Justice must be seen to be done: a multimodal attitude analysis of attorneys’ closing arguments

Abstract Multimodal discourse analysis offers a novel lens for the study of legal discourse. Within the closing arguments of a trial, prosecution and defense attorneys utilize various multimodal resources to present evidence, articulate opinions, and adopt stances to achieve their communicative goals. This research focuses on the closing arguments in the criminal trial concerning the death of George Floyd to analyze the multimodal representation of the closing arguments delivered by both prosecution and defense attorneys. It employs the analytical framework of the attitude system and paralinguistic typology proposed by Martin and colleagues, and uses the UAM Corpus Tool and Praat to qualitatively annotate and quantify the linguistic and paralinguistic information. The findings reveal that these attorneys employ different multimodal resources, including language and paralanguage, to convey their attitudes towards the case’s participants. This leads to the construction of competing narratives, shedding light on how justice is seen to be done.