By applying Multi-Dimensional Analysis, this study has provided a thorough description of the lexico-grammatical characteristics of courtroom discourse to see to what extent it employs both linguistic features of oral registers and literate registers. In particular, this study focuses on language used in the four public sub-registers (opening statements, direct examinations, cross-examinations, closing arguments) of courtroom discourse and analyzes how oral/literate each sub-register is, instead of characterizing courtroom discourse as oral/literate overall. Detailed interpretation of results focuses on Dimension 1 (involved and interactive vs. informational production) and 2 (narrative vs. non-narrative discourse) as these two dimensions are identified as universal parameters of register variation (Biber, 2014). A corpus of high-profile courtroom trials was compiled for this study that includes the O. J. Simpson criminal trial, the Boston Marathon bombing trial, and the Oklahoma bombing trial.
AhlenMJ (1995) Opening statements in jury trials: What are the legal limits. North Dakota Law Review71(3): 701.
2.
Berber-SardinhaTKauffmannCAcunzoC (2014) A multi-dimensional analysis of register variation in Brazilian Portuguese. Corpora9(2): 239–271.
3.
BiberD (1985) Investigating macroscopic textual variation through multi-feature/multi-dimensional analyses. Linguistics23: 337-360. (Special issue on Computational Tools for doing Linguistics, ed. by G. Gazdar).
4.
BiberD (1986) Spoken and written textual dimensions in English: Resolving the contradictory findings. Language62: 384–414.
5.
BiberD (1988) Variation across Speech and Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BiberD (2006) University Language: A Corpus-Based Study of Spoken and Written Registers. Amsterdam, PA: John Benjamins.
7.
BiberD (2008) Corpus-based analyses of discourse: Dimensions of variation in conversation. In: BhatiaVKFlowerdewJJonesR (eds.) Advances in Discourse Studies. London: Routledge, pp.100–114.
8.
BiberD (2014) The ubiquitous oral versus literate dimension: A survey of multidimensional studies. In: Connor-LintonJAmorosoLW (eds.) Measured language: Quantitative studies of Acquisition, Assessment, and Variation. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, pp. 1–20.
9.
BiberDConradSReppenR, et al. (2002) Speaking and writing in the university: A multi-dimensional comparison. TESOL Quarterly25(1): 9–48.
10.
BiberDGrayB (2013) Identifying multi-dimensional patterns of variation across registers. In: KrugMSchlüterJ (eds.) Research Methods in Language Variation and Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.402–420.
11.
BiberDJohanssonSLeechG, et al. (1999) Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow, Essex: Pearson.
12.
CaldwellHPerrinLTFrostCL (2002) The art and architecture of closing argument. Tulane Law Review76: 961–1072.
13.
CurryM (2017) Trial Fundamentals: A Concise Handbook on the Basics of Courtroom Evidence, Procedure, and Tactics. Scotts Valley, CA: CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
14.
EgbertJ (2012) Style in nineteenth century fiction: A multi-dimensional analysis. The Scientific Study of Literature2(3): 167–198.
15.
EngstromN (2018) The trouble with trial time limits. GEO. LJ160: 993.
16.
ForchiniP (2017) A multi-dimensional analysis of legal American English: Real-life and cinematic representations compared. International Journal of Language Studies11(3): 133–150.
17.
FriginalE (2008) Linguistic variation in the discourse of outsourced call centers. Discourse Studies10(6): 715–736.
18.
HirschhornR (1991) Opening statements. 42 Mercer University Law Review605.
19.
JohnsonJ (2011) Persuasion in opening statement – generating interest in a convincing manner. Michigan Bar Journal90(1): 42–46.
MelilliK (2006) Succeeding in the opening statement. American Journal of Trial Advocacy29(3): 525–562.
23.
MeyerP (1994) ‘Desperate for love’: Cinematic influences upon a defendant’s closing argument to a jury. Vermont Law Review18(3): 721–750.
24.
MortensenSMortensenJ (2017) Epistemic stance in courtroom interaction. Pragmatics and Law10: 401–437.
25.
Nolo’s Plain-English Law Dictionary, 1st ed. (2009).
26.
ParodiG (2007) Variation across registers in Spanish. In: ParodiG (ed.) Working with Spanish Corpora. London: Continuum, pp.11–53.
27.
QuaglioP (2009) Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
28.
ReppenR (2001) Register variation in student and adult speech and writing. In: ConradSBiberD (eds.) Variation in English: Multi-Dimensional Studies. London: Longman, pp.187–199.
29.
SeckingerJ (1995) Closing argument. American Journal of Trial Advocacy. 19: 51. Reprinted with permission of the American Journal of Trial Advocacy (1995-1996).
SnedakerK (1986) Storytelling in opening statements: Framing the argumentation of the trial. American Journal of Trial Advocacy10: 15. American Journal of Trial Advocacy (1986-1987).
32.
State v. Jones, 355 N.C. 117, 127 (N.C. 2002)
33.
SvongoroPMutangaduraJGonzoL, et al. (2013) Language and the legal process: A linguistic analysis of courtroom discourse involving selected cases of alleged rape in Mutare, Zimbabwe. South African Journal of African Languages32(2): 117–128.
34.
TanfordJA (2009) The Trial Process: Law, Tactics, and Ethics, 4th ed.Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
