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.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsReferences
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)