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

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Mohd Muzhafar Idrus, Nor Fariza Mohd Nor
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 2016
Online Access:	http://journalarticle.ukm.my/10148/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/10148/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/10148/1/10962-38504-1-PB.pdf

id	ukm-10148
recordtype	eprints
spelling	ukm-101482017-02-23T04:11:15Z http://journalarticle.ukm.my/10148/ Legitimation analysis: exploring decision-making and power in Hot Bench Mohd Muzhafar Idrus, Nor Fariza Mohd Nor, 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. Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia 2016-06 Article PeerReviewed application/pdf en http://journalarticle.ukm.my/10148/1/10962-38504-1-PB.pdf Mohd Muzhafar Idrus, and Nor Fariza Mohd Nor, (2016) Legitimation analysis: exploring decision-making and power in Hot Bench. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies, 16 (2). pp. 33-52. ISSN 1675-8021 http://ejournal.ukm.my/gema/issue/view/801
repository_type	Digital Repository
institution_category	Local University
institution	Universiti Kebangasaan Malaysia
building	UKM Institutional Repository
collection	Online Access
language	English
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,
spellingShingle	Mohd Muzhafar Idrus, Nor Fariza Mohd Nor, Legitimation analysis: exploring decision-making and power in Hot Bench
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	Penerbit Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia
publishDate	2016
url	http://journalarticle.ukm.my/10148/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/10148/ http://journalarticle.ukm.my/10148/1/10962-38504-1-PB.pdf
first_indexed	2023-09-18T19:56:40Z
last_indexed	2023-09-18T19:56:40Z
_version_	1777406575214854144

Legitimation analysis: exploring decision-making and power in Hot Bench

Similar Items