Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse
Article Sidebar
Published:
May 15, 2024
Keywords:
courtroom discourse, closing argument, booster, persuasion, metadiscourse
Main Article Content
Abstract
The closing argument in criminal trials allows for unique metadiscourse analysis opportunities. Yet despite these opportunities, it seems to be an understudied linguistic genre which requires more research into its interactional features. This article aims to explore the types, frequencies and functions of boosters as metadiscourse resources employed by defense attorneys to enter a plea of not guilty. In particular, the article describes how attorneys exploit boosters to produce convincing arguments and control the power relationship with an audience. The findings are based on a metadiscourse analysis of 21 closing arguments derived from the famous-trials.com website. As regards the choice of boosting resources to be searched in the corpus, the present study adopted Hyland and Zou’s (2021) taxonomy of boosters. It was revealed that defense attorneys made extensive use of boosters to exert an influence on the outcome of a criminal prosecution against their clients. The results have implications for our understanding of closing argument as a persuasive interactional legal genre and for teaching legal writing to law students. Hopefully, this study will spire lawyers to take advantage of boosters and other metadiscourse resources in their attempt to achieve persuasive goals in trials by jury.
Downloads
Download data is not yet available.
Article Details
How to Cite
Boginskaya, O. (2024). Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse. Culture, Language and Representation, 33, 31–49. https://doi.org/10.6035/clr.7656
Issue
Section
ARTÍCULOS / ARTICLES
An open-access CREATIVE COMMONS copyright license is used. Those authors whose works are published by this journal, accept the following terms:
- Authors will retain their copyright and guarantee the Journal the right to first publish their work, which will simultaneously be subject to the Creative Commons Recognition License CC BY SA that allows third parties to share the work, provided that its author and first publication is indicated.
- Authors may adopt other non-exclusive license agreements for the distribution of the published version of the work (e.g., deposit it in an institutional telematics file or publish it in a monographic volume) provided that the initial publication in this journal is indicated.
- Authors are allowed and recommended to disseminate their work over the Internet (e.g. in institutional telematics files or on their website) before and during the submission process, which can produce interesting exchanges and increase quotes of the published work.
References
Abdi, Reza. 2002. “Interpersonal metadiscourse: An indicator of interaction and identity”. Discourse Studies, 4(2): 139–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040020101
Aldridge, Michelle and June Luchjenbroers. 2007. “Linguistic manipulations in legal discourse: Framing questions and “smuggling” information”. International Journal of Speech, Language, and Law, 14(1): 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.85
Beauvais, Paul. 1989. “A speech-act theory of metadiscourse”. Written Communication, 6(1): 11-30.
Boginskaya, Olga. 2021. “A Contrastive Study of Deontic Modality in Parallel Texts”. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 18(2): 31–49. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.18.2.31-49
Boginskaya, Olga. 2022a. “Competition - game - ritual: Three aspects of communicative interactions in the courtroom”. Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 76: 5–27. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/76/1
Boginskaya, Olga. 2022b. “Dissenting with conviction: Boosting in challenging the majority opinion”. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 7(2): 257-279. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2073
Boginskaya, Olga. 2022c. “Popularizing in legal discourse: What efforts do Russian judges make to facilitate juror’s comprehension of law-related contents?” Discourse studies, 24(5): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456221108585
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. “Lexical bundles across four legal genres”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(2): 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre
Cao, Deborah. 2013. “Legal translation studies”. In The Routledge handbook of translation studies, ed. Carmen Millan-Varela & Francesca Bartrina. London and New York: Routledge.
Carranza, Isolda. 2008. “Metapragmatics in a courtroom genre”. Pragmatics, 18(2): 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.2.01car
Cavalieri, Silvia. 2011. “The role of metadiscourse in counsels’ questions”. In Exploring courtroom discourse: The language of power and control, ed. Anne Wagner and Le Cheng.
