Multimodality across

Communicative
Settings, Discourse
Domains and Genres
Edited by

Veronica Bonsignori
and Belinda Crawford Camiciottoli
Multimodality across Communicative Settings,
Discourse Domains and Genres

Edited by Veronica Bonsignori and Belinda Crawford Camiciottoli

This book first published 2016

Cambridge Scholars Publishing

Lady Stephenson Library, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE6 2PA, UK

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

Copyright 2016 by Veronica Bonsignori, Belinda Crawford

Camiciottoli and contributors

All rights for this book reserved. No part of this book may be
reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or
otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.

ISBN (10): 1-4438-1107-6

ISBN (13): 978-1-4438-1107-1
 CHAPTER NINE

A MULTIMODAL ANALYSIS OF DISCOURSE

IN THE SOUTH AFRICAN COURTROOM:
THE OSCAR PISTORIUS CASE

DANIELE FRANCESCHI
UNIVERSITY OF PISA, ITALY

1. Introduction
Legal discourse has primarily been analysed in its written form (cf.
Tiersma 1999, 2001, 2006; Tiersma and Solan 2012) through the
examination of the recurrent features of various text types, e.g., contracts,
wills, codes of law, etc., and often within the context of broader studies on
specialised languages (Gotti 2008; Bhatia, Snchez Hernndez, and Prez-
Parede 2011). Spoken legal discourse, on the other hand, has received far
less attention and it has generally been viewed as a pure reflection of
written legal language. Indeed, spoken legal English may also be wordy,
unclear, pompous, and dull (Mellinkoff 1963; Lindsey 1990).
However, it presents its own idiosyncrasies and it thus needs to be
addressed more in-depth with respect to its various forms and
manifestations. One form of spoken legal discourse is trial language,
whose distinctiveness has only relatively recently been recognised as a
separate legal sub-genre (cf. Levi and Graffam Walker 1990; Stygal 1994;
Heffer 2005, 2008, 2015; Anesa 2012). Studies on this micro-language are
typically based either on U.S. or U.K. cases though, disregarding the
immense diversity of trial systems in other English-speaking countries
around the world. For instance, there appears to be just one main study on
trial discourse in South Africa (Moeketsi 1999), which would seem to
require greater attention due to its various peculiarities. The present paper
therefore intends to fill this gap by providing a first in-depth analysis of
communicative practices in a South African courtroom.
 A Multimodal Analysis of Discourse in the South African Courtroom 213

Studies on trial language so far have typically investigated the lexical-

syntactic features and rhetorical strategies of this specific discourse
domain (Heffer 2012, 2013), without considering that extra-linguistic
factors (e.g., gaze, gestures and body movements) also contribute to
meaning and thus represent important elements in specialised discourse
analysis. As Kress and van Leeuwen suggest (2006), the visual, like other
semiotic modes, has important communicational and representational
functions.1 This paper, therefore, is an initial investigation of trial
discourse from a multi-modal perspective, based on the examination of
verbal and non-verbal strategies used in the courtroom during the Oscar
Pistorius trial, which took place in Pretoria, South Africa in 2014. Since
trial discourse is neither uniform or homogeneous by nature (i.e., not only
does it consist of both monologic and dialogic phases, but each of these
phases is also characterised by its own distinct features) for reasons of
space the focus of attention here is confined to the examination and cross-
examination of the accused, i.e. to the defence and prosecuting lawyers
questioning techniques and speaking styles. In this way, I hope to provide
a finer-grained description of at least one sub-domain instead of a more
comprehensive but inevitably superficial analysis of trial language in
general.
The paper is structured as follows. Section 2 provides a description of
the South African legal system and illustrates the different stages of a
criminal trial; section 3 briefly summarises the recent literature on
courtroom language; section 4 presents the story and case of the
Paralympic athlete Oscar Pistorius, who was eventually convicted for the
murder of his girlfriend, Reeva Steenkamp; section 5 outlines the
methodology used for the analysis of the data; section 6 presents the core
findings of the paper: first it addresses the strictly linguistic features of the
examination and cross-examination of Pistorius by the defence and
prosecuting lawyers, and then examines pictographs and kinetographs to
see how and to what extent non-verbal elements support communication
during this specific stage of the trial. Finally, section 7 summarises the
results of the study.

1
The objects and elements appearing in visual images, i.e., the participants, are of
two distinct types. Interactive participants are directly involved in the act of
communication and are the ones who speak and listen or write and read, make
images or view them; represented participants, on the other hand, are those
who constitute the subject matter of the communication; that is the places, people
and things (including abstract things) represented in and by the speech or writing
or image, the participants about whom or which we are speaking or writing or
reproducing images (Kress and van Leeuwen 2006: 48).
214 Chapter Nine

