English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

In this paper, I concentrate on court cases with litigants in person (lay\ud people who act on their own behalf in legal proceedings without a counsel\ud or solicitor) and discuss the challenges of building a corpus of courtroom\ud discourse where it is crucial to distinguish between speakers due to their\ud distinct institutional roles. The corpus incorporates seven sub-corpora of\ud verbatim transcripts from different court cases with litigants in person and\ud comprises over eleven-million tokens. The focus of this paper is on the\udinterplay between the legal and lay discourse types and how judges project their institutional roles through well-initiated turns directed at litigants in person and counsels. As a versatile discourse marker, well provides a good opportunity to explore how judges have to adapt their roles to ensure lay litigants in person receive the necessary support and that their lack of competence does not impede on the fairness of the proceedings. Given the breadth and importance of the topic of litigation in person, I discuss how the tools and approaches of corpus linguistics can be helpful in this multidisciplinary area where multiple functions and uses of individual linguistic features need to be explored in depth

A corpus-assisted study of the discourse marker well as an indicator of judges' institutional roles in court cases with litigants in person