Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements

Abstract

Drawing upon a corpus of five high-profile contemporary Anglo-American trials, this study explores and elucidates, qualitatively and quantitatively, the process of evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. In particular, the study examines such stance resources as self-mention, hedges, boosters, and attitude markers. The findings reveal that evaluative stance expressions constitute an integral part of the opening statements of both the prosecution and defense lawyers, exhibiting similar frequency patterns. Of these resources, devices that signal commitment or lack thereof (i.e., boosters and hedges) appear to occur frequently and outnumber explicit attitude markers, which occur least frequently. It is through these devices that lawyers are able to subtly bypass the legal constraints that prohibit explicit display of personal opinions and comments on the evidence.