Strategic lexicalization in courtroom discourse: A corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis

Khafaga, Ayman Farid

doi:10.1080/23311983.2023.2217585

Cited by 3 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 57 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The study also made it clear that courtroom speech is a particular kind of institutional discourse that is distinguished by linguistic elements that, even when they are articulated in an environment of helplessness, represent the ideology and authority of those who employ it. This correlates with Khafaga's (2023a) argument that the goal-oriented nature of legal discourse, which means that it constantly aims to achieve certain objectives outside of the discursive processes used in court contexts. Furthermore, the examination of the chosen data demonstrated that language is a useful instrument for spreading ideas since it can be manipulated to further the goals of its users and to change the opinions of those who hear it.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

“…Anyone putting out a legal position who wants others to agree with them will need to provide supporting evidence. For argumentation theorists, legal argumentation is a crucial area of study and a crucial setting in which to apply the concepts they have created in argumentation theory because of the significance of argumentation in the legal system (Khafaga, 2023a).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

Alkabiri

2024

WJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 65%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

Alkabiri

2024

WJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such usage of words is linguistically heightened by the combination of words around each selected word. This has previously been emphasized by many studies, including Fowler (1991), Jakobson (1997), and Khafaga (2023), who argue that the ideological and persuasive weight of words is clearly mirrored when these words are shown in combination with other words. A further significance of words lies in the strategy of religionization, where certain religious words and/or phrases are used to communicate the religious nature attributed to some of the Vision 2030 goals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Persuasion Strategies in Saudi Arabia Vision 2030 Document: A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach

Alqahtani

2024

tpls

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By adopting a critical discourse analysis (CDA) approach, this paper explores the strategies of persuasion employed in the Saudi Arabia Vision 2030 document. More specifically, the paper attempts to identify the various persuasion strategies used in the document of the 2030 Vision, the way through which these persuasion strategies are linguistically manifested, and the different modes of persuasion used in the document. The primary research questions of this study are: first, what are the different modes of persuasion employed in the Saudi Arabia 2030 Vision? Second, what are the strategies of persuasion used in the document under investigation? Third, how are these strategies linguistically manifested in the document at hand? Findings reveal that there are five strategies that are highly representative as persuasion conduits in the Saudi Arabia 2030 Vision. These include lexical choices, the inclusive ‘we’, religionization, future promises, and compositional summarization. The five strategies accentuate the assumption that the process of persuasion is successfully communicated at the various levels of linguistic analysis: lexically, semantically, pragmatically, and stylistically.

show abstract

“…Studies on courtroom discourse that look into the types of questions and answers in the courtroom and judicial process have become more and more common in recent years (e.g., Harris, 1984;Newbury & Johnson, 2006;Eades, 2008;Tkačuková, 2010;Ehrlich, 2011;Johnson, 2015;Zydervelt et al, 2017;Khafaga, 2023a), among others. These studies have contributed to a comprehensive understanding of the way through which courtroom discourse is linguistically structured, particularly in terms of the employment of questions among interlocutors within legal courts.…”

Section: Previous Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The testimony Lori Fortier witnesses a frequency of 35 occurrences for So-questions, the Testimony Jennifer McVeigh has the least frequency of 5 occurrences of the same construction, and the testimony of Michael Fortier has the highest number of occurrences with a frequency of 51. So-questions are declarative in the form of questions (Khafaga, 2023a); that is, they are not direct and clear interrogatives. In this sense they are like say-questions in their syntactic structures as well as in their targeted purposes.…”

Section: The Use Of So-questions In Testimoniesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Questioning Strategies in Courtrooms

Aldosari

2023

WJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to explore the different strategies of questioning in courtroom discourse, by highlighting the various discursive structures employed to form a question between courtroom interlocutors. More specifically, this research looks at the techniques employed in courtroom cross-examination to persuade the judge(s) to accept attorneys' accounts of what happened as well as the effectiveness of responses in fending off the influence and power of barristers. The corpus of this study is taken from 3 testimonies of prosecution witnesses in the trial of Timothy McVeigh concerning the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1997. By employing both quantitative and qualitative methods, the study investigates six questioning patterns, including wh-questions, yes-no questions, tag questions, so-questions, say-questions, and declarative questions. The study reveals that some types of questions used in courtrooms are strategically utilized to persuade juries and judges, confirm a piece of information, clarify an argument, threatening witnesses’ face, manipulate and/or coerce interlocutors within courtrooms. The paper also reveals that questioning is not only used to instigate an answer or a response but also to communicate information and draw conclusions.

show abstract

Strategic lexicalization in courtroom discourse: A corpus-assisted critical discourse analysis

Cited by 3 publications

References 57 publications

Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

Persuasion Strategies in Saudi Arabia Vision 2030 Document: A Critical Discourse Analysis Approach

Questioning Strategies in Courtrooms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About