From narration to argumentation: Intertextuality in two courtroom genres

Abstract

Underpinned by the assumptions that a text, even a monologic one, is constructed from snatches of prior texts, thereby engaging and articulating a multiplicity of ideological perspectives, and that the incorporated perspectives are pragmatically motivated, this study examines lawyers' intertextual practices in two monologic courtroom genres: the opening statement and closing argument. Based on a high-profile Anglo-American case, the qualitative and quantitative analysis explores the sources, discursive functions and frequencies of reported discourse. The findings indicate that both genres are highly intertextual, but dynamically shift in terms of whose voices lawyers choose to incorporate and what purposes they are used to serve, including narrativization, (re)contextualization, legitimation, and deconstruction. Different patterns of intertextual practices not only create and negotiate two versions of reality but also contribute to the realization of the lawyer's distinct communicative goals in each phase of the trial.