2. The South African Legal System

The South African legal system (cf. Zimmermann and Visser 1996; Du
Bois 2007) is known for being very hybrid, reflecting the countrys history
of successive colonial governance. Still today it is strongly influenced by
Roman-Dutch law, especially in the fields of family and property law.
Although in the Netherlands Roman-Dutch law was replaced by the
Napoleonic Code at the beginning of the 19th century, it still survives in
South Africa, where superior courts often cite the works of preeminent
Dutch jurists in their judgements, such as Grotius, Van Leeuwen, and
Voet. The influence of Roman-Dutch law is mostly evident in substantive
private matters.
When South Africa passed under the sovereignty of Great Britain
between the end of the 18th and the beginning of the 19th century, various
aspects of South African law had to be integrated with the concepts of
English law. In particular, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches
of the state relied on English precedents and English became the official
language of the courts and of all legal procedures. This mixed legal
system, however, often created tension, because certain Roman-Dutch
institutions, which remained the foundations of South African law, did not
necessarily have counterparts in the English law.
During both periods of Dutch and English governance, certain minor
matters, e.g., concerning marriage and succession, continued to be dealt
with under indigenous law, known as African customary law, provided
that it did not conflict with the rules of the colonial state. African
customary law is preserved today, especially in some rural parts of the
country, but it must conform to the current South African Constitution,
which often bans previously accepted practices and traditions. South
Africa has had a supreme Constitution and a Bill of Rights since the end of
the apartheid regime in 1997.
As far as South African criminal trials are concerned (cf. Kemp et al.
2012), the courts that adjudicate them may be: 1) district magistrates
courts for minor criminal offences (other than treason, murder and rape)
and imposing lighter punishments; 2) regional magistrates courts for all
crimes, except treason, leading to more severe sentences and fines; and 3)
high courts, which have jurisdiction over all offences and impose
sentences up to and including life imprisonment. The latter courts can also
hear appeals, which may then have to be heard by the supreme court of
appeals and by the constitutional court for the final decision. All criminal
trials consist of five distinct structural phases (see Table 9-1 below). From
the discursive perspective, the beginning and end are monologic, while the
 A Multimodal Analysis of Discourse in the South African Courtroom 215

middle stage or body of the trial is necessarily dialogic. Phase one

(arraignment) is the moment when the defendant is called upon for the
crime he/she has been accused of committing and is required to plead
either guilty or not guilty to the charge. Phase two (opening of the case)
begins only if the defendant pleads not guilty to the charge made against
him/her. At this stage the prosecutor presents the charge and introduces the
evidence for the benefit of the magistrate, who, as a neutral participant
isat least theoreticallynot aware of the contents of the prosecutors
docket or of the defence file. Phase three (examination) represents the
core of the trial, during which the litigants, (i.e., the state prosecutor and
the defence lawyer) question the defendant and the witnesses to put their
evidence before the court. Like phase two and three, phase four (closing
argument) is also monologic in that the prosecutor and the defence, after
adducing the evidence, address and try to convince the court of the
plausibility of their versions. Finally, in phase five (verdict), the
magistrate/judge, after hearing the evidence and considering all the issues
raised in phases one to four,2 renders a verdict and imposes a sentence as
prescribed by the law.

Phase 1 Arraignment
Phase 2 Case for the prosecution
Opening of the states case
Phase 3 Examination
Examination-in-chief/direct examination
Cross-examination
Re-examination
Phase 4 Closing addresses, by prosecution and defence
Phase 5 Summation, verdict and sentencing by the magistrate

Table 9-1. The five phases of a criminal trial

3. Courtroom Language
The two main features of courtroom language are its hybrid nature and
intrinsically narrative structure (Heffer 2015). The reasons for its hybridity
reside in the asymmetric relations among the participants involved in the
trial, which are reflected in the choices made primarily at the lexical and
rhetorical level. The latter are to a large extent dictated by the highly
institutionalised, standardised, and complex context of the trial itself, but

2
Unlike in the U.S.A. and U.K., criminal trials in South Africa are not decided by
jury, since the jury system was abolished in 1969.
216 Chapter Nine

they also need to be viewed as an expression of power on the part of the

legal professionals operating in the courtroom.
Judges and lawyers generally adopt a formal style and use legal jargon,
which may be perceived as opaque or even unintelligible to the witnesses,
and the defendant. While prosecutors are more likely to resort to
ambiguous as well as violent language, defence lawyers are instead
generally clearer and more intelligible. Stygal (1994) takes this point much
further: in her analysis of the language used by trial lawyers working on a
tort law case in the United States, she argues that unintelligibility is the
product of an intentional discursive practice aimed at changing the final
verdict. Stygal views the ambiguous, incoherent, and alienating performance
of the plaintiffs counsel as eventually causing the defence lawyer to
ultimately lose the case. Although bad lawyering may certainly affect the
course of a trial, Stygals conclusion is hardly generalizable because it is
based on just one case and is therefore idiosyncratic (Ainsworth 1995).
Heffer (2005) confirms that judges have a tendency to rely on legalese,
but his analysis of over 100 criminal jury trials in the United Kingdom
also shows an extraordinary ordinariness of the language used in the
courtroom, especially at the word and sentence level. Lawyers appear to
prefer legal terminology only in opening and closing speeches when
explaining the charges, but otherwise they want to be as clear and simple
as possible in order to be readily understood. Complex legal language
remains prevalently in judges instructions to juries, while lawyers address
juries in a more ordinary and plain way. Heffer (2012, 2013) examines
various components of trial language, i.e., not just the judges and lawyers
rhetorical strategies, but also how witnesses present testimony, for
instance. As for the examination and cross-examination phase, Heffer
observes that in direct examination lawyers usually follow tightly
controlled steps aimed at putting together a chronological summary of the
facts and ask open or gently guiding questions. By contrast, cross-
examining lawyers need to test the evidence and thus adopt a series of
rhetorical devises aimed at intimidating and discrediting the witness before
the jury and the judge. This is typically achieved through repeated or
reformulated questions, the use of presuppositions, strategic silence, etc. In
addition, cross-examiners tend to make a lot of declarative statements
(e.g., You lied), often reinforced by question tags (e.g., You lied, didnt
you?) (Biscetti 2006).
Matoesian (2001) has also shown that the language of the cross-
examination phase can be particularly aggressive, taking the form of
coercive questioning and sometimes leading to a repeated victimisation
of the defendant. Such speaking style is without doubt an expression of
 A Multimodal Analysis of Discourse in the South African Courtroom 217

