Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

Abstract

This paper tries to explore the different argumentation strategies in courtroom discourse. The paper aims to decode the various argumentative strategies that are employed to communicate a successful interaction between the interlocutors in courtrooms. This is done by highlighting the linguistic tools targeting the persuasion of the conversationalists in the legal discourse presented in courts. The paper will focus on five strategies of argumentation, including lexical choices, questioning and answering, oppositional arguments, rhetorical questions, and premeditated arguments. The core concern of the investigation of these argumentation strategies is to show the degree to which they are used by courtroom interlocutors to communicate a successful and persuasive argument to their recipients. Data used in this study are derived from two legal trials: Nelson Mandela’s trial and Bill Clinton’s trial. The research questions of this paper are: first, what is meant by argumentation in courtroom discourse? Second, what are the different argumentation strategies used in courtroom discourse? Third, to what extent are argumentation strategies employed to achieve a persuasive argument between interlocutors in courtrooms? There are three main findings in this paper: First, attorneys and litigants use various argumentation strategies to influence their recipients so as to be able to persuade the court of their arguments. Second, the power of persuasiveness is entirely based on the ability to use various strategies of argumentation. Third, language is a crucial element in the understanding of legal arguments in courtrooms.