Manipulative silence and social representation in the closing arguments of a child sexual abuse case

Abstract

In this article, I first propose a methodology for the analysis of closing arguments in criminal trials, an understudied linguistic genre, that can be used to expose how lawyers take the same defendant, victim, and evidence and linguistically create opposing discursive representations of the case. Using the theoretical insights of Van Leeuwen (2002), Halliday (1994), and Huckin (2002), I critically examine how the main social actors are referred to, how the processes or actions those actors took part in are referenced, and what topics are included and silenced by each side to see how lawyers are systematically creating different representations of reality. Using the analysis of the arguments presented in a sexual abuse case, I show that the lawyers in this particular case are constructing different models of the case not by contradicting each other but through their control of what is included in their argument and how the social actors and their actions are depicted.