguments and the pragmatics of persuasive framing
  • 3.The language of rape trials, and three central analytical themes
    • 3.1Agency and volition
    • 3.2Identity
    • 3.3Credibility
  • 4.Data — two sets of closing arguments
  • 5.Analysis — framing strategies of prosecutors and defence lawyers
    • 5.1Agency and volition
    • 5.2Identity
    • 5.3Credibility
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
References (73)
References
Aldridge, Michelle, and June Luchjenbroers. 2007. “Linguistic manipulations in legal discourse: Framing questions and “smuggling” information”. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14 (1): 85–107. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Anderson, Irina, Kathy Doherty, Irina Anderson, and Kathy Doherty. 2008. Accounting for Rape : Psychology, Feminism and Discourse Analysis in the Study of Sexual Violence. Women and Psychology. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartley, Leanne Victoria. 2018. ““Justice demands that you find this man not guilty”: A transitivity analysis of the closing arguments of a rape case that resulted in a wrongful conviction”. International journal of applied linguistics 28 (3): 480–95. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartley, Leanne Victoria. 2020. “‘Please make your verdict speak the truth’: Insights from an Appraisal analysis of the closing arguments from a rape trial”. Text & talk 40 (4): 421–42. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bateson, Gregory. 1972. Steps to an ecology of mind. New York: Ballantine Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beyer, Janus. 2013. Retorik i retten. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borchmann, Simon, Anne Fabricius, and Ida Klitgaard. (this volume). “Introduction: Framing from a pragmatic point of view”. In Framing in Interaction: Pragmatic approaches to framing analysis, 1–22. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Bülow-Moller, Anne Marie. 1992. “The Notion of Coercion in Courtroom Questioning”. Nordic Research on Text and Discourse.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2023. “Membership categorization devices in courtroom opening and closing speeches”. Social Semiotics 0 (0): 1–25.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cicero, Marcus Tullius. 1954. Rhetorica ad Herennium (H. Caplan, transl.). Loeb Classical Library ; 403. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clason, Susanna Shelton. 2010. Forensic Rhetoric: The Force of Closing Arguments. El Paso, UNITED STATES: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coates, Linda, Janet Beavin Bavelas, and James Gibson. 1994. “Anomalous language in sexual assault trial judgments”. Discourse & society 5 (2): 189–206. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conley, John M., and William M. O’Barr. 1998. Just Words : Law, Language and Power. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and power in court : a linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(editor). 2007. The language of sexual crime. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Daly, Ellen. 2022. Rape, gender and class : intersections in courtroom narratives. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dam, Lotte. 2015. “The functionality of personal pronouns in constructions of communities”. Globe 1: 31–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danish Court Administration. 2021. A Closer Look at the Courts of Denmark.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dewulf, Art, Barbara Gray, Linda Putnam, Roy Lewicki, Noelle Aarts, Rene Bouwen, and Cees van Woerkum. 2009. “Disentangling approaches to framing in conflict and negotiation research: A meta-paradigmatic perspective”. Human relations (New York) 62 (2): 155–93. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Director of Public Prosecutions. 2023. Public Prosecution Guidelines. The Danish Prosecution Service.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1992. “Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape”. In Talk at work : Interaction in institutional settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and John Heritage. 1992. “Analyzing talk at work : an introduction”. In Talk at work : interaction in institutional settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan. 2001. Representing rape : language and sexual consent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elklit, Ask, Line Eiby Andersen, and Helle Spindler. 2020. Psykiske følger efter voldtægt. Danish Ministry of Justice.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Entman, Robert M. 1993. “Framing: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Paradigm”. Journal of communication 43 (4): 51–58. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Epstein, Deborah, and Lisa A. Goodman. 2019. “Discounting Women: Doubting Domestic Violence Survivors’ Credibility and Dismissing Their Experiences”. University of Pennsylvania law review 167 (2): 399–461.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Estrich, Susan. 1987. Real rape. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fabricius, Anne. (this volume). “Frames and indexicality in parody: Jacob Rees-Mogg’s message to the Common People”. In Framing in Interaction: Pragmatic approaches to framing analysis, 160–178. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Feteris, Eveline. 2016. Legal argumentation and the rule of law. Hague, Netherlands: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Feteris, Eveline T. 2002. “A Pragma-Dialectical Approach of the Analysis and Evaluation of Pragmatic Argumentation in a Legal Context”. Argumentation 16 (3): 349–67. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Glud, Trine Lizette Djurhuus. 2022. En undersøgelse af troværdighed i en dansk voldtægtsretssag. Unpublished MA thesis, Roskilde University, Dept. of Communication and Arts.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame analysis : an essay on the organization of experience. Harper colophon Books ; 372. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grierson, Jamie. 2024. “Rap music used as evidence in scores of trials in England and Wales, study finds”. The Guardian, April 30, sec. Law.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K., and Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. 3. London/New York: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Erik, and Lars Heltoft. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog. København/Odense: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab/Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2014. Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspectives. 1st ed. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The language of jury trial : a corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Holmstrom, Lynda L., and Ann W. Burgess. 1975. “Rape: The victim and the criminal justice system”. International Journal of Criminology & Penology 3: 101–10.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott. 2000. “Rhetoric and Dialectic from the Standpoint of Normative Pragmatics”. Argumentation 14 (3): 261–92. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Janney, Richard. 1999. “The whole truth and nothing but the truth. Linguistic avoidance in the O.J. Simpson transcripts”. In Words, Lexemes, Concepts — Approaches to the Lexicon. Studies in Honour of Leonhard Lipka, ed. Wolfgang Falkner and Hans-Jörg Schmid, 259–72.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jessen, Maria Christina. 2020. The framing takes it all — en undersøgelse af brugen af framing i en voldtægtssag. Unpublished Student project report, Roskilde University, Dept. of Communication and Arts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjær, Anne Lise, Lin Adrian, Cecilie Brito Cederstrøm, Jan Engberg, Jonas Gabrielsen, Morten Rosenmeier, and Sten Schaumburg-Müller (editors). 2015. Retten i sproget : samspillet mellem ret og sprog i juridisk praksis. 1. udgave. Kbh.: Jurist- og Økonomforbundet.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kjærbeck, Susanne, and Niels Møller Nielsen. (this volume). “Assessing deliberative quality in a debate on Facebook: The role of framing”. In Framing in Interaction: Pragmatic approaches to framing analysis, 236–268. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Komter, Martha L. 1994. “Accusations and defences in courtroom interaction”. Discourse & Society 5 (2): 165–87. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2004. Don’t think of an elephant! : know your values and frame the debate : the essential guide for progressives. White River Junction, Vt: Chelsea Green Pub. Co.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lech, Clara Mie Moesgaard. 2024. Straffelovens § 216 før og efter indførslen af den samtykkebaserede voldtægtsbestemmelse — en analyse af forståelser og sproglige realiseringer i tiltaltes forklaringer i § 216-sager i byretterne. Unpublished MA thesis, Roskilde University, Dept. of Communication and Arts.
