Expressar certesa i convicció: l'anàlisi del metadiscurs de les al·legacions finals
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Publicades:
de maig 15, 2024
Paraules clau:
discurs jurídic, al·legacions finals, reforç, persuasió, metadiscurs
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
Resum
Les al·legacions finals ofereixen oportunitats úniques d'anàlisi del metadiscurs. No obstant això, alguns dels seus gèneres estan poc estudiats i requereixen més investigació sobre les seves característiques discursives i metadiscursives. Aquest article explora el paper delsimpulsors emprats en el discurs de defensa. L'article descriu com els advocats utilitzen reforços per produir arguments convincents i controlar la relació de poder amb una audiència. L'estudi es basa en un corpus de 21 arguments finals presos del lloc web Famous-trials.com. El marc teòric és la taxonomia de cobertures de Hyland i Zou (2021), que ofereix un mètode pragmàticament fonamentat per analitzar la col·lisió en el discurs juridic. L' atenció se centra principalment en els tipus i freqüències d' aquests recursos lingüístics. Els resultats contribueixen a la nostracomprensió de l' argument final com un gènere jurídic persuasiu de naturalesa interaccional i a l' ensenyament de l' escriptura jurídica als estudiants de dret. Consuerte, aquest estudi inspirarà els advocats a aprofitar els recursos del metadiscurs en el seu intent d'aconseguir objectius persuasius en els judicis amb jurat.
Descàrregues
Les dades de descàrrega encara no estan disponibles.
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
Com citar
Boginskaya, O. (2024). Expressar certesa i convicció: l’anàlisi del metadiscurs de les al·legacions finals. Cultura, Lenguaje Y Representación, 33, 31–49. https://doi.org/10.6035/clr.7656
Número
Secció
ARTÍCULOS / ARTICLES
S'utilitza una llicència de drets d'autor CREATIVE COMMONS d'accés obert. Aquells autors les obres dels quals siguin publicades per aquesta revista, accepten els termes següents:
- a. Els autors conservaran els seus drets d'autor i garantiran a la revista el dret a publicar primer la seva obra, que estarà simultàniament subjecta a la Llicència de Reconeixement Creative Commons CC BY SA que permet a tercers compartir l'obra sempre que s'indiqui el seu autor i la seva primera publicació.
- b. Els autors podran adoptar altres contractes de llicència no exclusius per a la distribució de la versió publicada de l'obra (per exemple, dipositar-la en un arxiu telemàtic institucional o publicar-la en un volum monogràfic) sempre que s'indiqui la publicació inicial en aquesta revista.
- Els autors poden -i es recomana- difondre la seva obra a través d'Internet (per exemple, en arxius telemàtics institucionals o a la seva pàgina web) abans i durant el procés de presentació, la qual cosa pot produir intercanvis interessants i augmentar les citacions de l'obra publicada.
Referències
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.