The Sociolinguisic Creation of Opposing Representations of Defendants and Victims

Abstract

This paper presents a critical analysis of the terms of reference lawyers employ in the closing arguments in criminal trials to create competing representations of the same social actors. Through a systematic discourse analysis of ten closing arguments, I show that the prosecution's and defense's differing goals cause them to strategically depict the same defendants, victims, and witnesses in diametrically different manners. Actors who are contrary to an argument are backgrounded or silenced. The two key theoretical constructs then employed by lawyers are personalization and functionalization (van Leeuwen 2002). For example, the defendants, while personalized by the defense, are functionalized by the prosecution, in effect erasing their unique identity except for their role as their person on trial. In sum, I show that through the use of these subtle linguistic tools, lawyers for opposing sides create contrasting representations of the same individuals so that they serve the lawyers' goals.

Formulating dispositions in coming out advice

“…We describe what we notice, what we remember, what is routine or what is exceptional; we also describe things strategically to suit our particular rhetorical purpose, so that some aspects are developed while others are omitted or suppressed (Edwards, 1995(Edwards, , 1997. The adversarial context of the courtroom evidences this most clearly, with barristers manipulating witnesses under (cross-)examination in order that their evidence should fit with the particular meta-narrative that the barrister aims to present to the jury (Coulthard and Johnson, 2007;Gibbons, 2003), or making use of different terms of reference in order to create contrasting representations of the same witness, defendant or victim (Felton Rosulek, 2009). Edwards (1995) examines how occurrences or actions can be described in text as singular, individual events or as part of a predictable pattern or routine.…”