power on the part of the prosecutor, who peremptorily tries to demonstrate

that the defendant is guilty of the charges brought against him/her. When
defence lawyers question the accused and the witnesses instead, they tend
to adopt a mixed speaking mode, characterised on the one hand by the
typical features of forensic discourse, e.g., the use of formulaic clichs and
legal terms, and, on the other hand, by a more general conversational style.
The hybridity of courtroom language is largely due to the presence and
interdependence of written and spoken modes. During the questioning of
the witnesses and the defendant, for instance, lawyers typically rely on a
series of prepared questions, which they then need to adapt to the
requirements of the communicative exchanges they engage in. Therefore,
there is a combination of relatively planned and unplanned elements,
producing a formal and technical register in certain circumstances and a
more ordinary one in others, with several instances of oversimplification
as well. Despite the highly formalised context of jury trials, lawyers
inevitably add an individual and personal flavour to it. Cotterill (2003:
10) argues that there is an overwhelming supremacy of the oral over the
written in court, because the dexterity of the lawyer becomes a
significant factor in the presentation of credible testimony.
The rhetorical mode par excellence in trial discourse is that of
narration (Cotterill 2003; Anesa 2012; Heffer 2005, 2012, 2013), even if it
does not necessarily follow a linear or precise structure. The reconstruction
of past events, which is the result of a complex phenomenon of co-
authorship, always entails some form of emplotment, be it narration
proper or a more general narrative practice, involving story negotiation
(i.e., making sure that some key elements of the case discussed are
admitted into court and taken into due consideration) and the maintenance
of character identity. The whole trial has an intrinsic, albeit rudimentary,
narrative pattern, and may thus be seen as a macro-narrative, consisting of
a series of micro-narratives provided by the different interactants involved
in the communicative event. As Heffer (2015) puts it, trial lawyers
present their master narrative of the case during their opening statement
and then navigate that narrative through the trial (2015: 7). During the
examination and cross-examination phase, for instance, the questions they
pose and the answers they receive make it possible for different types of
narratives to emerge. According to Heffer (2015: 2-6), defence lawyers
tend to prompt evidential narration, whereas prosecutors are associated
with antagonist narration, marked by a higher degree of unidirectionality.
Although it is evident that in the context of a trial verbal
communication is always intertwined with non-verbal aspects (Anesa
2012: 111), and that narration is produced through various means and
218 Chapter Nine

strategies, past studies have entirely disregarded how narrators within the
courtroom intertwine a multiplicity of modalities. Therefore, this aspect
will be brought more into the fore in the following sections. In addition, an
initial account of the language used in a South African criminal court will
be provided in that it presents different peculiarities compared to the ones
discussed in the literature so far, which has been almost exclusively
concerned with communicative practices and interactions within American
and/or British courtrooms. Moeketsi (1999) deals with the structure of
South African courtroom discourse, distinguishing it from that of everyday
conversation, but she discusses primarily the role relations between the
interlocutors and does not provide a strictly linguistic analysis of the
various sub-phases of the trial.

4. The Oscar Pistorius Trial

The trial of Oscar Pistorius lasted for over two years and resulted in two
distinct convictions, the final one of which was released in July 2016. The
presiding judge in the trial was Thokozile Matilda Masipa from the
Gauteng Division of the High Court of South Africa. The prosecution was
conducted by Gerrie Nel, while the lead defence lawyer in the case was
Barry Roux.

4.1. The case3

Oscar Pistorius was born without calf bones and at the age of 11 his
parents decided that he should have both legs amputated below the knees,
so that he could be fitted with prosthetic ones. This made it possible for
him to play sports while growing up, including rugby, water polo, tennis,
and wrestling. He started running in 2003, and in 2004, at the age of 18, he
smashed the 200-metre world record at the Athens Paralympics. He then
won other titles in the Beijing Paralympic Games and later decided to
launch a battle to take part in able-bodied athletics, overcoming arguments
that his prosthetic legs gave him an unfair advantage. He made history
both in 2011 and 2012 as the first double-amputee who competed at both
the Paralympics and Olympics.

3
All the necessary background information concerning this case was obtained
from international newspapers and magazines, easily accessible online at
http://www.ipl.org/div/news/. There is also an interesting blog entirely dedicated to
famous trials, including the one involving Oscar Pistorius: https://juror13lw.com.
 A Multimodal Analysis of Discourse in the South African Courtroom 219

His image and reputation as a sports star suddenly changed on the 14th
February 2013, when he shot and killed his girlfriend Reeva Steenkamp at
his home in Pretoria. He admitted killing her, but said that his act had not
been intentional because he had mistaken her for an intruder. He thought
that she was in bed with him when he heard noises in the bathroom, which
made him fire shots through the bathroom door. The trial started in March
2014 and in September of the same year he was convicted of
manslaughter. The following year prosecutors appealed this conviction
and the verdict was overturned. Pistorius was then released on bail and
lived at his uncles home for some time. He was finally convicted on
appeal of murder in December 2015. Although the statutory minimum
punishment for murder in South Africa is fifteen years in prison, the
sentence was reduced to six years on account of his disability, mental
condition, and of the fact that he had already served one year of the
original five-year prison sentence for manslaughter.
The prosecution has recently announced they will appeal the six-year
prison term, claiming that it is too lenient, especially in view of the
likelihood that Pistorius will be released on parole after serving only three
years. The case is therefore not yet closed.