Abingdon: Routledge
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2012. “Performing self on the witness stand: Stance and relational work in expert witness testimony”. Discourse & Society, 23: 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512441111
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2014. “Interactive patterns of the opening statement in criminal trials: A historical perspective”. Discourse Studies, 16(3): 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613508900
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2017. “Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements”. Folia Linguistica ,51(1): 103-132. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0003
Cheng, Le and King Kui Sin. 2008. “Terminological equivalence in legal translation: A semiotic approach”. Semiotica, 172: 33–45. https://doi.org /10.1515/SEMI.2008.088
Cheng, Le, Lijin Sha and Yinglong Zheng. 2009. “A semiotic interpretation of legal terms”. Contemporary Rhetoric, 2: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0031
Cohen de Chervonagura, Elena. 2011. “La prostitución judía y su discurso a la luz de un expediente judicial”. Culture, Language and Representation, 9(9): 31-51.
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. “Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial”. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crismore Avon and Rodney Farnsworth. 1990. “Meta- discourse in popular and professional science discourse”. In The Writing Scholar Studies in Academic Discourse, ed. William Nash. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crismore Avon, Markkanen Raija and Steffensen Margaret. 1993. “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students”. Written Communication, 10: 39-71.
Dafouz-Milne, Emma. 2008. “The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: a cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1): 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
Danet, Brenda. 1980. “Language in the legal process”. Law and Society Review, 15: 445–565.
David, Rene. 1973. Les grand systems de droit contemporains. Paris. Dalloz.
Donadio, Paolo and Mattia Passariello. 2022. “Hedges and boosters in English and Italian medical research articles: A cross-cultural comparison”. International Journal of Language Studies, 16(1): 1-20.
Eades, Diana. 2008. Courtroom talk and neocolonial control. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692559
Finegan, Edward. 2010. “Corpus linguistic approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions”. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, ed. Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson. New York: Routledge.
Fu, Xiaoli. 2012. “The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings”. Discourse Studies, 14(4): 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612450373.
Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro-A., Marisol Velasco-Sacristan, Ascension Arribas-Bano and Eva Samaniego-Fernandez. 2001. “Persuasion and advertising English: metadiscourse in slogans and headlines”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1291–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)80026-6
Gilbert, David. 2005. David Basic Trial Techniques for Prosecutors. Alexandria: APRI.
Goźdź Roszkowski, Stanislaw. 2020. “Communicating Dissent in Judicial Opinions: A Comparative, Genre Based Analysis”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 33(1): 381-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09711-y
Gozdz-Roszkowski, Stanislaw and Gianluca Pontrandolfo. 2013. “Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments”. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse, 3: 9–69.
Goltaji, Faranak and Mozhgan Hooshmand. 2021. “A comparative study of interactional metadiscourse markers in EFL textbooks written by native and Iranian authors”. International Journal of Language Studies, 15(2): 23-46.
Gotti, Maurizio. 2014. “Linguistic insights into legislative drafting”. Theory and Practice of Legislation, 2(2): 123-143.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2016. “Patterns of thanking in the closing section of U.K. service calls: Marking conversational macro-structure vs. interpersonal relations”. Pragmatics and Society, 7: 664–692. https:///doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.4.07mos
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The language of jury trial. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
Hernandez, Hjalmar Punla. 2017. “A (forensic) stylistic analysis of adverbials of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court decisions in Philippine English”. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2): 455-466. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8354
Ho, Sin Yan Eureke and Peter Crosthwaite. 2018. “Exploring stance in the manifestos of 3 candidates for the Hong Kong Chief Executive election 2017: Combining CDA and corpus-like insights”. Discourse & Society, 29(6): 629-654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518802934
Holmes, Janet. 1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 3: 9-28. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202.
Hu, Pi-Chan and Le Cheng. 2016. “A study of legal translation from the perspective of error analysis”. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(1): 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0007
Hunston, Susan. 1995. “A corpus study of some English verbs of attribution”. Functions of Language, 2(2): 133-58.
