Volume 9, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



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 metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts
    Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 2015 “Differences between Opening Statement and Closing Arguments.” AccessedDecember 23, 2015. www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/differences
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bamford, Julia
    2000 “Question and Answer Sequencing in Academic Lectures.” InDialogue Analysis VII: Working with Dialogue, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard, Janet Cotterill, and Frances Rock, 159–169. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer. 10.1515/9783110941265‑013
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110941265-013 [Google Scholar]
  4. Brown, Penelope, and Stephen Levinson
    1987Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813085
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813085 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cavalieri, Silvia
    2011 “The Role of Metadiscourse in Counsels’ Questions.” InExploring Courtroom Discourse: The Language of Power and Control, ed. byAnne Wagner and Le Cheng, 79–110. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 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 Literature17: 205–219. 10.1177/0963947008092500
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947008092500 [Google Scholar]
  7. Chaemsaithong, Krisda
    2011 “Accessing Identity through Face Work: A Case Study of Historical Courtroom Discourse.” International Review of Pragmatics3: 240–267. 10.1163/187731011X597532
    https://doi.org/10.1163/187731011X597532 [Google Scholar]
  8. 2012 “Performing Self on the Witness Stand: Stance and Relational Work in Expert Witness Testimony.” Discourse & Society23: 456–486. 10.1177/0957926512441111
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512441111 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2014 “Interactive Patterns of the Opening Statement in Criminal Trials: A Historical Perspective.” Discourse Studies16: 347–364. 10.1177/1461445613508900
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613508900 [Google Scholar]
  10. Chang, Yanrong
    2004 “Courtroom Questioning as a Culturally Situated Persuasive Genre of Talk.” Discourse & Society15: 705–722. 10.1177/0957926504046501
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504046501 [Google Scholar]
  11. Cotterill, Janet
    2010 “Interpersonal Issues in Court: Rebellion, Resistance and Other Ways of Behaving Badly.” InInterpersonal Pragmatics, ed. byMiriam Locher and Sage Graham, 353–380. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Crane, Lesley
    2016Knowledge and Discourse Matters: Relocating Knowledge Management’s Sphere of Interest onto Language. Hoboken, N.J.: Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Danet, Brenda
    1980 “Language in the Legal Process.” Law and Society Review15: 445–565. 10.2307/3053192
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192 [Google Scholar]
  14. Dettenwanger, Sarah
    2011 “Witnesses on Trial: Address and Referring Terms in US Cases.” In: Exploring Courtroom Discourse: The Language of Power and Control, ed. byAnne Wagner and Le Cheng, 29–46. Farnham, Surrey: Ashgate.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. D’hondt, Sigurd
    2010 “The cultural defense as courtroom drama: The enactment of identity, sameness, and difference in criminal trial discourse.” Law & Social Inquiry. 35: 67–98. 10.1111/j.1747‑4469.2009.01178.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01178.x [Google Scholar]
  16. 2014 “Defending through disaffiliation: The vicissitudes of alignment and footing in Belgian criminal hearings.” Language & Communication36: 68–82. 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.004 [Google Scholar]
  17. Duszak, Anna
    (ed) 2002Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.98
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.98 [Google Scholar]
  18. Ewing, Charles, and Joseph McCann
    2006Minds of Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Fuller, Janet
    1993 “Hearing between the Lines: Style Switching in a Courtroom Setting.” Pragmatics3: 29–43. 10.1075/prag.3.1.02ful
    https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.3.1.02ful [Google Scholar]
  20. 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 Pragmatics88: 148–162. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.12.009 [Google Scholar]
  21. Gilbert, Kristin, and Gregory Matoesian
    2015 “Multimodal action and speaker positioning in closing argument.” Multimodal Communication4: 93–111. 10.1515/mc‑2015‑0008
    https://doi.org/10.1515/mc-2015-0008 [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldberg, Steven and Tracy McCormack
    2009The First Trial: Where do I Sit? What do I Say?2nd ed.St. Paul, Minn.: West Academic Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Halliday, Michael A. K.
    2013 “Meaning as Choice.” InSystematic Linguistics: Exploring Choice, ed. byLise Fontaine, Tom Bartlett and Gerard O’Grady, 15–36. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139583077.003
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139583077.003 [Google Scholar]
  24. Heffer, Chris
    2005The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230502888
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502888 [Google Scholar]
  25. Hobbs, Pamela
    2003 “‘Is That What We’re Here about?’: A Lawyer’s Use of Impression Management in a Closing Argument at Trial.” Discourse & Society14: 273–290.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 2008 “‘It’s Not What You Say but How You Say It’: The Role of Personality and Identity in Trial Success.” Critical Discourse Studies5: 231–248. 10.1080/17405900802131744
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900802131744 [Google Scholar]
  27. Hyland, Ken
    2001 “Bringing in the Reader: Address Features in Academic Articles.” Written Communication18: 549–574. 10.1177/0741088301018004005
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088301018004005 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2005 “Stance and Engagement: A Model of Interaction in Academic Discourse.” Discourse Studies7: 173–192. 10.1177/1461445605050365
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605050365 [Google Scholar]
  29. Ilie, Cornelia
    1994What Else can I Tell You: A Pragmatic Study of English Rhetorical Questions as Discursive and Argumentative Acts. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Jackson, Bernard
    1988Law, Fact, and Narrative Coherence. Liverpool: Deborah Charles.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Kennedy, Kevin
    2006/2007 “Closing Argument: Through the Eyes of a Trial Advocate.” American Journal of Trial Advocacy30: 593–608.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Koester, Almut
    2006Investigating Workplace Discourse. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203015742
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203015742 [Google Scholar]
  33. Malamud, Sophia
    2012 “Impersonal Indexicals: One, You, Man and Du.” Journal of Comparative German Linguistics15: 1–48. 10.1007/s10828‑012‑9047‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10828-012-9047-6 [Google Scholar]
  34. 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 Inquiry19(3): 639–663. 10.1111/j.1747‑4469.1994.tb00776.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1994.tb00776.x [Google Scholar]