5. Data and Methodology

The linguistic data used for the analysis consist of the transcription of the
defence lawyer and prosecutors questioning sessions during the first trial
of Oscar Pistorius that led to his conviction of manslaughter. The data,
which consist of approximately 170,000 words, were integrated with video
clips taken during the examination and cross-examination.4 In order to
examine both verbal and non-verbal elements in parallel, images extracted
from the video clips were included in most of the transcription of the data,
following the technique proposed by Baldry (2000), Thibault (2000), and
Baldry and Thibault (2006), which brings together verbal text and visual
data with a description of the function of non-verbal signs. Due to the size
of the data set, it was not possible to add paralinguistic and extra-linguistic
information to the entire transcription. This is because such manual
annotation is an extremely labour-intensive and time-consuming task that
is feasible only with relatively small amounts of data. However, the

4
The transcription of the athletes examination and cross-examination is publicly
available online at https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/pmb-portals/behind-the-
door/downloads/transcripts/Oscar+Pistorius.pdf. The corresponding video clips,
instead, can be easily found on YouTube.
220 Chapter Nine

exchanges between the lawyers and Oscar Pistorius were studied in minute
detail in order to identify their crucial features, also with respect to non-
verbal elements. Some of the most representative moments for the
purposes of the present study are provided in the Tables in section 6
below.

6. Questioning the Defendant

There is a marked difference from several points of view between the
questioning style of the defence lawyer, Mr Roux, and that of the
prosecutor, Mr Nel. Such difference is observable both at the level of
linguistic and rhetorical choices, as well as in the use of non-verbal
elements.
There is one feature, instead, which both the examination and cross-
examination phase have in common. When Mr Roux and Mr Nel question
Oscar Pistorius, there is constantly a process of triangulation (example 1),
whereby the questions are posed directly to the defendant, who then
replies to the judge (and only very rarely to the lawyers), with an
extremely deferential form of address:

(1) MR ROUX: Mr Pistorius, when I explained to you that your evidence

would be presented by dealing with your background and
moving on, you mentioned that there is something that you
want to do first?
PISTORIUS: Yes.
MR ROUX: What is that Mr Pistorius?
PISTORIUS: My Lady, if I may please just start off with my evidence
by tendering an apology.

The expression My Lady is extremely abundant, and it is used not just

by Pistorius himself (example 2), but also by the two lawyers (examples 3-
4) to address Judge Masipa. Pistorius only rarely uses the form My Lord to
reply to the lawyers directly:

(2) MR NEL: And you then said words to the effect It is a lot softer than
brain. Am I right?
PISTORIUS: That is correct, My Lady.
MR NEL: Referring to?
PISTORIUS: Referring to the watermelon.
MR NEL: But It is like a zombie stopper. Referring to?
PISTORIUS: I guess referring to a firearm that would be used to stop the
zombie, My Lord.
 A Multimodal Analysis of Discourse in the South African Courtroom 221

(3) MR ROUX: Thank you for your indulgence, MLady. I have no further
questions.

(4) MR NEL: As the court pleases, My Lady.

These forms of address have their roots in the English institution of the
aristocratic peers of the realm i.e., those members of the peerage in Great
Britain who have the right to sit in the House of Lords. Such expressions
are some of the remaining signs of the colonial era. Although they come
across as amusingly old-fashioned, they are still very much in use in South
African courts today.5

6.1. The examination phase

Mr Roux, the defence lawyer, generally uses a highly formal register with
a two-fold aim. On the one hand, he intends to show the utmost respect for
the judge by accepting her authoritativeness and his inferior position in the
decision making process (example 5). His use of hedged, long-winded
language, on the other hand, appears as a sign of protection for the
defendant, who is always addressed in a very kind manner that shows
sympathy (example 6):

(5) MR ROUX: Thank you for your indulgence, My Lady. I have no

further questions.

(6) MR ROUX: Mr Pistorius, I know you want to face Ms Steenkamp when

you apologise, but there is one difficulty and that is that the
court must hear you, must be in a position to hear you, and
the only way we can do it, is if you talk in the direction of
Her Ladyship.

Thank you for your indulgence, My Lady in example 5 comes across as

almost obsequious and the term indulgence as serious, and perhaps
unclear to the uneducated layperson. As is often the case with Latinate
words and phrases, it adds formality and opacity to the sentence, which
could be more simply rephrased here as Thank you for your
patience/understanding/kindness. As for example 6 instead, this is an
example of a request turned into a rather tangled sentence as a way of
avoiding the use of a straightforward question or assertion. The sentence
could certainly be much shorter and less repetitive though, e.g., Mr

5
The judges of the Labour Court formally insisted in their 2013 practice manual
upon being addressed as My Lord and My Lady.
222 Chapter Nine

Pistorius, please talk in the direction of Her Ladyship because the court
cannot hear you, without sounding too assertive.
There is a constant attempt on the part of Mr Roux to reduce the
relational distance between the court and Pistorius. This is reflected in the
use of questions, which are never asked too directly (examples 7-8) and
are preferably substituted by cautious statements, as we have seen in
example 6 above, or by assertions of fact in search of support, typically via
question tags or formulas, like the one in example 9, which are often
employed by lawyers in the courtroom (cf. Biscetti 2006):

(7) MR ROUX: Mr Pistorius, if I may ask youif you would mind [going]
to the door Would you now take your prostheses off?