Hyland, Ken. 1998. “Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter”. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2): 224–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken and Hang Zou. 2021. “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute these”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50: 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973
Kelemen, Katalin. 2017. Judicial Dissent in European Constitutional Courts: A Comparative and Legal Perspective. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315590769
Kurzon, Dennis. 2006. Law and Language: overview. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. London, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lee, Jieun, 2015. Evaluation of court interpreting A case study of metadiscourse in interpreter-mediated expert witness examinations. Interpreting, 17(2): 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.02lee
Li, Jian and Yuxiu Sun. 2018. Presuppositions as discourse strategies in court examinations. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 3(2): 197–212. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2018-2008.
Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2021. Winds of War: Epistemic and effective control in political discourse. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación, 26: 289-307. https://doi.org/10.6035/clr.
Matlon, Ronald. 1993. Opening statements/closing arguments. San Anselma, CA: Stuart Allen Books.
Matoesian, Gregory. 2005. “Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse”. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9: 167–193. https:// doi.org/10.1017/s0047404599004017
Mazzi, Davide. 2010. “This argument fails for two reasons …”: A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in US supreme court judgments”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 23: 373–385. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0.
Montz, Craig Lee. (2001). “Why lawyers continue to cross the line in closing argument: An examination of federal and state cases”. Ohio Northern Law Review, 28: 67–131
Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg and Janus Mortensen. 2017. Epistemic Stance in Courtroom Interaction. In Pragmatics and Law, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 10, ed. F. Poggi & A. Capone. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44601-1_16.
O’Barr, William M. 1982. Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Pascual, Esther. 2006. “Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar”. Cognitive Linguistics, 17: 245–267.
Peacock, Matthew. 2011. “A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles”. Corpora, 1(1): 61-84.
Rosulek, Felton Laura. 2015. Dueling discourses: The construction of reality in closing arguments . New York: Oxford University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001
Rupp, Heinz. 1966. Zur Frage der Dissenting Opinion. Die moderne Demokratie und ihr Recht. FS fur Gerhard Leibholz. Tubingen. Mohr.
Russell, Adrienne. 2011. “The Arab spring extra-national information flows, social media and the 2011 Egyptian uprising”. International Journal of Communication, 5: 1238–1247.
Shatin, Yuriy and Igor Silantev. 2020. “Russian Judicial Discourse in the Light of the Modern Theory of Argumentation”. Kritika and Semiotika, 2: 401-412. https://doi.org/10.25205/2307-1737-2020-2-401-412.
Skelton, John. 1997. “The representation of truth in academic medical writing”. Applied Linguistics, 18(2): 121-40.
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2021. “I’m thinking and you’re saying: Speaker stance and the progressive of mental verbs in courtroom interaction”. Text & Talk, 41(2): 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0145.
Takimoto, Masahiro. 2015. “A Corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles”. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1): 95–105. https:// doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Toska, Bledar. 2012. “Epistemic hedges and boosters as stance markers in legal argumentative discourse”. Topics in Linguistics, 10: 57–62.
Tracy, Karen. 2011. “What’s in a name? Stance markers in oral argument about marriage laws”. Discourse & Communication, 5: 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x16652191.
Tracy, Karen and Danielle Hodge. 2018. “Judge Discourse Moves that Enact and Endanger Procedural Justice”. Discourse and Society, 29(1): 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517726112.
Vande Kopple, William. 1985. “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication, 36(1): 82-93, 1985.
Vázquez, Ignacio and Diana Giner. 2009. Writing with Conviction: The Use of Boosters in Modelling Persuasion in Academic Discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22: 219-237.
Wald, Patricia. 1995. “The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: judicial writings”. University of Chicago Law Review, 62(4): 1371-1419. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600107.
Yang, Min and Min Wang. 2021. “A science mapping of studies on courtroom discourse with CiteSpace”. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 6(2): 291-322. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2057.
