Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice, Vol 12, No 2

Between legal and social truths: The management of intertextual gaps in the construction of narrative authority in a US mock trial competition

Joon-Beom Chu
Issued Date: 9 Jul 2019

Abstract


This article explores how US law students learn to manage ‘intertextuality’, or the circulation of words, phrases, and conversations across diverse contexts of language use, as an effective communication tool in a mock trial competition. Using discourse and conversation analytical methods to identify the communication strategies used by a law student in one such competition, I argue that law students learn two intertextual strategies that link courtroom discourse with both institutional and social sources of textual authority. On the one hand, they minimize what may be called ‘intertextual gaps’ to project the institutional authority of official texts such as sworn depositions; and conversely, they maximize ‘intertextual gaps’ to perform commonly recognizable social conversations with witnesses and jurors. By learning various intertextual strategies in mock trials, law students learn to build a coherent narrative in the courtroom out of a heterogeneous mixture of legal and social texts, bringing together the institutional and social worlds that these texts conjure up. As law students learn to shift between legal and social conversations in the courtroom, they realize the power of legal institutions to reproduce and legitimize dominant social hierarchies.

Download Media

PDF (Price: £17.50 )

DOI: 10.1558/jalpp.32165

References


Anesa, P. and Kastberg, P. (2012) On some communicatively salient complexities of knowledge asymmetries in a jury trial. Text & Talk 32 (1): 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2012-0001

Anleu, S. R. and Mack, K. (2015) Performing authority: Communicating judicial decisions in lower criminal courts. Journal of Sociology 51 (4): 1052–1069. https://doi.org/10.1177/1440783313495765

Bauman, R. and Briggs, C. (1990) Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 59–88. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.an.19.100190.000423

Briggs, C. and Bauman, R. (1992) Genre, intertextuality, and social power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2 (2): 131–172. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1992.2.2.131

Chaemsaithong, K. (2014) Interactive patterns of the opening statement in criminal trials: A historical perspective. Discourse Studies 16 (3): 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1461445613508900

Cheng, L. and Cheng, W. (2014) Documentary evidence as hegemonic reconstruction. Semiotica 200: 165–184. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2014-0009

Cramm, D. (1994) The linguistic status of the proverb. In W. Wieder (ed.) Wise Words: Essays on the Proverb, 73–98. London: Routledge.

D’hondt, S. (2014) Defending through disaffiliation: The vicissitudes of alignment and footing in Belgian criminal hearings. Language & Communication 36: 68–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.004

Dillard, J. and Roslender, R. (2011) Taking pluralism seriously: Embedded moralities in management accounting and control systems. Critical Perspectives on Accounting 22 (2): 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpa.2010.06.014

Duff, P. A. (2004) Intertextuality and hybrid discourses: The infusion of pop culture in educational discourse. Linguistics and Education 14 (3-4): 231–276. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.linged.2004.02.005

Dunn, C. D. (2006) Formulaic expressions, Chinese proverbs, and newspaper editorials: Exploring type and token interdiscursivity in Japanese wedding speeches. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 16 (2): 153–172. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2006.16.2.153

Ellington, S. (2009) Transmedia as pretext. Scott Ellington’s Blog, 1 November. Available online: https://scottellington.wordpress.com/2009/11/01/transmedia-as-pretext/

Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Goodwin, C. (2010) Interactive footing. In E. Holt and R. Clift (eds) Reporting Talk: Reported Speech in Interaction, 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Haney, P. C. (2007) Relato, relajo, and recording. Language & Communication 27 (3): 278–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2007.01.004

Harbidge, L. (2011) Audienceship and (non)laughter in the stand-up comedy of Steve Martin. Participations: Journal of Audience & Reception Studies 8 (2): 128–144.

Heffer, C. (2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal–Lay Discourse. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502888

Howard, A. D. (1960) Audienceship. Scientific American 48 (1): 105–107.

Ito, M. (2007) Technologies of the childhood imagination: Yu-Gi-Oh!, media mixes, and everyday cultural production. In J. Karaganis (ed.) Structures of Participation in Digital Culture, 88–111. New York: Social Science Research Council.

Kornberger, M., Clegg, S. R. and Carter, C. (2006) Rethinking the polyphonic organization: Managing as discursive practice. Scandinavian Journal of Management 22 (1): 3–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2005.05.004

Kozin, A. (2008) Unsettled facts: On the transformational dynamism of evidence in legal discourse. Text & Talk 28 (2): 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2008.010

Licoppe, C. (2014) Two modes of referring to the case file in the courtroom: The use of indirect reported text and text-as-addressed speech in cased summaries. Language & Communication 36: 83–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.10.001

Linell, P. (1998) Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text 18 (2): 143–158. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.
1998.18.2.143

Maryns, M. (2013) ‘Theatricks’ in the courtroom: The intertextual construction of legal cases. In C. Heffer, F. Rock and J. Conley (eds) Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law, 107–125. New York: Oxford University Press.