(8) MR ROUX: Mr Pistorius, can you speak up a little bit if possible,

please?

(9) MR ROUX: You sent a Whatsapp to Reeva, is that right?

The conditional clauses in example 7 are hedges (Lakoff 1972; Frazer

2010), mitigating the impact of the request that the lawyer is making. There
is a sort of climax in the language that Mr Roux employs. He typically starts
off with indirect, tentative requests (If I may ask you; If you would
mind), culminating in explicitly formulated and firmer questions (Would
you now take your prostheses off?). Other hedging elements may be
observed in example 8, where a little bit and if possible again work as
markers of politeness (Brown and Levinson 1987; Miskovic-Lukovic 2009),
softening and downplaying the lawyers request. Mr Roux sometimes also
anticipates the defendants answers (example 9) and simply asks him to
confirm the truth of a certain statement ([], is that right?). This happens
when the lawyer is going over and summarising the case facts.
When questions alternate with monologic passages addressing the
judge, especially in response to a particular aspect brought up by the
prosecuting lawyer, Mr Rouxs speaking style becomes excessively
verbose and opaque (example 10). This is reflected in the choice of lexical
items, which are often repeated, as well as in the length, structure, and
complexity of the sentence:

(10) MR ROUX: It is also on the understanding that we understand the

indirect and derivative effect of this but that we would
make the submission that this should not be seen as any
further opportunity for the state to introduce in cross-
examination evidence which should have and could have
formed part of the states case.
 A Multimodal Analysis of Discourse in the South African Courtroom 223

This long and complicated utterance, for instance, contains several

elements of redundancy and many subordinated clauses that complexify
both its structure and meaning. The first part (It is also on the
understanding that []) could simply have been omitted and a pause
made after the demonstrative pronoun this, i.e., we understand the indirect
and derivative effect of this. Then, a new sentence beginning with an
adversative conjunction, e.g. however, could have been added. It looks as
if Mr Rouxs heavy and intricate style had the function of concealing his
emotional reaction to a problematic moment in the examination phase,
thus giving him the chance of lengthening the time he needs to come up
with an appropriate response, while his interlocutors are at the same time
trying to make sense of what he is saying.
Non-verbal communication, however, seems to attenuate the level of
complexity of Mr Rouxs language, which is often hard to understand even
for the judge herself. For example, after the following exchange with
Judge Masipa (example 11), Mr Roux decides to reformulate his ideas
more clearly and to support his speech with several hand gestures, in order
to clarify and add incisiveness to his line of argumentation (Table 9-2):

(11) MR ROUX: I think with respect, My Lady, the difficulty in the question
is There are other things. If he puts to him a certain
aspect and say Is that reconstruction or is that what you
remember? then I can understand. But once the witness is
confronted with other things, then he must expect a long
answer, because you try to cover what other things may
include and not include. So I think if the question is put
differently, to say This is what I say to you. Can you tell
me, is it reconstructed or real?, then we will not have what
we have seen here.
MR NEL: Without disrespect, My Lady
JUDGE: I am just One minute, one minute. Mr Roux, I am not
quite sure that I understand the objection.
224 Chapter Nine

Image frrame Verba

al text Non-verbal
behaviour and
a
interpretation

1 My Laady, the Raising rightt hand

questioon put to Mr and moving it to the
Pistoriius was forces
right (=reinfo
Theree are other the concept of
o
thingss. What was other thingss).
reconsstructed, what
not? We do not
know what the
otherr things is.

2 If it is put
p Moving righ ht hand
pertineently, What forwards and d
do you u say about downwards
A?, Was
A (=stresses th
he
reconsstructed or is concept of assking a
it yourr independent question properly).
memorry?, then he
can an nswer.

3 But thee moment you Raising both h hands

ask a question
q and bringing g them
together withh
fingertips touuching,
as if shieldin
ng
something (= =refers
to the contennts of
the question)).
 A Mulltimodal Analyssis of Discoursee in the South A
African Courtro
oom 225

4 abou ut other Opening both hands

thingss (=marks the
difference from the
idea of a pertinent,
well-formulaated
question to a vague
one), mouth slightly
open (=suggests
surprise and
disapproval).

5 then n the witness Keeping both h hands

will an
nswer as wide and opeen
widelyy as possible. (=reproducess the
concept of wwide),
slightly frow
wning,
(=worried gaaze).