Zhou, Ruiqi and Siming Li. 2023. “A Study on the Persuasive Function of Metadiscourse in Hotel Responses to Negative Reviews on TripAdvisor”. English Language Teaching, 16(6): 55-67. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v16n6p55
Zou, Hang and Ken Hyland. 2019. “Reworking research: Interactions in academic articles and blogs”. Discourse Studies, 21(6): 713-733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619866983.
Aldridge, Michelle and June Luchjenbroers. 2007. “Linguistic manipulations in legal discourse: Framing questions and “smuggling” information”. International Journal of Speech, Language, and Law, 14(1): 83–105. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.85
Beauvais, Paul. 1989. “A speech-act theory of metadiscourse”. Written Communication, 6(1): 11-30.
Boginskaya, Olga. 2021. “A Contrastive Study of Deontic Modality in Parallel Texts”. ELOPE: English Language Overseas Perspectives and Enquiries, 18(2): 31–49. https://doi.org/10.4312/elope.18.2.31-49
Boginskaya, Olga. 2022a. “Competition - game - ritual: Three aspects of communicative interactions in the courtroom”. Tomsk State University Journal of Philology, 76: 5–27. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/76/1
Boginskaya, Olga. 2022b. “Dissenting with conviction: Boosting in challenging the majority opinion”. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 7(2): 257-279. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2073
Boginskaya, Olga. 2022c. “Popularizing in legal discourse: What efforts do Russian judges make to facilitate juror’s comprehension of law-related contents?” Discourse studies, 24(5): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614456221108585
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. “Lexical bundles across four legal genres”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(2): 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre
Cao, Deborah. 2013. “Legal translation studies”. In The Routledge handbook of translation studies, ed. Carmen Millan-Varela & Francesca Bartrina. London and New York: Routledge.
Carranza, Isolda. 2008. “Metapragmatics in a courtroom genre”. Pragmatics, 18(2): 169-188. https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.18.2.01car
Cavalieri, Silvia. 2011. “The role of metadiscourse in counsels’ questions”. In Exploring courtroom discourse: The language of power and control, ed. Anne Wagner and Le Cheng.
Abingdon: Routledge
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2012. “Performing self on the witness stand: Stance and relational work in expert witness testimony”. Discourse & Society, 23: 465–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926512441111
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2014. “Interactive patterns of the opening statement in criminal trials: A historical perspective”. Discourse Studies, 16(3): 347–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445613508900
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2017. “Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements”. Folia Linguistica ,51(1): 103-132. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0003
Cheng, Le and King Kui Sin. 2008. “Terminological equivalence in legal translation: A semiotic approach”. Semiotica, 172: 33–45. https://doi.org /10.1515/SEMI.2008.088
Cheng, Le, Lijin Sha and Yinglong Zheng. 2009. “A semiotic interpretation of legal terms”. Contemporary Rhetoric, 2: 37–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2020-0031
Cohen de Chervonagura, Elena. 2011. “La prostitución judía y su discurso a la luz de un expediente judicial”. Culture, Language and Representation, 9(9): 31-51.
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. “Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial”. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Crismore Avon and Rodney Farnsworth. 1990. “Meta- discourse in popular and professional science discourse”. In The Writing Scholar Studies in Academic Discourse, ed. William Nash. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Crismore Avon, Markkanen Raija and Steffensen Margaret. 1993. “Metadiscourse in persuasive writing: A study of texts written by American and Finnish university students”. Written Communication, 10: 39-71.
Dafouz-Milne, Emma. 2008. “The pragmatic role of textual and interpersonal metadiscourse markers in the construction and attainment of persuasion: a cross-linguistic study of newspaper discourse”. Journal of Pragmatics, 40(1): 95–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2007.10.003
Danet, Brenda. 1980. “Language in the legal process”. Law and Society Review, 15: 445–565.
David, Rene. 1973. Les grand systems de droit contemporains. Paris. Dalloz.
Donadio, Paolo and Mattia Passariello. 2022. “Hedges and boosters in English and Italian medical research articles: A cross-cultural comparison”. International Journal of Language Studies, 16(1): 1-20.
