Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Functional Inter-Textuality in the Spoken and Written Genres of Legal Statutes: A Discursive Analysis of Judge’S Summing-Up and Lawyers’ Closing Arguments in Adama High Criminal Court Cover

Functional Inter-Textuality in the Spoken and Written Genres of Legal Statutes: A Discursive Analysis of Judge’S Summing-Up and Lawyers’ Closing Arguments in Adama High Criminal Court

Open Access
|Nov 2014

References

  1. Aderajew, T. & Kedir, M. (2009). Ethiopian Criminal Procedure: Teaching Mate- rial. Addis Ababa: Justice and Legal System Research Institute.
  2. Bhatia, V. K. (2004). Worlds of Written Discourse: A genre-based view. London and New York: Continuum.
  3. Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the OJ Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230006010
  4. Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A. (2007). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London/New York: Routledge.10.4324/9780203969717
  5. Constructing crime stories in court (2010). In M. Coulthard & Johnson, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 199-217). Routledge.
  6. Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Jus- tice System. Oxford: Blackwell.
  7. Hasan, R. (2000). The uses of talk. In S. Sarangi & Coulthard, M. (Eds.), Discourse and Social Life (pp. 30-81). London: Longman.
  8. Heffer, C. (2005). The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal- Lay Discourse. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230502888
  9. Henning, T. (1999). Judicial summation: the trial judge’s version of the facts or the chimera of neutrality. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 12, 171-213.
  10. Johnson, K. (2006). Speaker normalization in speech perception. In D. B. Pisoni & Remez, R.E. (Eds.), The Handbook of Speech Perception. Oxford: Black- well.
  11. Maley, Y., Candlin, C.N., Crichton, J., & Koster, P. (1995). Orientations to lawyer- client interviews. Forensic Linguistics 2, 42-55.
  12. McCullough, G. (1991). Juror decisions as a function of text format of opening statements and closing arguments. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The University of Kansas.
  13. Robertshaw, P. (1998). Summary Justice. London: Cassell.
  14. Rosulek, L. F. (2010). Prosecution and defense closing speeches the creation of con- trastive closing arguments. In M. Coulthard & Johnson, A. (Eds.), Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 218-230). Routledge.10.4324/9780203855607.ch15
  15. Schum, D. (1993). Argument structuring and evidence evaluation. In R. Hastie (Ed.), Inside the juror: The psychology of juror decision making (pp. 175-191). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  16. Spiecker, S. & Worthington, D. (2003). The influence of opening statement/closing argument organizational strategy on juror verdict and damage awards. Law and Human Behavior. 27(4), 437-56.10.1023/A:1024041201605
  17. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  18. Wolchover, D. (1989). Should judges sum up on the facts? Criminal Law Review. 781-792.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/slgr-2014-0029 | Journal eISSN: 2199-6059 | Journal ISSN: 0860-150X
Language: English
Page range: 7 - 25
Published on: Nov 5, 2014
Published by: University of Białystok
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 4 issues per year
Related subjects:

© 2014 Ejarra Batu Balcha, published by University of Białystok
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.