Leverick, Fiona. 2020. “What do we know about rape myths and juror decision making?” The International Journal of Evidence & Proof 24 (3): 255–79. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Luchjenbroers, June, and Michelle Aldridge. 2007. “Conceptual manipulation by metaphors and frames: Dealing with rape victims in legal discourse”. Text & talk 27 (3): 339–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mack, Kathy. 1993. “Continuing barriers to women’s credibility: A feminist perspective on the proof process”. Criminal law forum 4 (2): 327–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mardorossian, Carine M. 2014. Framing the Rape Victim: Gender and Agency Reconsidered. 1st ed. United States: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martinussen, Majbritt Elise, Flemming Balvig, Bjarne Laursen, Karen Steen Madsen, and Katrine Sidenius. 2009. Voldtægt der anmeldes : Del II — Falsk anmeldelse af voldtægt. Danish Criminal Prevention Council, Glostrup.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. 1993. Reproducing rape : domination through talk in the courtroom. Language and legal discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg. 2019. “Interjections in American and Danish courtroom interaction: A linguistic and legal cultural comparison”. Scandinavian Studies in Language 10 (1): 152–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2020. “A question of control? : Forms and functions of courtroom questioning in two different adversarial trial systems”. Scandinavian Studies in Language 11 (1): 239–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg, and Janus Mortensen. 2017. “Epistemic Stance in Courtroom Interaction”. In Pragmatics and Law: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives, ed. by Francesca Poggi and Alessandro Capone, 401–37. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Musolff, Andreas. (this volume). “Figurative framing in political interaction: War metaphor scenarios in Covid-19 debates, and their integration into conspiracy theories”. In Framing in Interaction: Pragmatic approaches to framing analysis, 99–124. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Ponterotto, Diane. 2007. “The Repertoire of Complicity Vs. Coercion: The Discursive Trap of the Rape Trial Protocol”. In The language of sexual crime, ed. by Janet Cotterill, 104–25. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pontoppidan, Christina, Jonas Gabrielsen, and Heidi Jønch-Clausen. 2022. Retorikkens hemmelige steder. 1. udgave. Kbh: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Retsinformation. 2019. Danish Criminal Code, old section 216. [URL]
. 2024. Danish Criminal Code, section 216. [URL]
Rosulek, Laura Felton. 2015. Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sandler, Paul Mark. 2021. The Fine Art of Trial Advocacy : A Young Lawyer’s Resource for Success. Chicago, Illinois: American Bar Association.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schmid, Jeannette, and Klaus Fiedler. 1998. “The Backbone of Closing Speeches: The Impact of Prosecution Versus Defense Language on Judicial Attributions” 1. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 28 (13): 1140–72. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Olivia. 2019. “Narratives, Credibility and Adversarial Justice in English and Welsh Rape Trials”. In Rape narratives in motion, ed. by Ulrika Andersson, Monika Edgren, Lena Karlsson, and Gabriella Nilsson, 71–99. Palgrave Studies in Crime, Media and Culture. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Søberg, Tine, Trine Baumbach, and Linda Kjær Minke. 2021. Voldtægtssagen — retssystemets akilleshæl : teori og praksis. 1. udgave. Kbh: Djøf.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Staffe, Maria Louise. 2008. Retsretorik. Copenhagen: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Taslitz, Andrew E. 1999. Rape and the Culture of the Courtroom. Critical America Series. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 2007. “The Language of Consent in Rape Law”. In The language of sexual crime, ed. by Janet Cotterill, 83–103. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vestergaard, Jørn. 2021. “The rape law Revision in Denmark : Consent or voluntariness as the key criterion?” Bergen Journal of Criminal Law & Criminal Justice (9(2)). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vilen, Marie Schlütter, Mathilde Post Meyhoff, and Trine Lizette Glud. 2020. Sproglige strategier ved lukketid: En nærsproglig analyse af sprogbrugen i en procedure. Unpublished Student project report, Roskilde University, Dept. of Communication and Arts.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wangerin, Paul T. 1993. “A multidisciplinary analysis of the structure of persuasive arguments”. Harvard journal of law and public policy 16 (1): 195–195.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
White, PRR. 2003. “Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text — Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 23 (2). Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue