ABSTRACT
In a detailed analysis of The People v. Orenthal James Simpson (State of California (USA)), Cotterill (2003: 3) identifies “styles of testimony and their influence on juries” as an important aspect of trial language. In addition, research has focused on power and features of powerful and powerless language (Conley and O’Barr 2005; Fowler 1985; Fairclough 1989; Gibbons 2003; O’Barr 1982). These two aspects of language can have a significant impact on juries’ ongoing perceptions and ultimate decision-making and, as Fairclough (1989: 31) says, “The way in which orders of discourse are structured … [is] determined by relationships of power in particular social institutions.” Power can be found in many aspects of trial language, and studies that have focused on this aspect in the legal discourse analytic literature include treatments of question and answer style (Cotterill 2003); strategies in both direct and cross-examination (Conley and O’Barr 2005); turn-taking protocols (Stygall 1994); interruptions (Heffer 2005); silence (Kurzon 1998b); and jury instructions (Charrow and Charrow 1979; Dumas 2000a). In terms of extended narrative that is not primarily read (like jury instructions), analysis techniques have been primarily applied to lawyers’ opening and closing arguments (Cotterill 2003; Felton Rosulek, this volume; Heffer 2005; Stygall 1994). This chapter adds to the list of trial components and characteristics covered by linguistic analysis, as it investigates a monologic discourse event of a different type: the “leniency plea” or “allocution,” which may occur during the sentencing phase of a trial in the US judicial system. Allocution provides the person who has been found guilty as charged with an
opportunity to speak. In allocutions, the researcher has access to real, naturally occurring, unedited data, which is preferred over formal interviews (Gubrium and Holstein 2009). The linguistic approach to such data involves applications of elements of discourse analysis and oral narrative (Cameron 2001; Eakin 2008; Halliday 1989; Nunan 1993; Sinclair and Coulthard 1992; van Dijk 1997, 1985) as well as speech act theory (Austin 1962; Searle 1969). In addition, allocutions often contain much autobiographical
information, so the literature in this domain is highly relevant (Eakin 2008; Linde 1993; Spence 1997), as is awareness of the role of identity (Eggins 1994; Halliday 1994; Kress 1976). The “social-constructionist” approach to narrative focuses on the ability of the narrator to make sense of his/her experiences and construct “the self” (Wood and Kroger 2000:104). Sabat and Harré (1992: 445) contend that “selfhood is publicly manifested in various discursive practices such as telling autobiographical stories.” The forensic linguistic and legal literature contains many references to the “story-
telling” aspect of the courtroom (Cotterill 2003; Heffer 2005 and this volume; Spence 1995). Spence (1995), a noted American lawyer famous for his unconventional approaches to advocacy, provides advice to attorneys with respect to legal strategy options. Many of these are relevant to the current allocution analysis (and to extra-legal situations as well), although the “voice” is not that of an attorney. Spence lists ten elements that constitute the “great power argument”. One of these is:
Give the argument in the form of a story. [W]e are genetic storytellers and listeners to stories. … So, do not forget what you have learned already: jurors … are conditioned to listen to stories.
