Exploring legal discourse: a sociosemiotic (re)construction

Cheng, Le; Danesi, Marcel

doi:10.1080/10350330.2019.1587841

Cited by 27 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, other studies have discussed the influential role played by language to negotiate topics of justice within the various legal communities, as well as the extent to which language is practiced and mediated by the various legal discourse tools (Berukstiene, 2016;Breda, 2017;Cheng & Danesi, 2019;Williams & Tessuto, 2013). Thus, one can notice the complementary nature held between language and law.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the facts that is analytically and linguistically evidenced is that there is a close connection between language and law. Such a reciprocally significant relationship between language and law has been the focus of many studies (e.g., Mead, 1985;Eades, 2000;Farinde, 2009;Berukstiene, 2016;Breda, 2017;Cheng & Danesi, 2019;Aldosari, 2020;Aldosari andKhafaga, 2020, Riner, 2020;Gupta, 2022, among others). Legal texts are always in a need to be analyzed linguistically; not only this, but in most cases language is the key element in determining the final decision of the court concerning a specific case.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Investigating the Legal Discourse of Bill Clinton’s Impeachment Trial

Aldosari¹

2022

AWEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a legal discourse analysis of Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial held in 1998. The paper’s main objective is to explore the different meanings communicated by the dexterous use of some lexical and pragmatic strategies used by discourse interlocutors involved in the trial. More specifically, the article offers a linguistic study of the testimony and statements of President Bill Clinton relating to his impeachment trial. The paper focuses on three main analytical dimensions: word selection, power relations, and questioning and answering, and the way these strategies influence the discourse participants’ conversational performance in the selected trial. To this end, this study draws on a legal discourse analysis approach as discussed by Coulthard (2013) and Mey (2016), focusing on lexicalization, the notion of power, and the use of questions and answers in courtroom settings. The overarching research question is: What are the different ideological and pragmatic meanings targeted beyond the use of selected words during the trial? Results reveal that language is a powerful tool in courtroom testimonies as it helps to extract information, verify evidence, draw legal outcomes, and encode and/or decode the underpinning meanings of courtroom discourse participants. These, in turn, serve to support or defy evidence and ultimately lead to issue a legally just decision.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Investigating the Legal Discourse of Bill Clinton’s Impeachment Trial

Aldosari¹

2022

AWEJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It can be traced back to wherever there are legal issues. With the help of legal discourse, communicants create and maintain social order, express their interests, defend their rights, and legislate their social positions (Cheng & Danesi, 2019;Kozhemyakin, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Language Features Of The Category Of Persuasion In The English Legal Discourse

Budnyaya¹

2021

Knowledge, Man and Civilization - Proceedings of International Scientific Congress «Knowledge, Man and Civilization» (ISCKMC 20

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Legal discourse is defined by scientists as a kind of institutional type of communication, as a status-oriented interaction of its participants, which dynamically occurs in certain social, cultural and situational contexts, and depends on the system of role prescriptions and standards of conduct in institutional communication settings defined by law (Cheng & Danesi, 2019;Krapivkina, 2016;Palashevskaya, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%