Conceptualizing person markers as an instrument of ideological negotiation and persuasion, this study explores the relationships between language, interaction and identity in the context of courtroom opening statements. The study quantitatively and qualitatively analyzes the use of first- and second-person markers. Based on a corpus of three high-profile trials, the findings indicate that person markers are pragmatically conditioned and contribute to making opening statement argumentative. By manipulating pronouns, the lawyers construct a shared identity with jurors and, at the same time, an authoritative self-image in order to align the jurors with their version of reality.
Contents
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedPositioning self and others in the courtroom: Person markers in the opening statementLicensedMarch 31, 2015
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedThe morphology-pragmatics interface in Modern Greek compoundingLicensedMarch 31, 2015
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedPhonological processes in Portuguese children with speech sound disordersLicensedMarch 31, 2015
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedThe logical-semantic content of subject: A configurational view from syntax and LFLicensedMarch 31, 2015
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedAntonymy in language use: From core members to ad hoc couplingsLicensedMarch 31, 2015
-
Requires Authentication UnlicensedFunctional abnormalities in Broca’s area in adolescents with ADHD: A resting-state fMRI studyLicensedMarch 31, 2015