A Rhetorical Analysis Of Courtroom Discourse:a Perspective Of Identification

The emergence of new rhetoric movement in the twentieth century promotes the revival of western rhetoric. Meanwhile the development of philosophy, linguistics, psycho logy and other disciplines provides new perspectives and approaches for the study of rhetoric. Progressing in the direction of diversification and transdisciplinarity, modern western rhetoric has become a discipline which "studies all of the ways in which men may influence each other’s thinking and behavior through the strategic use of symbols". The courtroom argumentation is originated from ancient Greek and it has a close connection with rhetoric. With the promotion of new-rising disciplines such as pragmatics and discourse analysis, the study of legal language has aroused much attention, and many scholars at home and abroad are probing into this kind of specific discourse from perspectives of different disciplines. At present the courtroom argumentation is mainly studied from the angles of law, logic and linguistics. With the springing up of new rhetorical theories and approaches, there still remains some space for the rhetorical interaction of courtroom argumentation to be further studied.With the theoretical framework of Kenneth Burke’s identification theory, the present thesis adopts qualitative research methods to analyze the argumentation discourses that derive from American legal dramedy Boston Legal. Through analyzing the courtroom argumentation from identification perspective, this study attempts to figure out the following questions:1. what are the rhetorical motives of courtroom argumentation?2. What are the rhetorical means of achieving identification between lawyer and his audience? How do these means act on audience’s thought and attitude and then induce them to cooperate?3. How to apply identification strategies effectively to win audience’s support and then to ensure the winning of court cases?Several findings can be drawn as folowing:The rhetorical motives of courtroom argumentation are to induce cooperation and to resolve conflicts through identifying shared ideas and attitudes. Rhetorical identification to some extent limits the construction of argumentation discourse in courts of law. The internal logic of discourse, emotional state of audience and rector’s personality charm impose influence on audience’s recognition of argument issues. In the courtroom argumentation, a lawyer resorts to the rational, emotional and ethical appeals to identify himself with the audience and then to win the jury or judge’s recognition, which assists in achieving effective rhetorical interaction. The effect of courtroom argumentation largely depends on if the lawyer effectively applies the strategies of identification to achieve identification with the jury or judge and subsequently to induce them to change attitude or take actions.Through the rhetorical analysis of courtroom argumentation, the present thesis attempts to explore the applicability of Burke’s identification theory in the analysis of argument discourse, hoping to provide the perspective of New Rhetoric to the study of legal language. Meanwhile, it might offer some guidance for the practice of courtroom argumentation. Besides, this analytical model might be of certain referencing value for the study of other genres of interactive discourses and be employed to probe into the rhetorical mechanism of other institutional discourses.