Adversarial, Ludic and Ritual Nature of Discursive Interactions in a Trial
Abstract
This article makes a contribution to the study of courtroom discourse assuming that interactions in a trial are of agonal nature. The study aims to identify and explore key aspects of agonal interactions (adversarial, ludic and ritual) and rhetorical agonal strategies employed in a trial. The study revealed the following adversary strategies used by the prosecutor and the defense attorney to win the struggle: discrediting, refutation and objection. The components of courtroom interactions such as participants struggling to win, referees overseeing the game and selecting the winner and spectators observing the performance indicate its ludic nature. Rituals as an integral component of both games and competitions ensure fair proceedings, regulate participants’ behavior, and organize agonal interactions, being the backbone of courtroom trials. The adversary, ludic and ritual components of agonality determine the nature of courtroom activities whose formal goal is to restore justice, and the actual one is to select the winner. The study concluded that these three components of agonality are interrelated: competition is a sign of game, and ludic elements are an integral characteristic of any competition as a product of culture; both competition and game are regulated by rituals and involve participants pursuing opposing goals.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Alkhammash, R. (2020) Combating prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. 20(1), 77-91.
Anesa, P. (2009) Now you are getting into the law: mediation of specialized language in a jury trial. Fachsprache. 1-2, 64-82.
Anesa, P., Kastberg, P. (2012) On some communicatively salient complexities of knowledge asymmetries in a jury trial. Text and Talk. 32(1), 1-19.
Archer, D. (2006) (Re)Initiating Strategies: Judges and Defendants in Early Modern English Courtrooms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics. 7(2), 118-211.
Archer, D. (2011) Facework and (im)politeness across legal contexts: An introduction. Journal of Politeness Research. 7, 1-19.
Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., Linell, P. (1987) The Courtroom Hearing as a Middle Ground: Speech Accommodation by Lawyers and Defendants. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 6(2), 99-115.
Atkinson, J. M., Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal behavior in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.
Bauman, R. (1977) Verbal Art as Performance. Long Grove, Illinois. Waveland Press.
Berk-Seligson, S. (2012). Linguistic Issues in Courtroom Interpretation. In The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law.
Bhatia, V. K., Candlin, C. N., Engberg, J. (2008) Legal discourse across cultures and systems. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Boginskaya, Olga (2020). The simplification of jury instructions: legal-lay interactions in jury trials. ESP Today. 8(2), 297-318.
Bogoch, B. (1999). Courtroom discourse and the gendered construction of professional identity. Law & Social Inquiry. 24(2), 329-375.
Bogomazova, V.V. (2014) The relationship between agonality and the category of alienation in judicial discourse. News of Volgograd Social Pedagogy University. 10(95), 35-40.
Bousfield, D. (2013) Face in conflict. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict. 1, 37-57.
Bührig, K. (2005). “Speech action patterns” and “discourse types”. Folia Linguistica. 39(1-2), 143–171.
Cambridge Dictionary. Retrieved January 15, 2022 from https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ritual
Cicchini, M.D. (2018). Combating prosecutorial misconduct in closing arguments. Oklahoma Law Review. 70(4), 887-941.
Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. M. (2005). Just words: Law, language and power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cotterill, J. (2001) Domestic discord, rocky relationships: Semantic prosodies in representation of marital violence in the O.J. Simpson trial. Discourse & Society. 12(3), 291–312.
Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A. (2007) An introduction to forensic linguistics. London: Routledge.
Culpeper, J. (2010) Conventionalised impoliteness formulae. Journal of Pragmatics. 42(12), 3232-3245.
Danet, B., Hoffman, K. B., Kermish, N. C., Rafn, H. J., & Stayman, D. G. (1980). An ethnography of questioning in the courtroom. In R. W. Shuy and A. Ahnukal (eds.), Language use and the uses of language (pp. 222-234). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Eades, D. (2008) Courtroom Talk and Neocolonial Control. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Felton Rosulek, L. (2015) Dueling discourse: The construction of reality in closing arguments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Flowerdew, L. (2004) The argument for using English specialized corpora to understand academic and professional language in Connor, U. and Upton, T. A. (eds.) Discourse in the professions: Perspectives from corpus linguistics. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins, 11-33.
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gnisci, A., Bakeman, R. (2007). Sequential accommodation of turn taking and turn length: A study of courtroom interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 26(3), 234-259.
Gotti, M., & Williams, C. (2010). Legal discourse across languages and cultures. Berlin: Peter Lang.
Grice, H.P. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Haynes, P. (2017). Victims’ lawyers in the courtroom: Opening and closing statements, questioning witnesses, challenging and presenting evidence. In Victim Participation in International Criminal Justice (pp. 243-281). TMC Asser Press, The Hague.
