A Meta-discourse Analysis Of The Closing Arguments In The American TV Series "Boston Law.

Metadiscourse has attracted much attention by more and more scholars since it was first proposed by Zelling Harris in 1959(Fu,2012).Quite a few scholars emphasize the empirical analysis,including writing,academic discourse and advertising language etc.Yet there are few studies on metadiscourse analysis of closing arguments.As the last step of a trial,closing arguments are unique to the function and influence of the whole case,whose pros and cons will affect the judge’s judgement.Most scholars at home and abroad prefer to studies the pragmatic features of closing arguments.However,there are few studies on the characteristics of closing arguments from the perspective of metadiscourse.This thesis will be based on Hyland’s metadiscourse theory,and he holds that metadiscourse refers to language strategies which are used for organizing the discourse and showing the attitude of the writer.He classifies metadiscourse into interactive metadiscourse and interactional metadiscourse.Each one has five subcategories.This thesis is significant in the way that it will analyze the function and frequency of metadiscourse in the closing arguments,which is worth investigating.The data mainly are from the American classical legal drama Boston Legal.This thesis will choose the defendant lawyers’ closing arguments as the main data.It will summarize different language effects caused by different metadiscoursein the closingarguments.Besides the functions,it will present the specific data to demonstrate the rate of every subcategories and the functions of them.Firstly,this thesis aims to explore how metadiscourse helps lawyers convey intended meaning,establish a relationship with the jury,and win sympathy and trust.Secondly,it provides valuable information for lawyers and helps them improve metadiscourse awareness.Thirdly,it also wants to provide metadiscourse strategies for language users.