“How could you be wrong about something so general as that?”

Abstract Adopting a corpus-based register approach, this study explores the extent to which television courtroom discourse aligns with or diverges from authentic courtroom language, thereby contributing to broader discussions of register variation. In particular, drawing on the analytical framework for situational characteristics proposed by Biber and Conrad (2019) , the present study offers a systematic account of the situational features associated with four sub-registers of courtroom discourse — opening statements, direct examinations, cross-examinations, and closing arguments — across both authentic and TV courtroom settings. In this study, Biber’s (1988) Multi-Dimensional Analysis (MDA) model is applied to situate the eight sub-registers within predefined dimensions and to guide the identification of relevant linguistic features for subsequent quantitative examination and functional interpretation. The findings reveal notable differences between authentic and TV cross-examinations as well as between authentic and TV closing arguments. These contrasts are primarily attributable to the different communicative purposes of the sub-registers, thereby underscoring the significance of sub-register distinctions in register-based research. The present study builds upon an unpublished dissertation ( Chen, 2018 ) that investigated the similarities and differences between authentic and TV courtroom discourse.