Effects of External Contextual Factors in Institutional Discourse
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
This paper aims to analyze the role of external contextual factors in the distribution of power in courtroom conversations that results in a divergent form of interaction. In particular, cross-examinations in court trials have demonstrated that questioning is an effective discursive tool that can strengthen the asymmetry of power between speakers. However, numerous contextual factors may come into play and change the course of dialogue. In this paper, the intersection between attorneys’ questioning strategies and the discursive features of familial discourse was analyzed in a qualitative manner. Consequently, three strategies used by attorneys (response selection, rapid succession of questions, and attorneys’ control over topic) are identified and analyzed as conventional properties of courtroom conversations. At the same time, other phenomena such as shift of power, expression of sympathy and impolite language are observed as external factors, which may be contradictory to typical institutional contexts and thus lead to a new discursive effect.
Abstract
This paper aims to analyze the role of external contextual factors in the distribution of power in courtroom conversations that results in a divergent form of interaction. In particular, cross-examinations in court trials have demonstrated that questioning is an effective discursive tool that can strengthen the asymmetry of power between speakers. However, numerous contextual factors may come into play and change the course of dialogue. In this paper, the intersection between attorneys’ questioning strategies and the discursive features of familial discourse was analyzed in a qualitative manner. Consequently, three strategies used by attorneys (response selection, rapid succession of questions, and attorneys’ control over topic) are identified and analyzed as conventional properties of courtroom conversations. At the same time, other phenomena such as shift of power, expression of sympathy and impolite language are observed as external factors, which may be contradictory to typical institutional contexts and thus lead to a new discursive effect.
참고문헌 (20)
- Atkinson, J. M., "Understanding formality: the categorization and production of ‘formal’ interaction", British Journal of Sociology, pp.86~117 (1982)
- Blitvich, P. G. C., "A genre approach to the study of im-politeness", International Review of Pragmatics, 2(1), pp.46~94 (2010)
- Blum-Kulka, S., "You don’t touch lettuce with your fingers:: Parental politeness in family discourse", Journal of pragmatics, 14(2), pp.259~288 (1990)
- Brown, P., "Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4)" (1987), Cambridge university press
- Cotterill, J., "‘I think he was kind of shouting or something’: Uses and abuses of vagueness in the British courtroom", Vague Language Explored, pp.97~114 (2007)
- Galatolo, R., "Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony", Text & Talk, 26(6), pp.661~698 (2006)
- Gibbons, J., "Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System" (2003), Blackwell
- Gous, G., "Directive leading questions and preparation technique effects on witness accuracy", Sage Open, 10(1), pp.1~12 (2020)
- Hobbs, P., "Tipping the scales of justice: Deconstructing an expert’s testimony on cross-examination", International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 15(4), pp.411~424 (2002)
- Hutchby, I., "Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show", Discourse and Society, 7(4), pp.481~497 (1996)
- Jefferson, G., "Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation", pp.24~31 (2004)
- Khukhunaishvili, M., "Interconnections between Identity co-construction and Impoliteness in American family discourse", Journal of Humanities, pp.234~8146 (2019)
- Matoesian, G., "Nailing down an answer: Participations of power in trial talk", Discourse Studies, 7(6), pp.733~759 (2005)
- Mortensen, S. S., "A question of control? Forms and functions of courtroom questioning in two different adversarial trial systems", Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1), pp.239~278 (2020)
- Raymond, G., "Grammar and social organization: yes", no interrogatives and the structure of bonding, 2003, pp.68(6), 939~967
- Tkacukova, T., "The power of questioning: a case study of courtroom discourse", Discourse and Interaction, 49~61 (2010)
- Törnqvist, N., "Drizzling sympathy: Ideal victims and flows of sympathy in Swedish courts", International Review of Victimology, pp.263~285 (2022)
- Underwood, R. H., "The limits of cross-examination", Am. J. Trial Advoc, 21, pp.113~129 (1997)
- Wang, J., "Questions and the exercise of power", Discourse and Society, 17(4), pp.529~548 (2006)
- Watts, R. J., "Power in family discourse" (1991), De Gruyter Mouton