Hobbs, P. (2007) Lawyers' Use of Humor as Persuasion. Humor: International Journal of Humor Research. 20(2), 123-156.
Huizinga, J. (2003) Homo Ludens. Moscow: Ires-Press.
Idrus, M.M., & Nor, N.F.M. (2016). Legitimation Analysis: Exploring Decision-Making and Power in Hot Bench. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. 16(2), 33-52.
Kniffka, H. (2007) Working in language and law. A German perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Krapivkina, O. A. (2017a) Semantics of the verb shall in legal discourse. Jezikoslovlje. 18(3-2), 305-317.
Krapivkina, O.A. (2017b) Expert-lay interaction in jury trials (case study of closing arguments). Journal of Language and Cultural Education. 5(3), 77-92.
Krapivkina, O.A. (2018). Discourse of concord as a result of integration of possible worlds of communicants (case-study of closing arguments). Voprosy Kognitivnoy Lingvistiki. 2, 45-50.
Kurzon, D. (2001) The Politeness of judges: American and English judicial behavior. Journal of Pragmatics. 33, 61-85.
Levitt, D. P. (1991) Rhetoric in closing argument. Litigation. 17, 17–21.
Liao, M. (2019) Politeness in the courtroom discourse. Forensic Research and Criminology International Journal. 7(2), 45‒61.
Luchjenbroers, J., Aldridge, M. (2007) Conceptual manipulation with metaphors and frames: Dealing with rape victims in legal discourse. Text and Talk. 27(3), 339–359.
McMenamin, G. R. (2002). Forensic linguistics: Advances in forensic stylistics. Florida: CRC Press.
Mead, R. (1985). Courtroom discourse. University of Birmingham: Birmingham Press.
Olanrewaju, F.R., Ademola, O.W. (2020) Interpreting and Markers in Nigerian Courtroom Discourse. Advances in Language and Literary Studies. 11(3), 24-33
Olimat, S.N. (2020) Words as Powerful Weapons: Dysphemism in Trump’s Covid-19 Speeches. 3L: The Southeast Asian Journal of English Language Studies. 26(3), 17-29.
Othman, N., Nor F. M., Noraini I. (2019) Linguistic Representation of Violence in Judicial Opinions in Malaysia. GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies. 19(2), 82-98.
Palashevskaya, I.V., Leontiev V.V., Kurchenkova E.A., Stepanova E.D., Bulanov D.S. (2015) Correlations of status positions of courtroom discourse participants. Xlinguae. 10(3), 45-56.
Rigney, A. (1999) Questioning in Interpreted Testimony. Forensic Linguistics. 6(1), 83-108.
Rusakova, O.F., Rusakov, V.M. (2015) Agonal discourse of modern politics of memory. Discourse-Pi. 10, 10-15.
Saprtykina, E.V. (2007) Structure of the speech act “accusation” in the parliamentary discourse. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. 15(93), 128-132.
Schane, S. (2006). Language and the law. New York: Continuum
Sheigal, E.I., Deshevova, V.V. (2009) Agonality in communication: the structure of the concept. Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. Philology. 34(172), 145-148.
Sidorenko, A.V. (2015) Realization of agonality in modern English Business Discourse. Bulletin of Leningrad State University. 1(3), 150-157.
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
Tiersma, P., Curtis, M. (2008) Testing the comprehensibility of jury instructions: California’s old and new instructions on circumstantial evidence. Journal of court innovation. 1, 231-264.
Tracy, K. (2008) “Reasonable hostility”: Situation-appropriate face-attack. Journal of Politeness Research. 4, 169-191.
Volkova, Y.A., Panchenko, N.N. (2016) Destructiveness in political discourse. Bulletin of Russian University of Peoples’ Friendship. Series: Linguistics. 4, 161-178.
Wagner, A., Cheng, L. (2011) Exploring Courtroom Discourse: The Language of Power and Control. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Walter, B. (1988) The jury summation as speech genre. Philadelphia: John Benjamins
CORPUS
Closing argument. Retrieved March 16, 2020 from https://www.newsru.com/russia/01dec2000/astah.html.
Trial transcript 1. Retrieved March 23, 2020 from https://www.ssa-rss.ru/files/File/court15_09_09.pdf.
Trial transcript 2. Retrieved April 15, 2020 from https://www.ssa-rss.ru/files/File/court15_09_09.pdf.
Trial transcript 3. Retrieved March 16, 2020 from http://old.memo.ru/uploads/files/651.pdf
Trial transcript 4. Retrieved March 23, 2020 from https://www.zakonia.ru/site/257804/sudebnye-zasedanija
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/gema-2022-2201-01
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
eISSN : 2550-2131
ISSN : 1675-8021