Maryns, M. (2014) The interdiscursive construction of irresponsibility as a defense strategy in the Belgian Assize Court. Language & Communication 36: 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.009

Matoesian, G. (2000) Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics 32 (7): 879–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00080-6

Matoesian, G. (2005) Nailing down an answer: Participations of power in trial talk. Discourse Studies 7 (6): 733–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445605055424

Matoesian, G. (2008) You might win the battle but lose the war: Multimodal, interactive, and extralinguistic aspects of witness resistance. Journal of English Linguistics 36 (3): 195–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424208321202

Mauet, T. (2005) Trials: Strategy, Skills, and the New Power of Persuasion. New York: Aspen.

Mazeland, H. (2006) Conversation analysis. In E. K. Brown and A. Anderson (eds) Encyclopedia of Language & Linguistics, 153–162. Boston: Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.
1016/B0-08-044854-2/00314-X

Mendoza-Denton, N. (2008) Homegirls. Malden, MA: Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/
9780470693728

Mertz, E. (2007) The Language of Law School: Learning to ‘Think Like a Lawyer’. New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195183108.001.0001

Mirzaei, A. and Eslami, Z. (2013) Exploring the variability dynamics of wedding invitation discourse in Iran. Journal of Pragmatics 55: 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2013.06.001

Philips, S. U. (1988) The language socialization of lawyers: Acquiring the ‘cant’. In G. Spindler (ed.) Doing the Ethnography of Schooling: Educational Anthropology in Action, 176–209. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.

Philips, S. U. (1993) Evidentiary standards for American trials: Just the facts. In J. H. Hill and J. Irvine (eds) Responsibility and Evidence in Oral Discourse, 248–259. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sarangi, S. (1998) Rethinking recontextualization in professional discourse studies: An epilogue. Text 18 (2): 301–318. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1998.18.2.301

Silverstein, M. (1993) Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In J. A. Lucy (ed.) Reflexive Language: Reported Speech and Metapragmatics, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621031.004

Silverstein, M. (2003) Indexical order and the dialectics of sociolinguistic life. Language & Communication 23 (3–4): 193–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(03)00013-2

Silverstein, M. (2005) Axes of evals: Token vs. type interdiscursivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 15 (1): 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.2005.15.1.6

Silverstein, M. and Urban, G. (1996) Introduction. In M. Silverstein and G. Urban (eds) The Natural History of Discourse, 1–20. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Simon-Vandenbergen, A. (2007) Lay and expert voices in public participation programmes: A case of generic heterogeneity. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 1420–1435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.04.002

Sneijder, P. (2014) The embedding of reported speech in a rhetorical structure by prosecutors and defense lawyers in Dutch trials. Text & Talk 34 (4): 467–490. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2014-0012

Steffensen, S. (2015) Distributed language and dialogism: Notes on non-locality, sense-making and interactivity. Language Sciences 50: 105–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2015.01.004

Tiersma, P. M. (2000) Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tovares, A. V. (2016) Going off-script and reframing the frame: The dialogic intertwining of the centripetal and centrifugal voices in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission hearings. Discourse & Society 2 (5): 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926516651365

Tsang, A. and Ho, P. (2007) Lost in translation: Sex and sexuality in elite discourse and everyday language. Sexualities 10 (5): 623–644. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460706068041

Urban, G. (1996) Entextualization, replication, and power. In M. Silverstein and G. Urban (eds) Natural Histories of Discourse, 21–44. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Van der Houwen, F. and Sneijder P. (2014) From text to talk in criminal court: Prosecuting, defending, and examining the evidence. Language & Communication 36: 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.006

Van Eijck, M. and Roth, W. (2011) Cultural diversity in science education through novelization: Against the epicization of science and cultural centralization. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 48 (7): 824–847. https://doi.org/10.1002/tea.20422

Zhang, L. (2011) Arguing with otherness: Intertextual construction of the attorney stance in the Chinese courtroom. Text & Talk 31 (6): 753–769. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2011.036


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.







Equinox Publishing Ltd - 415 The Workstation 15 Paternoster Row, Sheffield, S1 2BX United Kingdom
Telephone: +44 (0)114 221-0285 - Email: info@equinoxpub.com

Privacy Policy