Eades, Diana. 2008. Courtroom talk and neocolonial control. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692559
Finegan, Edward. 2010. “Corpus linguistic approaches to ‘legal language’: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions”. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, ed. Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson. New York: Routledge.
Fu, Xiaoli. 2012. “The use of interactional metadiscourse in job postings”. Discourse Studies, 14(4): 399–417. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612450373.
Fuertes-Olivera, Pedro-A., Marisol Velasco-Sacristan, Ascension Arribas-Bano and Eva Samaniego-Fernandez. 2001. “Persuasion and advertising English: metadiscourse in slogans and headlines”. Journal of Pragmatics, 33: 1291–1307. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(01)80026-6
Gilbert, David. 2005. David Basic Trial Techniques for Prosecutors. Alexandria: APRI.
Goźdź Roszkowski, Stanislaw. 2020. “Communicating Dissent in Judicial Opinions: A Comparative, Genre Based Analysis”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 33(1): 381-401. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-020-09711-y
Gozdz-Roszkowski, Stanislaw and Gianluca Pontrandolfo. 2013. “Evaluative patterns in judicial discourse: A corpus-based phraseological perspective on American and Italian criminal judgments”. International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse, 3: 9–69.
Goltaji, Faranak and Mozhgan Hooshmand. 2021. “A comparative study of interactional metadiscourse markers in EFL textbooks written by native and Iranian authors”. International Journal of Language Studies, 15(2): 23-46.
Gotti, Maurizio. 2014. “Linguistic insights into legislative drafting”. Theory and Practice of Legislation, 2(2): 123-143.
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2016. “Patterns of thanking in the closing section of U.K. service calls: Marking conversational macro-structure vs. interpersonal relations”. Pragmatics and Society, 7: 664–692. https:///doi.org/10.1075/ps.7.4.07mos
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The language of jury trial. Houndmills, UK: Palgrave.
Hernandez, Hjalmar Punla. 2017. “A (forensic) stylistic analysis of adverbials of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court decisions in Philippine English”. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2): 455-466. https://doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v7i2.8354
Ho, Sin Yan Eureke and Peter Crosthwaite. 2018. “Exploring stance in the manifestos of 3 candidates for the Hong Kong Chief Executive election 2017: Combining CDA and corpus-like insights”. Discourse & Society, 29(6): 629-654. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926518802934
Holmes, Janet. 1982. Expressing doubt and certainty in English. RELC Journal, 3: 9-28. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1177/003368828201300202.
Hu, Pi-Chan and Le Cheng. 2016. “A study of legal translation from the perspective of error analysis”. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 1(1): 235–252. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2016-0007
Hunston, Susan. 1995. “A corpus study of some English verbs of attribution”. Functions of Language, 2(2): 133-58.
Hyland, Ken. 1998. “Exploring corporate rhetoric: Metadiscourse in the CEO’s letter”. Journal of Business Communication, 35(2): 224–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/002194369803500203.
Hyland, Ken. 2005. Metadiscourse: Exploring Interaction in Writing. London: Continuum.
Hyland, Ken and Hang Zou. 2021. “I believe the findings are fascinating”: Stance in three-minute these”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 50: 100973. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2021.100973
Kelemen, Katalin. 2017. Judicial Dissent in European Constitutional Courts: A Comparative and Legal Perspective. London and New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315590769
Kurzon, Dennis. 2006. Law and Language: overview. Encyclopedia of language and linguistics. London, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Lee, Jieun, 2015. Evaluation of court interpreting A case study of metadiscourse in interpreter-mediated expert witness examinations. Interpreting, 17(2): 167–194. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.17.2.02lee
Li, Jian and Yuxiu Sun. 2018. Presuppositions as discourse strategies in court examinations. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 3(2): 197–212. https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2018-2008.
Marín-Arrese, Juana I. 2021. Winds of War: Epistemic and effective control in political discourse. Cultura, Lenguaje y Representación, 26: 289-307. https://doi.org/10.6035/clr.
