Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 21, No. 0, pp.1246-1258
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 31 Jan 2021
Received 04 Nov 2021 Revised 15 Dec 2021 Accepted 27 Dec 2021
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.21..202112.1246

Discursive Classification and Evaluation in Courtroom Discourse

Krisda Chaemsaithong ; Yoonjeong Kim
(1st author) Professor, Department of English, Hanyang University krisda@hanyang.ac.kr
(corresponding author) Ph.D. Candidate, Department of English, Hanyang University


© 2021 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study examines the ways in which discursive classification constitutes the prime mechanism that aids in the creation of opposing representations of the individual on trial. Attending to the opening speech of a high-profile trial, the analysis identifies various social categories that are legally speaking irrelevant to the determination of guilt, and argues that, contrary to popular belief, what is being contested is not evidence or legal principles, but it is different social types and their associated normative expectations that are orchestrated to frame logical inconsistencies and assign blameworthiness to the defendant in the first place.

Keywords:

classification, evaluation, courtroom, identity, membership category analysis

References

  • Beachamp, T. and J. Childress. 2012. Principles of Biomedical Ethics, 7th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Benwell, B. and E. Stokoe. 2006. Discourse and Identity. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Bucholtz, M. and K. Hall. 2005. Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies 7, 585-614. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605054407]
  • D’hondt, S. 2010. The cultural defense as courtroom drama: The enactment of identity, sameness, and difference in criminal trial discourse. Law & Social Inquiry 35, 67-98. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2009.01178.x]
  • Duke, A. 2011. Conrad Murray sentenced to four years behind bars. CNN (Nov. 30, 2011) Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/justice/california-conrad-murray-sentencing/index.html
  • Edwards, D. 1998. The relevant thing about her: Social identity categories in use. In C. Antaki and S. Widdicombe, eds., Identities in Talk, 15-33. London: Sage.
  • Eskelinen, L, S. Olesen, and D. Caswell. 2010. Client contribution in negotiations on employability: Categories revised? International Journal of Social Welfare 19: 330-338. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2397.2009.00717.x]
  • Fairclough, N. and R. Wodak. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk, ed., Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2, 258-284. London: Sage.
  • Fitzgerald, R. 2012. Categories, norms and inferences: Generating entertainment in a daytime talk show. Discourse, Context & Media 1, 151-159. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2012.06.004]
  • Gunnar, W. 2005. The scope of a physician’s medical practice: Is the practice adequately protected by state medical licensure, peer review, and the national practitioner data bank? Annals of Health Law 14, 329-359.
  • Hart, W. and R. Blanchard. 2006. Litigation & Trial Practice, 6th ed. New York: Cengage.
  • Hester, S. and P. Eglin, eds. 1997. Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis. London: University Press of America.
  • Hobbs, P. 2003. ‘Is that what we’re here about?’: A lawyer’s use of impression management in a closing argument at trial. Discourse & Society 14, 273-290. [https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265030143002]
  • 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 Studies 3, 231-248. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900802131744]
  • Housley, W. and R. Fitzgerald. 2015. Introduction to membership categorization analysis. In R. Fitzgerald and W. Housley, eds., Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis, 1-22. London: Sage. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917873]
  • Ingrids, H. 2014. Category work in courtroom talk about domestic violence: Gender as an interactional accomplishment in child custody disputes. Feminism & Psychology 24, 115-135. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0959353513515294]
  • Jayyusi, L. 1984. Categorization and the Moral Order. London: Routledge.
  • Licoppe, C. 2015. Categorization work in the courtroom: The ‘foundational’ character of membership analysis. In R. Fitzgerald and W. Housley, eds., Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis, 71-98. London: Sage.
  • Lind, A. and G. Ke. 1985. Opening and closing statements. In S.M. Kassin and L.S. Wrightsman, eds., The Psychology of Evidence and Trial Procedure, 229-253. London: Sage.
  • Martikainen, J. 2017. Categorizing leaders based on their gaze. PEOPLE: International Journal of Social Sciences 3, 1603-1618. [https://doi.org/10.20319/pijss.2017.32.16031618]
  • Matoesian, G. 1999. The grammaticalization of participant roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society 28, 491–521. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404599004017]
  • Matoesian, G. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
  • Matoesian, G. and K. Gilbert. 2018. Multimodal Conduct in the Law: Language, Gesture and Materiality in Legal Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108236362]
  • McKinlay, A. and C. McVittie. 2011. Identities in Context: Individuals and Discourse in Action. London: Blackwell. [https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444397222]
  • Pennington, N. and R. Hastie. 1991. A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story model. Cordoza Law Review 13, 519-557.
  • Powell, G. 2001. Opening statements: The art of storytelling. Stetson Law Review 31, 89-104.
  • Psathas, G. 1999. Studying the organization in action: Membership categorization and interaction analysis. Human Studies 22, 139-162. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005422932589]
  • Quick, O. 2010. Medicine, mistakes and manslaughter: A criminal combination? Cambridge Law Journal 69, 186-203. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008197310000231]
  • Rosulek, L. 2007. Dual identities: Lawyers’ construction of self in the closing arguments of criminal trials. Texas Linguistic Forum 51, 154-164.
  • Rosulek, L. 2009. The sociolinguistic creation of opposing representations of defendants and victims. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 16, 1-30. [https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.1]
  • Sacks, H. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. Vols. I and II. London: Blackwell.
  • Schegloff, E.A. 2007. A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 39, 462-482. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007]
  • Schuetz, J. and L. Lilley, eds. 1999. The O.J. Simpson Trials: Rhetoric, Media and the Law. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Smith, A. 1995. Criminal or merely human?: The prosecution of negligent doctors. Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy 12, 131-146.
  • Sneadaker, K. 1991. Storytelling in opening statements: Framing the argumentation of the trial. In D.R. Papke, ed., Narrative and the Legal Discourse: A Reader in Storytelling and the Law, 132-157. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.
  • Spiecker, S. and D. Worthington. 2003. The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law and Human Behavior 27, 437-456. [https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024041201605]
  • Stokoe, E. 2012. Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 13, 277-303. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534]
  • Tanner, D. 2019. Opening communicative space: What do co-researchers contribute? Qualitative Research 19, 292-310. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1468794118770076]
  • Tiruvoipati, R., J. Mulder, and K. Haji. 2019. Improving sleep in intensive care unit: An overview of diagnostic and therapeutic options. Journal of Patient Experience 7, 697-702. [https://doi.org/10.1177/2374373519882234]
  • Titus, J., 2010. Ascribing monstrosity: Judicial categorization of a juvenile sex offender. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 17, 1-23. [https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v17i1.1]
  • Van Dijk, T. 1993. Principles of critical discourse analysis. Discourse & Society 4, 249-283. [https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006]
  • Watson, R. 1997. Some general reflections on categorization and sequence in the analysis of conversation. In S. Hester, and P. Eglin, eds., Culture in Action: Studies in Membership Categorization Analysis, 49-75. Washington: University Press of America.
  • Watson, R. 2015. De-reifying categories. In: Fitzgerald, R., Housley, W. (Eds.), Advances in Membership Categorisation Analysis, 23-50. Sage, London. [https://doi.org/10.4135/9781473917873.n2]
  • Xu, Z., X. Jiang, W. Li, D. Gao, X. Li, and J. Liu. 2011. Propofol-induced sleep: Efficacy and safety in patients with refractory chronic primary insomnia. Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics 60, 161-166. [https://doi.org/10.1007/s12013-010-9135-7]