6
Table 9-2. M
Mr Rouxs reeformulated objection
o

Mr Rouxxs body langguage is both iconic and m metaphoric. Itt conveys

meaning thrrough a sort of o pictorial resemblance to the conten nts of the
words assocciated to his geestures. In imaage 1, for insttance, the movvement of
his right han
and to one sidde mirrors thee concept of other, whilee keeping
both hands open and awaay one from the t other in im mage 5 reprod duces the
notion of wwidth. In imaage 2, instead, the movemeent of the han nd, which
points to thee physical heere and now provided
p by tthe context off the trial,
metaphoricaally indicates what is releevant and perrtaining to th he matter
under discusssion. Similarrly, images 3 and 4 presennt instances off gestures
figuratively reproducing and
a expanding g on the conceepts expressed d through
words. Mr Roux seems to be holding g or protectinng something with his
hands in im mage 3, by extension
e suggesting that he is referrin ng to the

6
In Tables 99-2 and 9-3, thee words, phrases, or sentencees in bold are those
t with
which the gesstures are synchhronised.
226 Chapter Nine

contents of the questionn; keeping haands wide apaart with palm ms facing
upwards in iimage 4, insteead, indicates surrendering tto the vagueness of Mr
Nels questiion. After Mr Rouxs reform mulated versioon of example 11 with
supporting hhand gesturess, the judge iss able to folloow his line of thought
and the lawyyer resumes his examination n.
Some mmore exampless of Mr Rouxs body languuage working as meta-
discourse caan be observedd in Table 9-3.

Imagee frame Verba

al text Non-verbal
behaviour and
a
interpretation

6 Youree a little boy Aggressive look

l
withouut legs. You with protrud ding chin
experience daily and slightly open
that diisability. mouth showiing
lower teeth
(=expresses anger
and rage), loooking
straight at th
he judge
and furrowin ng
eyebrows tog gether
(=tries to connvince
her), pointing index
finger and jaabbing it
(=delivers an n
important po oint).

7 You kn
now I cannot Moving righ ht hand
run aw
way. vertically
(=supports concept
of not beingg able
to) and thenn
slightly to th
he right
(=reproducess idea
of movemen nt).
 A Mulltimodal Analyssis of Discoursee in the South A
African Courtro
oom 227

8 Why would
w he want Moving righ ht hand
help foor her if he forwards and d then
just triied to kill her? downwards
Why would
w he want (=supports thhe
her to be safe []? concept of
wanting), slightly
s
bending forw wards
(=stresses th
he idea
of going ahead with
a decision).

9 This man
m must be Index finger
locked
d up. You he left
pointing to th
know what
w he did to (=indicates
me. someone in the
t
courtroom).

10 He waas desperate to Right hand reaching

r
save her. to the head
(=indicates a mental
state).

Table 9-3. O
Other segmen
nts of Mr Rou
uxs examinaation

In imagee 6, both the laawyers gaze and his pointiing finger rein nforce his
aggressive ttone and servve the purposse of foregroounding one particular
p
aspect in his speech, i.e.,, the sheer an
nd brutal fact that Oscar Piistorius is
physically ddisabled and thhat this condittion had a bigg impact on his life as a
young boy. The movemennt of the hand d in image 7 ffiguratively reeproduces
the idea of running, whhile the action n of bending forwards in image 8
228 Chapter Nine

suggests going ahead, i.e., making a decision. Image 9 is a clear example

of indexical behaviour accompanying an indexical utterance beginning
with a demonstrative, i.e., this. In image 10, bringing the hand towards the
head emphasises the concept that desperation resides first of all in the
mind.
During the examination by Mr Roux, body language appears as an
important component that runs parallel to and better illustrates certain
verbal elements by replicating their semantic content and emphasising the
salient points. Increased clarity eventually guarantees the smooth flow of
conversation in the courtroom.

6.2. The cross-examination phase

Mr Nels cross-examination style is varied, alternating contrasting
modalities in the use of both single lexical items and rhetorical strategies.
First of all, there is a great abundance of Latin words (example 12) and
phrases (example 13), as well as technical terms, especially from police
jargon. These lexical items are often followed by an explanation of their
meaning (example 14) and are typically interposed in rather colloquial and
informal exchanges:

(12) MR NEL: But nothing that is in it that one can read in your affidavit
for the bail application is untrue?

(13) MR NEL: Mr Pistorius, let us just put on record what we have seen in
the video. You are on a shooting range with, inter alia, Mr
Derick Housgaardt. Is that correct?

(14) MR NEL: Tampering is if you change something on the scene with

the intention to let it look different.

Therefore, they increase the register level of Mr Nels examination,

which is otherwise rather chatty in tone and rich in colloquial expressions
(examples 15-16):

(15) MR NEL: You see, I know that you would brush it off, but it came
from you. You said you remembered it, you said you
thought it was a Saturday. You had to go train on a
Saturday. I know you would brush it off. But it is not that
easy.
(16) MR NEL: Are you done?
 A Multimodal Analysis of Discourse in the South African Courtroom 229

The prosecuting lawyers main aim is that of being as direct and easily
understood as possible in order to present clear evidence proving that
Pistorius is guilty of the murder of his girlfriend. His style is characterised
by aggressive questions (example 17) and many straightforward assertions
(example 18), challenging the defendant with force (example 19):

(17) MR NEL: Why do you not just admit that you shot at the watermelon
to see [what] the effect would be if you hit someone in the
head, in the brains?

(18) MR NEL: I have already indicated that you are not telling the truth.

(19) MR NEL: I do not understand why you plead not guilty.

For the purpose of being clear, Mr Nel has a tendency to switch to the
historic present to guide Pistorius through his narrative (example 20),
which is instead presented using the more natural simple past:

(20) MR NEL: You sitting on the passenger side, where is your gun?
PISTORIUS: It was on my hip in the holster, MLady.
MR NEL: And the metro cops then stop you.
PISTORIUS: They stopped us on two occasions.