Matlon, Ronald. 1993. Opening statements/closing arguments. San Anselma, CA: Stuart Allen Books.
Matoesian, Gregory. 2005. “Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse”. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9: 167–193. https:// doi.org/10.1017/s0047404599004017
Mazzi, Davide. 2010. “This argument fails for two reasons …”: A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in US supreme court judgments”. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 23: 373–385. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0.
Montz, Craig Lee. (2001). “Why lawyers continue to cross the line in closing argument: An examination of federal and state cases”. Ohio Northern Law Review, 28: 67–131
Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg and Janus Mortensen. 2017. Epistemic Stance in Courtroom Interaction. In Pragmatics and Law, Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology 10, ed. F. Poggi & A. Capone. https:// doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-44601-1_16.
O’Barr, William M. 1982. Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Pascual, Esther. 2006. “Fictive interaction within the sentence: A communicative type of fictivity in grammar”. Cognitive Linguistics, 17: 245–267.
Peacock, Matthew. 2011. “A cross-disciplinary comparison of boosting in research articles”. Corpora, 1(1): 61-84.
Rosulek, Felton Laura. 2015. Dueling discourses: The construction of reality in closing arguments . New York: Oxford University Press. https:// doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199337613.001.0001
Rupp, Heinz. 1966. Zur Frage der Dissenting Opinion. Die moderne Demokratie und ihr Recht. FS fur Gerhard Leibholz. Tubingen. Mohr.
Russell, Adrienne. 2011. “The Arab spring extra-national information flows, social media and the 2011 Egyptian uprising”. International Journal of Communication, 5: 1238–1247.
Shatin, Yuriy and Igor Silantev. 2020. “Russian Judicial Discourse in the Light of the Modern Theory of Argumentation”. Kritika and Semiotika, 2: 401-412. https://doi.org/10.25205/2307-1737-2020-2-401-412.
Skelton, John. 1997. “The representation of truth in academic medical writing”. Applied Linguistics, 18(2): 121-40.
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Szczyrbak, Magdalena. 2021. “I’m thinking and you’re saying: Speaker stance and the progressive of mental verbs in courtroom interaction”. Text & Talk, 41(2): 239–260. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2019-0145.
Takimoto, Masahiro. 2015. “A Corpus-based analysis of hedges and boosters in English academic articles”. Indonesian Journal of Applied Linguistics, 5(1): 95–105. https:// doi.org/10.17509/ijal.v5i1.836
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Toska, Bledar. 2012. “Epistemic hedges and boosters as stance markers in legal argumentative discourse”. Topics in Linguistics, 10: 57–62.
Tracy, Karen. 2011. “What’s in a name? Stance markers in oral argument about marriage laws”. Discourse & Communication, 5: 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x16652191.
Tracy, Karen and Danielle Hodge. 2018. “Judge Discourse Moves that Enact and Endanger Procedural Justice”. Discourse and Society, 29(1): 63–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517726112.
Vande Kopple, William. 1985. “Some exploratory discourse on metadiscourse”. College Composition and Communication, 36(1): 82-93, 1985.
Vázquez, Ignacio and Diana Giner. 2009. Writing with Conviction: The Use of Boosters in Modelling Persuasion in Academic Discourses. Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses, 22: 219-237.
Wald, Patricia. 1995. “The rhetoric of results and the results of rhetoric: judicial writings”. University of Chicago Law Review, 62(4): 1371-1419. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600107.
Yang, Min and Min Wang. 2021. “A science mapping of studies on courtroom discourse with CiteSpace”. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 6(2): 291-322. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2021-2057.
Zhou, Ruiqi and Siming Li. 2023. “A Study on the Persuasive Function of Metadiscourse in Hotel Responses to Negative Reviews on TripAdvisor”. English Language Teaching, 16(6): 55-67. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v16n6p55
Zou, Hang and Ken Hyland. 2019. “Reworking research: Interactions in academic articles and blogs”. Discourse Studies, 21(6): 713-733. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445619866983.