An Intertextuality Approach To Oral Argument In American Appellate Court

The concept of intertextuality is firstly proposed by French semiologist Kristewa based on Saussure's structuralism and Bakhtin's dialogism,which means that text is transformed and absorbed from other texts.Briefly,it is a linguistic device that creates an interrelationship between texts and generates related understanding in separate works.The framework applied in this paper combines Fairclough's classification of intertextuality and Mason&Hatim's typology of intertextuality,which is divided into manifest intertextuality(reference,cliche,quotation and self-quotation,conventionalism,proverb and idiom)and constitute intertextuality(generic intertextuality,thematic/ topical intertextuality,structural intertextuality and functional intertextuality).Intertextuality between texts is the theoretical foundation of this research.This research focuses on the analysis of oral argument under the framework of intertextuality,aiming to find out the intertextual relations between oral argument and other texts and the social power implied in oral argument.The research is required to answer the following questions:(1)How do the lawyer and the justice choose devices of intertextuality to attain argument goal during an oral argument?(2)What are the specific features of intertextuality devices in oral argument?(3)What are the social power relations between the justice and the lawyer in the appellate court?The author analyzed 20 transcripts of oral argument in the appellate court from the official website of the Supreme Court of the United States.Research results showed that it is obviously intertextual in oral argument.Both manifest and constitute intertextuality attain the goal of oral argument-to present the evidence(principle of law or fact)collected by both parties and make it persuasive and push the proceeding of case-hearing.Firstly,question one and two can be answered as follows.The lawyer and the justice show their own tendencies in the choice of intertextuality devices.Among manifest intertextuality,reference,cliche and quotation are regularly used in oral argument.Reference and quotation are applied by the lawyer and the justice respectively to make sure the accuracy and authority of their sources.Conventionalism in oral argument refers to ideas that have no exact sources due to excessive use which is internalized in people's minds.Idiom and proverb seldom appear because language in oral argument is mostly standardized and institutional.As for constitutive intertextuality,it demonstrates intetextual relations with previous argument texts.In generic intertextuality and structural intertextuality,it shows the turn-taking of oral argument and typical syntactic sentences in it.Functional intertextuality focuses on the function fulfillment of presenting evidence and clarifying facts in oral argument.Some other texts in the field of commerce,labor,crime etc are also intertextual with oral argument through thematic intertextuality.Secondly,choices of intertextuality devices by the justice and the lawyer in oral argument reflect the absolute power of the country which is officiated by the justice(on behalf of the Supreme Court of United States)and the lawyer's efforts in seeking for control of the argument orientation.Proceeding of oral argument establishes the authoritative status of law and helps to protect legitimate rights under the social situation.Analysis of intertextuality in oral argument showed interconnection of various texts and interaction between genre and society.This research verified the viability of intertextuality analysis in linguistic study,and enriched studies on forensic linguistics.The author managed to provide suggestions to people who don't major in law when they have difficulties in understanding the proceeding of oral argument.