VERB PATTERNS IN TRIAL DISCOURSE: THE CASE OF I THINK

Abstract

This study revisits the usage of I think in courtroom interaction based on transcripts from a murder trial. The analysis focuses on the structural diversity of I think and some of its variant forms, and it demonstrates pragmatic functions associated with the individual patterns. As the data reveal, I think performs the roles reported in earlier studies (discourse marker, hedge, booster, face-saving device, opinion marker, mindsay marker) as well as increases epistemic distance and decreases the degree of imposition in courtroom questioning. The findings obtained in the current research are also compared with Kaltenböck’s (2013) results documenting various uses of I think and other comment clauses in diachronic spoken data. This comparison demonstrates that, on the one hand, well-established patterns involving I think are frequent in the courtroom data and, on the other, that the recent trends with variant forms of I think – which have been identified in non-specialist settings – are scantily represented.