The language of evaluation in a Philippine drug trial: an appraisal framework perspective

Abstract In courtroom discourses, evaluative language serves a pivotal role in assessing witnesses for determining the credibility of the testimonies provided and consequently influencing the outcome of the trial. Adopting the appraisal framework, this paper conducted a case study to examine the attitude resources used by court participants in a Philippine drug trial to determine the presence and use of evaluations in courtroom discourse, particularly across trial stages. Results showed that JUDGMENT is the most prevalent valuation in the study with its sub-system Tenacity scoring the highest frequency, followed by APPRECIATION and its sub-category valuation, while AFFECT was uncommon in the trial. The attitude items were also found to be most prevalent in the direct-examination and cross-examination stages to highlight the following: the knowledge of the witnesses on the incident, their involvement in the incident, and the sources of their information. It also showed the adherence of the judge to the principle of neutrality as the decision focused on the legal norms of the facts of the case. The results also attest that ‘legality’ is a distinct feature of the evaluative language in courtroom discourse.