Intertextual Practice in Death Trials and Pragmatic Functions

Abstract

Adopting a discourse-pragmatic perspective, this study explores the intertextual practice of speech reporting in the context of capital trials, with an aim to propose a typology of the common pragmatic functions accomplished by incorporated voices. Based on the closing statements of five capital cases, the analysis reveals that, regardless of their orientation, opposing lawyers use external voices to support their stance on a death sentence. Four major functions of speech reporting are identified for this genre: narrating, contextualizing, deconstructing, and legitimizing. The reanimation of these voices not only allows lawyers to create different versions of facts and negotiate polarized perceptions of the person on trial but also contributes to making the closing speech genre highly heteroglossic and dialogic.