Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 9:4 (2018) ► pp.545–570

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

Investigating audience orientation in courtroom communication

The case of the closing argument

 | Hanyang University
Published online: 10 January 2019
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.16008.cha
Abstract
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.
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
References (60)
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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2011. “Accessing Identity through Face Work: A Case Study of Historical Courtroom Discourse.” International Review of Pragmatics 31: 240–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. “Performing Self on the Witness Stand: Stance and Relational Work in Expert Witness Testimony.” Discourse & Society 231: 456–486. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Interactive Patterns of the Opening Statement in Criminal Trials: A Historical Perspective.” Discourse Studies 161: 347–364. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, Yanrong. 2004. “Courtroom Questioning as a Culturally Situated Persuasive Genre of Talk.” Discourse & Society 151: 705–722. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Crane, Lesley. 2016. Knowledge and Discourse Matters: Relocating Knowledge Management’s Sphere of Interest onto Language. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda. 1980. “Language in the Legal Process.” Law and Society Review 151: 445–565. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. “Defending through disaffiliation: The vicissitudes of alignment and footing in Belgian criminal hearings.” Language & Communication 361: 68–82. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ewing, Charles, and Joseph McCann. 2006. Minds of Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilbert, Kristin, and Gregory Matoesian. 2015. “Multimodal action and speaker positioning in closing argument.” Multimodal Communication 41: 93–111. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. 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, UK: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2001. “Bringing in the Reader: Address Features in Academic Articles.” Written Communication 181: 549–574. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2005. “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies 71: 173–192. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Jackson, Bernard. 1988. Law, Fact, and Narrative Coherence. Liverpool: Deborah Charles.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Koester, Almut. 2006. Investigating Workplace Discourse. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Malamud, Sophia. 2012. “Impersonal Indexicals: One, You, Man and Du .” Journal of Comparative German Linguistics 151: 1–48. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mao, LuMing R. 1996. “Chinese First Person Pronoun and Social Implicature.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 7(3–4): 106–128.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R. 2003. “Introduction.” Text 231: 171–181. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., and Peter R. R. White. 2005. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mauet, Thomas. 2013. Trial Techniques and Trials. 9th ed. New York: Wolters Kluwer.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyers, Miriam. 1990. “Current Generic Pronoun Usage.” American Speech 651: 228–237. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Pascual, Esther. 2002. Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: LOT.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2006. “Questions in Legal Monologues: Fictive Interaction as Argumentative Strategy in a Murder Trial.” Text & Talk 261: 383–402. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pennycook, Alastair. 1994. “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal 481: 173–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Riggins, Stephen (ed). 1997. The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John R. 1976. “The Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society 51: 1–24. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shi, Guang. 2012. “An Analysis of Modality in Chinese Courtroom Discourse.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 71: 161–178. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Thompson, Geoff, and Puleng Thetela. 1995. “The Sound of One Hand Clapping: The Management of Interaction in Written Discourse.” Text 151: 103–207. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trenholm, Sarah. 1989. Persuasion and Social Influence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Zupnik, Yael-Janette. 1994. “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Person Deixis in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 211: 339–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Cao, Huishu & Chuanyou Yuan
2025. Affiliating With Jury: Analysis of Multimodal Graduation in Attorneys’ Closing Arguments. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 35:3 ► pp. 1108 ff. DOI logo
Wu, Shuangjiao, Mansour Amini & Omer Hassan Ali Mahfoodh
2025. Unveiling Certainty and Doubt: A Systemic Functional Exploration of Epistemic Modality in Courtroom Discourse. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique 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
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

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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue