When grammar clashes: Negotiation of guilt and innocence in courtroom discourse

References

Aldridge, M. and J. Luchjeonbroers. 2007. “Linguistic manipulations in legal discourse: Framing questions and ‘smuggling’ information”. International Journal of Speech, Language, and Law 14. 83–105.10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.85Suche in Google Scholar

Beach, W. 1985. “Temporal density in courtroom interaction: Constraints on the recovery of past events in legal discourse”. Communication Monographs 52. 1–18.10.1080/03637758509376093Suche in Google Scholar

Cotterill, J. 2003. Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial Basingstoke: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230006010Suche in Google Scholar

Coulthard, M., A. Johnson, and D. Wright. 2017. An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. (2nd ed.) New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Danet, B. 1976. “Speaking of Watergate: language and moral accountability”. Centrum 4. 105–138.Suche in Google Scholar

Ehrlich, S. 2001. Representing rape: Language and sexual consent New York: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. 1992. Discourse and social change Cambridge: Polity Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. 2000. New labour, new language London: Routledge.Suche in Google Scholar

Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing discourse: Textual analysis for social research London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203697078Suche in Google Scholar

Figueiredo, D. 1998. “An analysis of transitivity choices in five appellate decisions in rape cases”. Revista Fragmentos 8. 97–113.Suche in Google Scholar

Fowler, R. 1986. Linguistic criticism Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Gitchel, D. and M. O’Brien. 2006. Trial advocacy basics South Bend, IN: National Institute for Trial Advocacy.Suche in Google Scholar

Griffin, L. 2013. “Narrative, truth, and trial”. Georgetown Law Journal 101. 281–334.Suche in Google Scholar

Guang, S. 2010. “An analysis of the transitivity system in courtroom discourse”. Chinese Semiotic Studies 4. 245–257.10.1515/css-2010-0214Suche in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar London: Arnold.Suche in Google Scholar

Hasan, R. 1988. The analysis of one poem: Theoretical issues in practice. In: Birch, D. and M. O’Tool (eds.), Functions and styles London: Edward Arnold. 45–73.Suche in Google Scholar

Haydock, R. and J. Sonsteng. 1990. Trial theories, tactics and techniques St. Paul, MN: West.Suche in Google Scholar

Heffer, C. 2005. The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. New York: Palgrave.10.1057/9780230502888Suche in Google Scholar

Heffer, C. 2010. “Narrative in the trial: Constructing crime stories in court”. In: Coulthard, M. and A. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics New York: Routledge. 199–217.10.4324/9780203855607.ch14Suche in Google Scholar

Henley, N., M. Miller, and J. Beazley. 1995. “Syntax, semantics and sexual violence agency and the passive voice”. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 14. 60–84.10.1177/0261927X95141004Suche in Google Scholar

Komter, M. 1998. Dilemmas in the courtroom: A study of trials of violence crimes in the Netherlands. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Suche in Google Scholar

Kubicek, T. 2006. Adversarial justice: American’s court system on trial New York: Algora.Suche in Google Scholar

LaFrance, M. and E. Hahn. 1994. “The disappearing agent: Gender stereotypes, interpersonal verbs and implicit causality”. In: Roman C., S. Juhasz, and C. Miller (eds.), The woman and language debate: A sourcebook New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press. 348–362.Suche in Google Scholar

Landsman, S. 1984. The adversary system: A description and defense Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Suche in Google Scholar

Lind, A. and G. Ke. 1985. “Opening and closing statements”. In: Kassin, S.M., and L.S. Wrightsman (eds.), The psychology of evidence and trial procedure London: Sage. 229–253.Suche in Google Scholar

Matoesian, G. 2005. “Nailing down and answer: Participations of power in trial talk”. Discourse Studies 7. 733–759.10.1177/1461445605055424Suche in Google Scholar

O’Barr, W. 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language, power and strategy in the courtroom New York: Academic Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Pennington, N. and R. Hastie. 1991. “A cognitive theory of juror decision making: The story mode”. Cordoza Law Review 13. 519–557.Suche in Google Scholar

Rosulek, L. 2008. “Manipulating silence and social representation in the closing arguments of a child sexual abuse case”. Text and Talk 28. 529–550.10.1515/TEXT.2008.026Suche in Google Scholar

Rosulek, L. 2015. Dueling discourses: The construction of reality in closing arguments Oxford: Oxford University Press.Suche in Google Scholar

Solan, L. 2010. “The forensic linguist: The expert linguist meets the adversarial system”. In: Coulthard, M. and A. Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics New York: Routledge. 395–407.10.4324/9780203855607.ch26Suche in Google Scholar

Spiecker, S. and D. Worthington. 2003. “The influence of opening statement/closing argument organization strategy on juror verdict and damage awards”. Law and Human Behavior 24(4). 437–456.10.1023/A:1024041201605Suche in Google Scholar

Stygall G. 2012. “Discourse in the US courtroom”. In: Tiersma, P. and L. Solan (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law Oxford: Oxford University Press. 369–380.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0027Suche in Google Scholar

Szczyrbak, M. 2013. “‘I think my own view is that...’: On the linguistic construction of evidence in courtroom discourse”. Topics in Linguistics 12: 65–74Suche in Google Scholar

Szczyrbak, M. 2016. “Say and stancetaking in courtroom talk. A corpus-assisted study”. Corpora 11. 143–168.10.3366/cor.2016.0090Suche in Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. 1999. Legal language Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Suche in Google Scholar