Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 24:4 (2014) ► pp.757–783
Dramatic monologues
The grammaticalization of speaking roles in courtroom opening statements
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 December 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.4.04cha
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.24.4.04cha
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
References (46)
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.
Berg-Seligson, Susan (2009) Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Berman, Ruth (2004) Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics 371: 105-124.
Chaemsaithong, Krisda (2012a) Performing self on the witness stand: Stance and relational work in expert witness testimony. Discourse & Society 231: 465-486. BoP
(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.
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.
(2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. BoP
Duszak, Anna (ed.) (2002) Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. BoP
Englebretson, Robert (ed.) (2007) Stancetaking in Discourse. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. BoP
Fuller, Janet (1993) Hearing between the lines: Style switching in a courtroom setting. Pragmatics 31: 29-43. BoP
Goffman, Erving (1981) Footing. In E. Goffman (ed.), Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp. 124-159. BoP
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.
Harris, Sandra (2001) Fragmented narratives and multiple tellers: Witness and defendant accounts in trials. Discourse Studies 31: 53-74. BoP
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.
(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.
Hunston, Susan, and Geoffrey Thompson (eds.) (2000) Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Hyland, Ken (2001) Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1191-1121.
(2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies 71: 173-192. BoP
(2008) Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction 11: 5-22. BoP
Kärkkäinen, Elise (2006) Stance taking in conversation: From subjectivity to intersubjectivity. Text & Talk 261: 669-731.
Kitagawa, Chisato, and Adrienne Lehrer (1990) Impersonal uses of personal pronouns. Journal of Pragmatics 141: 739-759. BoP
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.
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.
Mao, LuMing (1996) Chinese first person pronoun and social implicature. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 71: 106-128.
Matoesian, Gregory (1999) The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society 281: 491-521. BoP
(2001) Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
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.
Pascual, Esther (2002) Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: LOT.
(2006) Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text and Talk 261: 383-402.
Pennington, Nancy, and Reid Hastie (1991) A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cordoza Law Review 131: 519-557.
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.
(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.
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.
Stygall, Gail (1994) Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia, PA: John Benjamins Publishing Company. BoP
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.
Tannen, Deborah (2007) Talking voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Thompson, Geoff, and Puleng Thetela (1995) The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text 151: 103-207. BoP
van Leeuwen, Theo (2007) Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication 11: 91-112. BoP
Wales, Katie (1996) Personal Pronouns in Present-day English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
White, P.R.R. (2003) Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text 231: 259-284. BoP
Wierzbicka, Anna (1974) The semantics of direct and indirect discourse. Papers in Linguistics 71: 267-307. BoP
Wortham, Stanton (1994) Acting out Participant Examples in the Classroom. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. BoP
(1996) Mapping participant deictics: A technique for discovering speakers’ footing. Journal of Pragmatics 251: 331-248. BoP
Zupnik, Yael-Janette (1994) A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 211: 339-384. BoP
Cited by (6)
Cited by six other publications
Prihantoro & Mathew Gillings
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
Chaemsaithong, Krisda
2018. Dialogic features and interpersonal management in the early courtroom action game. Language and Dialogue 8:3 ► pp. 341 ff.
Chaemsaithong, Krisda & Yoonjeong Kim
Laudisio, Adriano
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. 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.