While the defence lawyer, Mr Roux, strives to establish rapport with

Pistorius during the examination phase, Mr Nels questioning mode
always creates and maintains distance with him. The prosecutor even
avoids calling Pistorius by name and uses impersonal forms of address
(example 21), which apart from having a distancing effect also appear to
add sarcasm (example 22):

(21) MR NEL: Do you have page 64, Sir?

(22) MR NEL: It is the same thing as the watermelon! You had it now in
practice, Mister.

Irony (example 23), sarcasm (example 24) and insinuations (example

25) are scattered throughout Mr Nels cross-examination. There are many
instances of statements meaning the exact opposite of what the lawyer is in
fact saying (irony), or of bitter remarks intended to discredit Pistorius
without necessarily being ironic (sarcasm); insinuations alternate with
explicit inferences (example 26), which appear mostly when Mr Nel is
drawing conclusions after a number of questions and answers on a certain
topic:
230 Chapter Nine

(23) MR NEL: So the day in Tashas when youwhen the gun went off
miraculously, you had your own gun with you?

(24) MR NEL: I know it is always easy to be wise after the event.

(25) MR NEL: What was the purpose of this whole incident?

(26) MR NEL: So, am I correct in saying that you were shooting at the
watermelon to see what the effect would be if you shoot
somebody in the brain. Or not? Because this is the
inference I am drawing.

In example 23, the adverb miraculously is used to mean intentionally

and the whole statement in example 24 makes an obvious point, which
however expresses contempt in this specific context; example 25 is a
rhetorical question requiring no answer, i.e., what Mr Nel intends to say is
that the whole incident in question has no purpose; example 26 is a
deduction made after examining the facts and aimed at inducing Pistorius
to admit his guilt in open court. Unlike Mr Rouxs language, which does
not entail implicit presuppositions or speech acts, Mr Nels questions and
assertions are highly allusive (example 27), they tend to have a
performative function, e.g., they often consist of reproaches (example 28),
and they typically express judgements or opinions (example 29):

(27) MR NEL: Your evidence in court was also true?

(28) MR NEL: You should not have taken it off and you should not have
left it in the car.

(29) MR NEL: I think youre wrong!

The verbal dimension is central to Mr Nels cross-examination and it is

only minimally supported by non-verbal elements. Body language plays a
role only in highlighting the prosecuting lawyers confidence, but hand
gestures are avoided or reduced to a minimum (Table 9-4). This is a
marked difference compared to Mr Rouxs speaking style, which instead
relies systematically on the use of hand gestures to support his line of
argumentation. Mr Nel is more static, but verbally very skilled and
engaging.
 A Mulltimodal Analyssis of Discoursee in the South A
African Courtro
oom 231

Imagee frame Verba

al text Non-verbal
behaviour and
a
interpretation

11 - g, while
Just listening
resting his heead on
his left hand, elbow
on the table
(=shows selff-
confidence th hrough
a bored and
despising atttitude).

12 You wanted to see Slightly look king

the efffect on the right, in the
waterm melon []. direction of
And thhen you said Pistorius.
words to the effect
It is a lot softer
than brains

13 Is it no
ot a Taking off his
h
reconsstruction of glasses, restiing right
everyth hing you hand on his chest
c
heard and you (=shows selff-
read? And thats confidence and
a a
why yo ou gave the sense of conttrol).
eviden nce?
232 Chapter Nine

14 Let us just answer Resting rightt hand

the questions. I of his left forrearm,
know you
y want to slightly lookking
say a lot
l of things right in the direction
d
and Its of Pistorius.
interessting. Youre
arguinng, youre not
answering. Why are
you arrguing and not
answering?

Table 9-4. S
Segment of Mr
M Nels crosss-examination
n

In imagee 11, Mr Nel is listening to o Pistoriuss aanswer with a know-it-

all attitude tthat passively communicatees disapprovaal. Most of thee time, he
keeps his arrms down andd does not mo ove that muchh (image 12). His most
frequent gessture consists in taking off his glasses annd looking forrwards in
the directionn of the judgee, while drawing some sortt of conclusio on (image
13). He nevver loses his composure
c or raises his vooice and alwaays shows
self-control even when he h is attacking g the defendaants behaviouur (image
14). There aare no repeated associationss between thee use of speciffic lexical
items and haand gestures or other body movements.
m M
Mr Nels comm municative
and questionning style esseentially relies on the verbal medium.