  35. Mao, LuMing R.
    1996 “Chinese First Person Pronoun and Social Implicature.” Journal of Asian Pacific Communication7(3–4): 106–128.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Martin, G. Arthur
    1967 “Closing Argument to the Jury for the Defense in Criminal Cases.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science58: 2–17. 10.2307/1141363
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1141363 [Google Scholar]
  37. Martin, J. R.
    2003 “Introduction.” Text23: 171–181. 10.1515/text.2003.007
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2003.007 [Google Scholar]
  38. Martin, J. R., and Peter R. R. White
    2005The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  39. Matoesian, Gregory
    2001Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Matoesian, Gregory, and Kristin Gilbert
    2016 “Multifunctionality of hand gestures and material conduct during closing argument.” Gesture15: 79–114. 10.1075/gest.15.1.04mat
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.15.1.04mat [Google Scholar]
  41. Mauet, Thomas
    2013Trial Techniques and Trials. 9th ed.New York: Wolters Kluwer.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Meyers, Miriam
    1990 “Current Generic Pronoun Usage.” American Speech65: 228–237. 10.2307/455911
    https://doi.org/10.2307/455911 [Google Scholar]
  43. Montz, Craig
    2001 “Why Lawyers Continue to Cross the Line in Closing Argument: An Examination of Federal and State Cases.” Ohio Northern Law Review28: 67–131.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Pascual, Esther
    2002Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: LOT.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. 2006 “Questions in Legal Monologues: Fictive Interaction as Argumentative Strategy in a Murder Trial.” Text & Talk26: 383–402. 10.1515/TEXT.2006.014a
    https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.014a [Google Scholar]
  46. 2008 “Text for context, trial for trialogue: An ethnographic study of a fictive interaction blend.” Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics6: 50–82. 10.1075/arcl.6.04pas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/arcl.6.04pas [Google Scholar]
  47. 2009 “‘I was in that room!’: Conceptual integration of content and context in a writer’s vs a prosecutor’s description of a murder.” InNew Directions in Cognitive Linguistics, ed. byVyvyan Evans and Stephanie Pourcel, 499–514. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/hcp.24.29pas
    https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.24.29pas [Google Scholar]
  48. Pennycook, Alastair
    1994 “The Politics of Pronouns.” ELT Journal48: 173–178. 10.1093/elt/48.2.173
    https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/48.2.173 [Google Scholar]
  49. Riggins, Stephen
    (ed) 1997The Language and Politics of Exclusion: Others in Discourse. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Rosulek, Laura
    2010 “Prosecution and Defense Closing Speeches: The Creation of Contrastive Closing Arguments.” InThe Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. byMalcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson, 218–230. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203855607.ch15
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch15 [Google Scholar]
  51. 2015Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Searle, John R.
    1976 “The Classification of Illocutionary Acts.” Language in Society5: 1–24. 10.1017/S0047404500006837
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500006837 [Google Scholar]
  53. Shi, Guang
    2012 “An Analysis of Modality in Chinese Courtroom Discourse.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses7: 161–178. 10.1080/17447143.2011.581285
    https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2011.581285 [Google Scholar]
  54. Spiecker, Shelley, and Debra Worthington
    2003 “The Influence of Opening Statement/Closing Argument Organizational Strategy on Juror Verdict and Damage Awards.” Law and Human Behavior27: 437–456. 10.1023/A:1024041201605
    https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024041201605 [Google Scholar]
  55. Stygall, Gail
    1994Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.26
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.26 [Google Scholar]
  56. Thompson, Geoff, and Puleng Thetela
    1995 “The Sound of One Hand Clapping: The Management of Interaction in Written Discourse.” Text15: 103–207. 10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103
    https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.1.103 [Google Scholar]
  57. Trenholm, Sarah
    1989Persuasion and Social Influence. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Walter, Bettyruth
    1988The Jury Summation as Speech Genre: An Ethnographic Study of what it Means to those who Use it. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.1
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.1 [Google Scholar]
  59. Wood, Steve, Lorie Sicafuse, Monica Miller, and Juliana Chomos
    2011 “The Influence of Jurors’ Perceptions of Attorneys and Their Performance on Verdict.” Jury Expert23: 23–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Zupnik, Yael-Janette
    1994 “A Pragmatic Analysis of the Use of Person Deixis in Political Discourse.” Journal of Pragmatics21: 339–384. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)90010‑8
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)90010-8 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error