Dualism of Courtroom Discourses

Irkutsk National Research Technical University, 664074 Irkutsk, Russia

^* Corresponding author: koa1504@mail.ru

Abstract

The article describes courtroom discourses as dueling constructs of reality. The purpose of the research is to identify and analyze linguistic and discursive means used to create opposing representations of the same criminal events and the same identities of key trial actors (defendants, victims, jurors and lawyers). The novelty of the article is due to the study of courtroom discourse through the category of dualism. The difference between the prosecution and the defense closing arguments is the types of narratives they focus on. Closing arguments allow lawyers to present their topics, narratives, arguments, and selves to the jury members. They strive to be persuasive, informative, and authoritative. Lawyers are able to achieve all of these things through focusing and de-focusing information. Focusing and de-focusing occur at the linguistic level and through discursive choices. Speakers’ linguistic selections de-focus certain properties of the referent, but they also highlight or focus other properties. The article concludes that lawyers use many strategies in their closing arguments, but they always control what versions of reality are available to the jury members using a large variety of linguistic means. These means help them de-focus on harmful information and focus on topics that benefit their case.