7. Conclusions
The analysiis above hass identified tw wo different speaking sty yles. The
examinationn phase appeaars to be marrked by a hiigh level of formality,
f
which is refflected in the extensive
e use of hypotaxis aand not so muuch at the
level of lexiical choices. It has been observed that seentence compllexity has
a sort of shhielding functtion, allowing Pistoriuss deefence lawyerr to resort
to a hedgedd questioningg modality, consisting
c off indirect and
d politely
formulated rrequests that aim
a to protect the accused aand reduce thee distance
with him. W When excessivve verbosity causes
c opacityy and unintellligibility,
reformulatioon is accompaanied by a pro onounced usee of hand gesttures that
support, reinnforce, and back
b up whatt Mr Roux iss saying. On the other
hand, the prrosecuting law wyer adopts a blunt tone, rresulting in aggressive
questions annd assertions challenging and discreditiing the accussed. Non-
verbal elemments in the crross-examinattion phase do not play a siignificant
role and onnly rarely suppport Mr Nels speaking sstyle, which is already
 A Multimodal Analysis of Discourse in the South African Courtroom 233

clear and forcible in itself despite his repeated use of allusions and
insinuations. In addition, the prosecuting lawyer often employs irony and
sarcasm as a means of more subtly attacking the accused, thus coming
across as the least empathetic participant in the courtroom.
Although this is a case study with all its limitations and idiosyncrasies,
it represents a first investigation of trial language from a wider, multi-
semiotic perspective in an attempt to examine the function of non-verbal
behaviour in this particular setting and map its possible links with lexical-
syntactic and rhetorical strategies. It is worth investigating these
connections more extensively through the analysis of a larger amount of
authentic data in order to see whether they are generalizable or just
context-specific. This is the reason why future studies on trial discourse in
English necessarily need to be based on several court cases in different
legal systems and jurisdictions around the world.

References
Ainsworth, Janet. 1995. Review of Gail Stygall, Trial Language:
Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation.
Forensic Linguistics 2(2):194199.
Anesa, Patrizia. 2012. Jury Trials and the Popularization of Legal
Language. Bern: Peter Lang.
Baldry, Anthony. 2000. English in a visual society: Comparative and
historical dimensions in multimodality and multimediality. In
Multimodality and Multimediality in the Distance Learning Age, edited
by Anthony Baldry, 4189. Milan: Edizioni Unicopli.
Baldry, Anthony, and Paul J. Thibault. 2006. Multimodal Transcription
and Text Analysis. A Multimedia Toolkit and Coursebook. London and
New York: Equinox.
Bhatia, Vijay Kumar, Purificacin Snchez, and Pascual Prez-Paredes,
eds. 2011. Researching Specialized Languages, Amsterdam/
Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Biscetti, Stefania. 2006. Tag questions in courtroom discourse. In
Studies in Specialized Discourse, edited by John Flowerdew and
Maurizio Gotti, 209238. Bern: Peter Lang.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson. 1987. Politeness: Some
Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic
Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
Du Bois, Franois. 2007. Willes Principles of South African Law. Cape
234 Chapter Nine

Town: Juta & Co.

Frazer, Bruce. 2010. Pragmatic competence: The case of hedging. In
New Approaches to Hedging, edited by Gunther Kaltenbck, Wiltrud
Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider, 1534. Bingley: Emerald Group
Publishing Ltd.
Gotti, Maurizio. 2008. Investigating Specialized Discourse. Bern: Peter
Lang.
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-aided Analysis
of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
. 2008. Judgement in court: Evaluating participants in courtroom
discourse. In Language and the Law: International Outlooks Vol. 16,
edited by Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Tomasz Pludowski, and
Dolores Valencia Tanno, 145179. Frankfurt am Main/New York:
Peter Lang.
. 2012. Narrative navigation: Narrative practices in forensic discourse.
Narrative Inquiry 22(2):267286.
. 2013. Revelation and rhetoric: a critical model of forensic discourse.
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 26(2):459485.
. 2015. Jury trial discourse. In The International Encyclopaedia of
Language and Social Interaction Vol. 1, edited by Tracy Karen, Ilie
Cornelia and Todd Sandel, 110. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
Kemp, Gerhard, Robin Palmer, Shelley Walker, Dumile Baqwa,
Christopher Gevers, Leslie Brian, and Anton Steynberg. 2012.
Criminal Law in South Africa. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kress, Gunther, and Theo van Leeuwen. 2006. Reading Images: The
Grammar of Visual Design. Second Edition. London: Routledge.
Lakoff, George. 1972. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic
of fuzzy concepts. Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the
Chicago Linguistic Society, 183228.
Levi, Judith and Anne Graffam Walker. 1990. Language in the Judicial
Process. New York: Plenum.
Lindsey, John. 1990. The legal writing malady: Causes and cures. New
York Law Journal, December 12.
Matoesian, Gregory. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse
in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown
and Co.
Miskovic-Lukovic, Mirjana. 2009. Is there a chance that I might kinda
sort of take you out to dinner? The role of the pragmatic particles kind
 A Multimodal Analysis of Discourse in the South African Courtroom 235

of and sort of in utterance interpretation. Journal of Pragmatics

41:60225.
Moeketsi, Rosemary. 1999. Discourse structure in a criminal trial of a
magistrates court. South African Journal of South African Languages
19(1): 3038.
Stygal, Gail. 1994. Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and
Discursive Formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Thibault, Paul J. 2000. The multimodal transcription of a television
advertisement: Theory and practice. In Multimodality and
Multimediality in the Distance Learning Age, edited by Anthony
Baldry, 311385. Campobasso: Palladino Editore.
Tiersma, Peter. 1999. Legal Language, Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press
. 2001. Textualizing the law. Forensic Linguistics 8(2):7392.
. 2006. The language of legal texts. In Encyclopaedia of Language
and Linguistics Vol. 6, edited by Keith Brown, 549556. 2nd edition.
New York: Elsevier.
Tiersma, Peter and Lawrence Solan, eds. 2012. The Oxford Handbook of
Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zimmermann, Reinhart, and Daniel Visser. 1996. Southern Cross: Civil
Law and Common Law in South Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press.