Legitimation Analysis: Exploring Decision-Making and Power in Hot Bench

Research in discourse analysis has demonstrated that power can be illuminated through analyzing discourses. Centered on the notion that power and legitimation go hand-in-hand, these discourses are distinguished by specific linguistic components. One of the ways to explore how legitimation is tran...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Mohd Muzhafar Idrus, Nor Fariza Mohd Nor
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 2016
Subjects:
Online Access:http://ddms.usim.edu.my:80/jspui/handle/123456789/12077
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id my.usim-12077
record_format dspace
spelling my.usim-120772017-06-13T08:31:19Z Legitimation Analysis: Exploring Decision-Making and Power in Hot Bench Mohd Muzhafar Idrus Nor Fariza Mohd Nor courtroom discourse discourse analysis legitimation; power Hot Bench Research in discourse analysis has demonstrated that power can be illuminated through analyzing discourses. Centered on the notion that power and legitimation go hand-in-hand, these discourses are distinguished by specific linguistic components. One of the ways to explore how legitimation is tranquilized is to scrutinize its discourses, which some scholars (Wang, 2006; Van Leeuwen, 2007) argue have the precedence to control some of everyday, social, and public spheres. Following this premise, this paper examines how legitimation is jostled in selected decision-making scenes in a popular syndicated three-judge panel TV court show, Hot Bench. Two objectives are set out for this study; firstly to examine how organization and resolution of cases are generally settled and secondly to identify the types of legitimation employed by the judges in their decision-making processes. Premiered in 2014, Hot Bench draws over 2 million viewers in October 2014, jumping to a staggering 2.5 million viewers in November 2014, emerging as one of the most watched syndicated legal reality TV programs in United States of America with its second season renewed through 2017. By analyzing selected conversations by judges who deliberate verdicts, this study which employs Van Leeuwen’s framework of legitimation concludes that the judges typically employ three types of legitimation, namely, authorization, moral evaluation, and rationalization over the course of adjudicating TV’s court proceedings. This study ultimately contributes to the broader field of discourse analysis by tapping onto the belief that language, through discourse analysis, serves as a vehicle within which specific discourse community maintains power. http://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/article/view/10962 2016-07-04T04:44:44Z 2016-07-04T04:44:44Z 2016-06 Article GEMA Online ® Journal of Language Studies, Vol. 16(2), June 2016, pp. 33-52. 1675-8021 http://ddms.usim.edu.my:80/jspui/handle/123456789/12077 en Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
institution Universiti Sains Islam Malaysia
building USIM Library
collection Institutional Repository
continent Asia
country Malaysia
content_provider Universit Sains Islam i Malaysia
content_source USIM Institutional Repository
url_provider http://ddms.usim.edu.my/
language English
topic courtroom discourse
discourse analysis
legitimation; power
Hot Bench
spellingShingle courtroom discourse
discourse analysis
legitimation; power
Hot Bench
Mohd Muzhafar Idrus
Nor Fariza Mohd Nor
Legitimation Analysis: Exploring Decision-Making and Power in Hot Bench
description Research in discourse analysis has demonstrated that power can be illuminated through analyzing discourses. Centered on the notion that power and legitimation go hand-in-hand, these discourses are distinguished by specific linguistic components. One of the ways to explore how legitimation is tranquilized is to scrutinize its discourses, which some scholars (Wang, 2006; Van Leeuwen, 2007) argue have the precedence to control some of everyday, social, and public spheres. Following this premise, this paper examines how legitimation is jostled in selected decision-making scenes in a popular syndicated three-judge panel TV court show, Hot Bench. Two objectives are set out for this study; firstly to examine how organization and resolution of cases are generally settled and secondly to identify the types of legitimation employed by the judges in their decision-making processes. Premiered in 2014, Hot Bench draws over 2 million viewers in October 2014, jumping to a staggering 2.5 million viewers in November 2014, emerging as one of the most watched syndicated legal reality TV programs in United States of America with its second season renewed through 2017. By analyzing selected conversations by judges who deliberate verdicts, this study which employs Van Leeuwen’s framework of legitimation concludes that the judges typically employ three types of legitimation, namely, authorization, moral evaluation, and rationalization over the course of adjudicating TV’s court proceedings. This study ultimately contributes to the broader field of discourse analysis by tapping onto the belief that language, through discourse analysis, serves as a vehicle within which specific discourse community maintains power.
format Article
author Mohd Muzhafar Idrus
Nor Fariza Mohd Nor
author_facet Mohd Muzhafar Idrus
Nor Fariza Mohd Nor
author_sort Mohd Muzhafar Idrus
title Legitimation Analysis: Exploring Decision-Making and Power in Hot Bench
title_short Legitimation Analysis: Exploring Decision-Making and Power in Hot Bench
title_full Legitimation Analysis: Exploring Decision-Making and Power in Hot Bench
title_fullStr Legitimation Analysis: Exploring Decision-Making and Power in Hot Bench
title_full_unstemmed Legitimation Analysis: Exploring Decision-Making and Power in Hot Bench
title_sort legitimation analysis: exploring decision-making and power in hot bench
publisher Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
publishDate 2016
url http://ddms.usim.edu.my:80/jspui/handle/123456789/12077
_version_ 1645153069494697984
score 13.222552