A science mapping of studies on courtroom discourse with CiteSpace

Abstract

The courtroom, as the most dramatic setting of legal language, is a rich linguistic domain for research; therefore, a science mapping study of the state of the art of this emerging field is of necessity. By CiteSpace V, the present study provides a comprehensive and up-to-date systematic review of the research on courtroom discourse, as presented by 379 article publications and their 10,538 references in the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection from 1979 to 2021. According to statistics on publications by year, it appears that courtroom discourse research has experienced a period of silence (1979–1992), followed by an emergent period (1993–2005), before entering a period of considerable growth since 2006. Weak cooperative networks, extensive information base, multiple research fronts, and dynamic hotspots of courtroom discourse research have been discovered. Courtroom discourse research focuses on three core topics: courtroom interpreting, the interaction between law, language, power, and ideology, and the investigation of courtroom trial structures. Linguistic communication issues are prominent in courtroom discourse. As far as courtroom subjects are concerned, there is an audience-oriented turn in the latest research front of courtroom discourse. The research hotspots have shifted from language ontology during the emergent period to consolidating and developing the theoretical foundations of courtroom discourse during the rapid development period. According to keyword clustering, stance studies and miscommunication research are significant research hotspots of courtroom discourse.

Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse

“…Courtroom discourse has been explored from a variety of perspectives over the last twenty years. Studies on discursive practices that occur in the courtroom have involved analyses of legal language (Breeze, 2013;Chaemsaithong, 2014;Gotti, 2014;Hansen, 2016;Li & Sun, 2018;Szczyrbak, 2021;Tiersma, 1999;Tracy & Hodge, 2018;Yang & Wang, 2021), legal genres (Boginskaya, 2022a(Boginskaya, , 2022b(Boginskaya, , 2002cCohen de Chervonagura, 2011;Cotterill, 2003;Finegan, 2010;Hernandez, 2017;Gozdz-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo, 2013;Lee, 2015;Mazzi, 2010;Heffer, 2008;Rosulek, 2015;Shatin & Silantev, 2020;Tanford, 2002;Tiersma, 2008), legal translation (Boginskaya, 2021;Cao, 2013;Hu & Cheng, 2016;Sarčević, 1997;Sandrini, 1999), and legal semiotics (Cheng et al, 2009;Cheng & Sin, 2008), etc. Althoguh these studies are valuable, few works (Cavalieri, 2011;Chaemsaithong, 2017;Mortensen & Mortensen, 2017;Toska, 2012) appear to have analyzed metadiscourse resources, even though they play an important role in building relationships with an audience and producing persuasive arguments. The interactional aspect of legal discourse is of particular importance bearing in mind that trials are interpersonal events, in which how it is said is no less important than what is said (Mortensen & Mortensen, 2017), and courtroom discourse is considered to be interactional, unveiling how attorneys intervene in their texts to build solidarity with the jury …”