Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In this article I conduct an examination of discursive identity of a legal ‘object’ in the course of its treatment by various figures in the legal process. The need for this examination arises from a widespread concern about the effects of creating ‘records’, i.e., transforming spoken discourse by way of documentation into ‘evidence’. After a brief review of the current discussion about this phenomenon, I argue that the identity of textualized evidence is upheld by way of references to other texts, all of which create a field of signification within which an object under discussion (evidence) shows different facets without however losing its identity. In order to support my argument, I offer an analysis of ethnographic data pertaining to a specific criminal case. My objective for the analysis is to trace the status of a specific discursive identity after its enunciation during an attorney–client conference. My findings indicate that textualization should be understood not as a form of fixity for discourse, but rather as semantic pivot that provides for different ‘argumentation figures’ within the referential grid of the legal case.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander Kozin (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: