Abstract
Viewing pronouns as central to self/other positioning and meaning making, this study explores pragmatic manipulations of self-reference pronouns in the context of the penalty phase of capital trials. Based on a corpus of ten closing arguments, the findings indicate that first-person pronouns play a crucial role in allowing lawyers to subtly shift between various speaking roles. In this dynamic process, lawyers construct a multiplicity of selves or footing (Goffman, 1981) as they attempt to align the jurors with their positions on the death sentence. In effect, first-person pronouns become a powerful means of mediating capital jurors’ perceptions and experiences in deciding whether the defendant should live or die.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Amsterdam, A., & Hertz, R. (1992). An analysis of closing arguments to a jury. New York Law School Law Review, 37, 55–122.
Bull, P., & Fetzer, A. (2006). Who are we and who are you?: The strategic use of forms of address in political interviews. Text & Talk, 26, 3–37. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.002.
Burt, M. (2008). The importance of storytelling at all stages of a capital case. UMKC Law Review, 77, 877–910.
Conley, R. (2016). Confronting the death penalty: How language influence jurors’ in capital cases. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Costanzo, M., & Peterson, J. (1994). Attorney persuasion in the capital penalty phase: A content analysis of closing arguments. Journal of Social Issues, 50, 125–147. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb02413.x.
De Fina, A. (1995). Pronominal choice, identity and solidarity in political discourse. Text, 15, 379–410. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1995.15.3.379.
De Marco, A., & Palumbo, M. (2016). Identity through discourse: The use of pronouns in the narration of Italian emigrants. In S. Guzzo & D. Britain (Eds.), Languaging diversity, Vol. 2: Variationist approaches and identities (pp. 19–38). Newcastle upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Diani, G. (2004). The discourse functions of I don’t know in English conversation. In K. Aijmer & A. Strenstrom (Eds.), Discourse patterns in spoken and written corpora (pp. 157–171). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Emmot, C. (1997). Narrative comprehension: A discourse perspective. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Fox Tree, J., & Schrock, J. (2002). Basic meanings of ‘you know’ and ‘I mean. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 727–747. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00027-9.
Gardelle, L., & Sorlin, S. (2015). Personal pronouns: An exposition. In L. Gardelle & S. Sorlin (Eds.), The pragmatics of personal pronouns (pp. 1–23) (pp. 1–23). Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In E. Goffman (Ed.), Forms of talk (pp. 124–159). Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Levin, F., Papantonio, M., & Levin, M. (2003). Closing arguments: The last battle. Pensacola, FL: Seville.
Pennycook, A. (1994). The politics of pronouns. ELT Journal, 48, 13–18.
Potter, J. (1996). Representing reality: Discourse, rhetoric, and social construction. London, UK: Sage.
Proctor, K., & Su, L. (2011). The 1st person plural in political discourse—American politicians in interviews and in a debate. Journal of Pragmatics, 43, 3251–3266. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2011.06.010.
Rosulek, L. (2015). Dueling discourses: The construction of reality in closing arguments. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation Vol. 1 (edited by G. Jefferson). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Silverstein, M. (1976). Shifters, linguistic categories, and cultural description. In K. Basson & H. Selby (Eds.), Meaning in anthropology (pp. 11–55). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press.
Tang, R., & John, S. (1999). The ‘I’ in identity: Exploring writer identity in student academic writing through the first person pronoun. English for Specific Purposes, 18, S23–S39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-4906(99)00009-5.
Tsui, A. (1991). The pragmatic functions of I don’t know. Text & Talk, 11, 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1991.11.4.607.
Wales, K. (1996). Personal pronouns in present-day English. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Walter, B. (1988). The jury summation as speech genre: An ethnographic study of what it means to those who use it. Amsterdam, Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Wilson, J. (1990). Politically speaking: The pragmatic analysis of political language. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendix: Data Sources
Appendix: Data Sources
-
Case 1: State of Indiana v. Kevin Charles Isom (2013)
-
Case 2: State of Indiana v. Daniel Ray Wilkes (2007)
-
Case 3: State of Indiana v. Frederick M. Baer (2002)
-
Case 4: State of Indiana v. Roy Lee Ward (2002)
-
Case 5: State of Indiana v. Michael D. Overstreet (2000)
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chaemsaithong, K. (2021). Pragmatics of Self-Reference Pronouns in Capital Trials. In: Macagno, F., Capone, A. (eds) Inquiries in Philosophical Pragmatics. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 28. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56696-8_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56696-8_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-56695-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-56696-8
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)