Between solidarity and argument: Interpersonal negotiation in two legal genres.

Abstract

This study presents a comparative examination of interpersonal negotiation in two monologic courtroom genres: the opening statement and closing argument. Drawing upon a corpus of three high-profile American trials, the quantitative and qualitative analysis identifies the traces and degree of the jury’s presence through lexico-grammatical resources, and reveals distinct interactional patterns, which are indicative of the interactive goals of the two speech genres. Such relational practice does not merely “oil the wheels” of courtroom communication, but also constitutes a key way in the meaning-making process of these genres. The findings attest to the centrality of relational work in accomplishing transactional goals in institutional discourses.