Cover Image

A Critical Discourse Analysis of 'Summarizer So' as a Linguistic Powerful Tool in American Courtrooms

Prof. Hameed Hassoon Bjaiya Al-Mas'udi, Assistant Lecturer A'mer Sagheer Allwan


'Summarizer So' is a linguistic item that is used frequently by lawyers during the examination processes in American courtroom trials in order to exercise power and achieve dominance over witnesses or suspects; therefore, it is considered as a powerful tool guaranteeing their superiority over others. The researchers try to analyse this tool critically by using Fairclough's (1989) model. This model is able to detect the linguistic dimensions of such usage along with their explanation and interpretation critically. This aims to reveal any hidden ideologies of dominance and power for the sake of raising the awareness of the less powerful people of this aspect and to reach a fair balanced trial.


'Summarizer So', Critical Discourse Analysis, Courtroom interaction, Dominance, Power.


Richard, Brilliant and Nwizug, Sumenenua Suzi (2017). A Critical Discourse Analysis of Courtroom Proceedings in Nigeria. International journal of Arts and Humanities (IJAH), Vol 6 (4), S/NO 23, September, 2017: 93-102.

Fairclough, Norman (1989) Language and Power. London: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Fairclough, N. (1995) Critical Discourse Analysis: The critical study of language. London, UK: Longman.

Fairclough, N. (2001) Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method in Social Scientific Research, in R. Wodak& M. Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London, UK: Sage Publications.

Gee, J. P. (1999). An introduction to Discourse analysis: theory and method. London and New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-32860-9

Gibbons, John (2003). Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Malden: Blackwell.

Heydon, Georgina (2005) The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave

Janks, H. (1997) Critical Discourse Analysis as a Research Tool. Discourse: Studies in the cultural politics of education, 18(3): 329-42.

Mayr, Andrea (2004). Prison Discourse: Language as a Means of Control and Resistance. London: Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.

Meyer, M. (2001). Between theory, method, and politics: Positioning of the approaches to CDA. In R. Wodak& M. Meyer (Ed.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. Great Britain: SAGE Publications.

van Dijk, TA. (1993). Elite discourse and racism. London: Sage Publications. pp. (242-282).

van Dijk, A.T. (1998). Discourse as structure and process of discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction. Volume I. SAGE Publications, London.

Vidal, J. (1997). McLibel: Burger Culture on Trial. New York: New Press.

Wang, J. (2006). Questions and the Exercise of Power. Discourse and Society, 17(4), 529-548.

Wodak, R. (1996). Orders of Discourse. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.

Wodak, R. (1999). Critical discourse analysis at the end of the 20th century. Research on Language & Social

Interaction, 32(1-2), 185-193.

Wodak, R. (2001). The discourse-historical approach. In Wodak, R. and M. Meyers. (Eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis. London: Sage. Pp. 1-11.

Wodak, R. (2007). Pragmatics and critical discourse analysis: A cross-disciplinary inquiry. Pragmatics & Cognition, 15(1), 203-225.

Wodak, R., and M. Meyer. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. Great Britain: SAGE Publications.


  • There are currently no refbacks.