Mitigating Functions of Hedging and Boosting in Courtroom Discourse

Abstract

Aside from its pragmatic-discourse context that is mainly directed to face work, mitigation in legal context is open either to a direct relatedness to the "reduction of vulnerability" or else to the amplification of accusation. The present paper aims at explicating how prosecution and defense attorneys employ the aggravation and minimization processes of mitigation to increase or decrease their clients' or others' vulnerability. To this end, hedging and boosting expressions in the defense and prosecution's opening statements in Casey Anthony trial for her daughter's homicide are investigated for their creation of mitigation effect. The obtained results show that the prosecution attorneys quite frequently aggravate the accusation of the defendants. However, the defense attorneys tend to minimize the guilt or accusation of the defendants. It is also noticed that some hedging expressions implicitly help aggravate rather than attenuate certain acts.