Study Of American Courtroom Closing Arguments-Appraisal Approach

Martin’s Appraisal Theory is a further development on the study of the interpersonalfunction of language within the framework of Systemic Function Linguistics. The researchfocus of this theory is on the evaluative function at the lexico-semantic level. Within thetheory, the evaluative meanings are categorized systemically into three sub-systems:Attitude, Engagement and Graduation. Among them, Attitude refers to the meaningsemployed by humans to express positive or negative evaluation about human behaviors,things, incidents and status. It can be further divided into affect, judgment and appreciation.These three subdivisions of Attitude belong to the categories of psychology, ethics, andaesthetics respectively. Engagement is involved with the relationship between theproposition presented in discourse and the position held by addresser, while Graduation isthe resource employed by speaker/writer to scale the degree of intensity of attitude orengagement. The explanatory power of appraisal theory has been proven in many areas,including narrative discourse, media discourse, and academic review. Researchers employAppraisal Theory to analyze the distribution pattern of appraisal resources and theirconnoted evaluative meanings in different genres by recognizing and analyzing the attitude,engagement and graduation resources in these genres.In an adversarial judicial system, the closing argument is the last chance for thedefense and the prosecution to persuade the judge or jury. It is one of the phases in the trialto affect the result of the case. Thus it is of great significance in the trial. Unlike otherphases in the trial, attorneys on both sides can deliver complete, free and detailed closingarguments almost without interruption from the opposition. Both sides usually will makethe best use of the opportunity to highlight the important evidence and integrate theinformation presented during the trial to remind the fact-finders of the evidence in theirfavor; they also will clarify the applied law to the facts to convince the fact-finders of theirclaims and to persuade them to make a verdict or sentence in their clients’ favor. In somecontroversial cases or cases with odds of50-50, the quality of the closing argument willgreatly influence the result of the case. Consequently, the closing argument is a phase takenseriously by both sides in a trial. Attorneys on both sides have to present facts objectivelyand explain facts subjectively to influence fact-finders’ opinions. Both in objective presentation and subjective explanation of facts, attorneys have to defend their clients’benefits by expressing their own emotions, attitudes and stances in the closing arguments.Consequently, this kind of discourse must contain rich evaluative meanings.The study on courtroom discourse at home and abroad mainly focuses on theinteractive cross-examination. Only a few scholars have studied closing arguments fromthe perspectives of crafting skill, speaking skills and misconduct. Within the framework ofAppraisal Theory, this study intends to conduct a deep analysis and discussion of the5great defense and5great prosecuting closing arguments in American modern law. Thestudy aims to reveal how attorneys employ evaluative resources to present their viewpointsand stances, to reflect their individual values and the values shared by the socialcommunity, and to establish and maintain alignment with fact-finders to persuadefact-finders to make the verdict in their client’s favor. Taking into the availability of thecorpus into consideration, this study focuses on American courtroom closing argument.Within the framework of Appraisal Theory, this study analyzes courtroom closingarguments from the following aspects:(1) The representing forms and evaluative meanings of attitudinal resources in thethree subsystems of affect, judgment, and appreciation in the attitude system areanalyzed from three angles: emoter, judged objects and appreciated objects. Thedifferences and similarities in forms, meanings and effects of the evaluationsmade by attorneys on both sides about the same appraised objects will also becompared.(2) The engagement resources making the textual voice and interlocutory voicesubjective are analyzed from monoglossia and heteroglossia; with the assistanceof statistical software, the differences in the occurrence and frequency of variousengagement resources are analyzed and the reasons behind these differences areexplored; an analysis is also conducted about how attorneys on both sides presenttheir attitudes toward the truth value of the propositions in the discourse.(3) The graduation resources are analyzed in the discourse; the way the addresseremploys them to express the intensity of evaluative meanings is discussed.(4) The voices of the addresser in the closing argument are analyzed; the way theaddresser negotiate with fact-finders about interpersonal meanings and construct their identities in the context of courtroom by taking differentiate voice roles willbe discussed.The study is of significance in the following aspects:(1) The appraisal study of courtroom closing arguments in English-speaking contextexpands the research area of judicial discourse and argument discourse andenlarges the scope of genre study within Appraisal Theory; the research will be ofsome reference value for the study of Chinese-speaking courtroom arguments.(2) The findings about the differences and similarities in the employment ofevaluative resources in the closing arguments in attorneys of both sides is abeneficial complement to the recent findings of the study on this genre; thefindings can be used for reference by legal practitioners and the teaching andlearning of persuasive discourse.