This study examines the discursive history and interactive aspects of the opening statement in Anglo-American courts. Informed by the concepts of stance and engagement, the study explicates the process of conceptual interaction which turns the jurors into co-constructors of the discourse, thereby making the opening statement fictively dialogic. Drawing upon 51 opening statements as recorded in Proceedings of the Old Bailey, between 1759 and 1789, the qualitative and quantitative analysis reveals that interactive devices are an integral part of the genre, and that pronouns appear to occur most frequently, followed by the lawyers’ use of attitude markers, questions, and reported discourse, respectively. With these devices, the lawyers are likely to be able to prime the jury into viewing the events and participants in a given direction.
The Proceedings of the Old Bailey Online, 1674–1913. Available at: www.oldbaileyonline.org, version 6.0.
2.
ArcherD (2010) The historical courtroom: A diachronic investigation of English courtroom practice. In: CoulthardMJohnsonA (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 185–198.
3.
BeattieJM (1986) Crime and the Courts in England 1660–1800. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
4.
BermanR (2004) Introduction: Developing discourse stance in different text types and languages. Journal of Pragmatics37: 105–124.
5.
BriggsCBaumanR (1992) Genre, intertextuality, and social power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology2(2): 131–172.
6.
BurkeWPoulsonRBrondinoM (1992) Fact or fiction: The effect of the opening statement. Journal of Contemporary Law18(2): 195–210.
7.
CotterillJ (2001) Domestic discourse, rocky relationships: Semantic prosodies in representations of marital violence in the O.J. Simpson trial. Discourse & Society12(3): 291–312.
8.
CotterillJ (2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
9.
DevineDClaytonLDunfordB. (2001) Jury decision making: 45 years of empirical research on deliberating groups. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law7(5): 622–727.
10.
DuszakA (ed.) (2002) Us and Others: Social Identities across Languages, Discourses and Cultures. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
11.
HefferC (2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-aided Analysis of Legal–Lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
12.
HostettlerJ (2006) Fighting for Justice: The History and Origins of Adversary Trial. Hook: Waterside Press.
13.
HylandK (1994) Hedging in academic writing and EAP textbooks. English for Specific Purposes13(3): 239–256.
14.
HylandK (2005) Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies7(2): 173–192.
15.
HylandK (2008) Disciplinary voices: Interactions in research writing. English Text Construction1(1): 5–22.
16.
LandsmanS (1990) The rise of the contentious spirit: Adversary procedure in eighteenth century England. Cornell Law Review50: 498–609.
17.
LangbeinJH (1983) Shaping the eighteenth-century criminal trial: A view from the Ryder sources. Chicago Law Review50(1): 1–136.
18.
LangbeinJH (1999) The procecutorial origins of defence counsel in the eighteenth century: The appearance of solicitors. Cambridge Law Journal58(2): 314–365.
19.
LangbeinJH (2003) The Origins of the Adversary Criminal Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
20.
LilleyLS (1999) Opening arguments: Lasting impressions. In: SchuetzJLilleyLS (eds) The O.J. Simpson Trial: Rhetoric, Media and the Law. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, pp. 36–57.
21.
LindquistW (1982) Advocacy in opening arguments. Litigation8(3): 127–142.
22.
MaY (2008) Exploring the origins of public prosecution. International Criminal Justice Review18(2): 190–211.
23.
MauranenA (2003) ‘But here’s a flawed argument’: Socialisation into and through metadiscourse. In: LeistynaPMeyerC (eds) Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Amsterdam: Rodopi, pp. 19–34.
24.
MayA (2003) The Bar and the Old Bailey 1750–1850. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
25.
O’BarrW (1982) Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
26.
PascualE (2002) Imaginary Trialogues: Conceptual Blending and Fictive Interaction in Criminal Courts. Utrecht: LOT.
27.
SiewierskaA (2004) Person. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
28.
SnedakerK (1991) Storytelling in opening statements: Framing the argumentation of the trial. In: PapkeD (ed.) Narrative and the Legal Discourse. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications, pp. 132–157.
29.
ThompsonGThetelaP (1995) The sound of one hand clapping: The management of interaction in written discourse. Text15: 103–207.
30.
TraugottE (2011) Constructing the audiences of the Old Bailey trials 1674–1834. In: PahtaPJuckerA (eds) Communicating Early English Manuscripts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 69–80.
31.
WhiteP (2003) Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text23(2): 259–284.
32.
ZupnikY (1994) A pragmatic analysis of the use of person deixis in political discourse. Journal of Pragmatics21(4): 339–384.
