Difference between revisions of "Chaemsaithong2024"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m (AndreiKorbut moved page Chaemsaithong2023 to Chaemsaithong2024 without leaving a redirect) |
(No difference)
| |
Latest revision as of 23:53, 3 September 2024
| Chaemsaithong2024 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Chaemsaithong2024 |
| Author(s) | Krisda Chaemsaithong |
| Title | Membership categorization devices in courtroom opening and closing speeches |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Impression management, Courtroom narrative, Opening, Closing, Membership Categorization Analysis |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2024 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Social Semiotics |
| Volume | 21 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 375-401 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/10350330.2023.2184683 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Through the lens of Membership Categorization Analysis, this study explicates the process of discursive categorization in courtroom opening and closing statements, focusing on the use of mundane categories as well as associated activities to negotiate the legal facticity of a criminal offense. Based on the official transcripts of a high-profile Anglo-American trial, the study reveals that much of what constitutes the opening and closing is the dispute over the categorization of the main characters in legal narratives, which at times provides conflicting information to fact-finders. The two sides are found to deploy explicit and implicit categorizations. However, instead of using oppositional categories, the two sides commonly make use of different membership categorization devices. This alternation of devices supplants and replaces each other, so that two versions of realities are discursively constructed. Such strategic categorization enables lawyers to go beyond offering a road map of the case in the opening and emphasizing key evidence in the closing: everyday categories smuggle in moral evaluation and make an emotional appeal to the jurors, which in principle are legally prohibited.
Notes
