Abstract

The study explores dialogical framing as a story-telling device in two genres that stand on the margins of proceedings at the International Criminal Court: opening and closing statements. As these two genres are still relatively under-researched in linguistic literature, the study contributes to research in this area by outlining their generic features. By using Corpus- Assisted (Critical) Discourse Analysis, the study provides both qualitative and quantitative overview of the most prominent frames and interpretation suggestions across the two genres and across the main participants involved: the Prosecution, the Defence and the Legal Representatives of Victims. The findings identify a paradoxical combination of humanising and dehumanising (stereotypical) frames by the parties when depicting the Defendants or rebutting each other’s story. The opening statements are characterised predominantly by event – and character-building frames, whereas the closing statements shift attention to the trial, dialogically delegitimising the opponents. The evidence suggests that instead of a tripartite model, the framing choices are indicative of an oppositional model: Defence vs. Prosecution and Victims’ Representatives.