A Critical Discourse Analysis of Nelson Mandela’s Defense Speech I am Prepared to Die

Aldosari, Bader Nasser

doi:10.24093/awej/vol11no2.1

Cited by 8 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This in turn clarifies the applicability of linguistic analysis to the study of written or spoken legal speech. This is consistent with the claims made by Aldosari (2020), Aldosari, and Khafaga (2020) that among the widely accepted linguistic strategies employed by discourse participants to arrive at their targeted ideologies are lexical choices and the use of questioning and answering in legal trials.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

Alkabiri

2024

WJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper tries to explore the different argumentation strategies in courtroom discourse. The paper aims to decode the various argumentative strategies that are employed to communicate a successful interaction between the interlocutors in courtrooms. This is done by highlighting the linguistic tools targeting the persuasion of the conversationalists in the legal discourse presented in courts. The paper will focus on five strategies of argumentation, including lexical choices, questioning and answering, oppositional arguments, rhetorical questions, and premeditated arguments. The core concern of the investigation of these argumentation strategies is to show the degree to which they are used by courtroom interlocutors to communicate a successful and persuasive argument to their recipients. Data used in this study are derived from two legal trials: Nelson Mandela’s trial and Bill Clinton’s trial. The research questions of this paper are: first, what is meant by argumentation in courtroom discourse? Second, what are the different argumentation strategies used in courtroom discourse? Third, to what extent are argumentation strategies employed to achieve a persuasive argument between interlocutors in courtrooms? There are three main findings in this paper: First, attorneys and litigants use various argumentation strategies to influence their recipients so as to be able to persuade the court of their arguments. Second, the power of persuasiveness is entirely based on the ability to use various strategies of argumentation. Third, language is a crucial element in the understanding of legal arguments in courtrooms.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

Alkabiri

2024

WJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…CDA is motivated by the desire to understand social issues [29]. In addition to that, it is concerned with language, power and ideology, since language communicates ideology and encodes power [30]. "The CDA is based on text, discursive practice and social practice that is the ideological effects and hegemonic processes, in which discourse is a feature" [31].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An intervention strategy to enhance technical vocational education and training entrepreneurship education lecturers’ knowledge of content and teaching

Motsoeneng

Veronica

2022

Eureka: SH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to design an intervention strategy to enhance Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) entrepreneurship education (EE) lecturers’ knowledge of content and teaching. The objective of the study involved unpacking the literature regarding Pedagogical Content Knowledge or knowledge of content and teaching (KCT). The study adopted a critical emancipatory research (CER) paradigm, in which the criteria for quality were determined by advancing an agenda for equity, social justice, freedom, peace, and hope. A participatory action research (PAR) approach was chosen as an appropriate methodology because it provides for collaborative research, in which all participants contribute to the design of the framework. Regarding this study, it thus necessitated teamwork involving the teaching of entrepreneurship, which consisted of the lecturers, a parent representative, a head of department, two students, and a local entrepreneur. The data was generated and collected by means of discussions/formal meetings with team members. The data was analysed using van Djik critical discourse analysis (CDA). The findings reveal that Technical Vocational Education and Training college lecturers possessed poor knowledge of content and teaching. Therefore, there is a need for proactive intervention to improve the teaching of entrepreneurship.

show abstract

“…These studies have come to terms that legal language is characterized by particular linguistic features that are different from ordinary language, and they also accentuate the fact that questions within courtrooms are not only used to instigate answers on the part of the addressees, but they also serve to communicate and confirm further pragmatic meanings. Previous studies have shown that questioning is strategically used by courtrooms" interlocutors to achieve and communicate a variety of purposes, including blaming, complaining, confronting, expressing astonishment and disbelief, and apologizing (Aldosari, 2020). Furthermore, in courtroom discourse, power relations differ, that is, there are different types and levels of power, but all of them revolve around the rhetorical dimension of using the concept within a particular linguistic setting.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Questioning Strategies in Courtrooms

Aldosari

2023

WJEL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to explore the different strategies of questioning in courtroom discourse, by highlighting the various discursive structures employed to form a question between courtroom interlocutors. More specifically, this research looks at the techniques employed in courtroom cross-examination to persuade the judge(s) to accept attorneys' accounts of what happened as well as the effectiveness of responses in fending off the influence and power of barristers. The corpus of this study is taken from 3 testimonies of prosecution witnesses in the trial of Timothy McVeigh concerning the Oklahoma City Bombing in 1997. By employing both quantitative and qualitative methods, the study investigates six questioning patterns, including wh-questions, yes-no questions, tag questions, so-questions, say-questions, and declarative questions. The study reveals that some types of questions used in courtrooms are strategically utilized to persuade juries and judges, confirm a piece of information, clarify an argument, threatening witnesses’ face, manipulate and/or coerce interlocutors within courtrooms. The paper also reveals that questioning is not only used to instigate an answer or a response but also to communicate information and draw conclusions.

show abstract

A Critical Discourse Analysis of Nelson Mandela’s Defense Speech I am Prepared to Die

Cited by 8 publications

References 19 publications

Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

Argumentation Strategies in Courtroom Discourse

An intervention strategy to enhance technical vocational education and training entrepreneurship education lecturers’ knowledge of content and teaching

Questioning Strategies in Courtrooms

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About