Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial

Journal of Pragmatics

Volumn 32, Issue 7, 2000, Pages 879-914

  Matoesian, Greg ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Affect; Footing; Intertextuality; Legal discourse; Metapragmatics; Reported speech

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034196048     PISSN: 03782166     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00080-6     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Bauman, Richard and Charles Briggs, 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 59-88.
2. Besnier, Niko, 1990. Language and affect. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 419-451.
3. Besnier, Niko, 1991. Reported speech and affect on Nukulaelae atoll. In: J. Hill and J. Irvine, eds..Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse. 161-181. New York: Cambridge University Press.
4. Briggs, Charles, 1993. Metadiscursive practices and scholarly authority in folklorislics. Journal of American Folklore. 106: 387-434.
5. Briggs, Charles, 1996. Introduction. In: Charles Briggs, ed., Disorderly discourse. 3-40. New York: Oxford University Press.
6. Briggs, Charles, 1997. Notes on a confession: On the construction of gender, sexuality, and violence in an infanticide case. Pragmatics 7: 519-546.
7. Briggs, Charles and Richard Bauman, 1992. Genre, intertextuality, and social power. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 2: 131-172.
8. Cameron, Richard, 1998. A variable syntax of speech, gesture, and sound effect: Direct quotations in Spanish. Language Variation and Change 10: 43-83.
9. Chafe, Wallace, 1994. Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
10. Clark, Herbert and Richard Gerrig, 1990. Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66: 764-805.
11. Duranti, Alessandro, 1986. The audience as co-author: An introduction. Text 3: 239-247.
12. Goffman, Erving, 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
13. Goodwin, Charles, 1994. Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96: 606-633.
14. Hamilton, Heidi, 1998. Reported speech and survivor identity in on-line bone marrow transplantation narratives. Journal of Sociolinguistics 2: 53-67.
15. Heritage, John and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 1994. Constituting and maintaining activities across sequences: And-prefacing as a feature of question design. Language in Society 23: 1-29.
16. Hirsch, 1998. Pronouncing and persevering. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
17. Irvine, Judith, 1982. Language and affect: Some cross-cultural issues. In: H. Byrnes, ed., Contemporary perceptions of language: Interdisciplinary dimensions, 31-47. Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
18. Irvine, Judith, 1989. When talk isn't cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist 16: 248-267.
19. Irvine, Judith, 1996. Shadow conversations: The indeterminacy of participant roles. In: M. Silverstein and G. Urban, eds., Natural histories of discourse, 131-159. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
20. Komter, Martha, 1998. Dilemmas in the courtroom. New York: L. Erlbaum.
21. Konradi, Amanda, 1999. I don't have to be afraid of you: Rape survivors emotion management in court. Symbolic Interaction 22(1): 45-77.
22. Lance, Donald, 1997. Discourse, information, and syntax. In: X. Li, L. Lopez and T. Stroik, eds., Papers from the 1997 Mid-America linguistics conference,400-409. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press.
23. Lovejoy, Kim and Donald Lance, 1991. Discourse analysis: Cohesion and information management in three texts. Linguistics and Education 3: 251-273.
24. Matoesian, Gregory, 1997. I'm sorry we had to meet under these circumstances: Verbal artistry (and wizardry) in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. In: M. Travers and J. Manzo, eds., Law in action: Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to law. 137-182. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
25. Mayes, Patricia, 1990. Quotation in spoken English. Studies in Language 14(2): 325-363.
26. Mertz, Elizabeth, 1985. Beyond symbolic anthropology: Introducing semiotic mediation. In: E. Mertz and R. Parmentier, eds., Semiotic mediation, 1-19. New York: Academic Press.
27. Mertz, Elizabeth, 1996. Recontextualization as socialization: Text and pragmatics in the law school classroom. In: M. Silverstein and G. Urban, eds., Natural histories of discourse, 229-249. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
28. Mertz, Elizabeth, 1998. Linguistic ideology and praxis in U.S. law school classrooms. In: B. Schieffelin, K. Woolard and P. Kroskrity, eds., Language ideologies: practice and theory, 149-162. New York: Oxford University Press.
29. Philips, Susan, 1998. Ideology in the language of judges. New York: Oxford University Press.
30. Rumsey, Alan, 1990. Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist 92: 346-361.
31. Schiffrin, Deborah, 1987. Discourse markers. New York: Cambridge University Press.
32. Shuy, Roger, 1998. The language of confession, interrogation, and deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
33. Tannen, Deborah, 1995. Waiting for the mouse: Constructed dialogue in conversation. In: D. Tedlock and B. Mannheim, eds., The dialogic emergence of culture, 198-217. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.
34. Teubner, Gunther, 1993. Law as an autopoietic system. Oxford: Blackwell.
35. Voloshinov, V.N., 1986. Marxism and the philosophy of language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
36. Waugh, Linda, 1995. Reported speech in journalistic discourse: The relation of function and text. Text 15: 129-173.
37. Woolard, Kathryn, 1993. Language ideology: Issues and approaches. Pragmatics 3: 235-249.
38. Woolard, Kathryn and Bambi Schieffelin, 1994. Language ideology. In: Annual review of anthropology 23: 55-82. Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews Inc.