Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony

Text and Talk

Volumn 26, Issue 6, 2006, Pages 661-698

  Galatolo, Renata ^a   Drew, Paul ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BOLOGNA   (Italy)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Accounts; Allocation of blame; Defensive devices; Expanded answers; Narrative expansions; Trial interaction

Indexed keywords

EID: 34247503307     PISSN: 18607330     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/TEXT.2006.028     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Adelswärd, V., Aronsson, K., Jonsson, L., and Linell, P. (1987). The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction. Text 7 (4): 313-346.
2. Atkinson, M. J. and Drew, P. (eds.) (1979). Order in Court. London: McMillan.
3. Austin, J. L. (1970 [1961]). A plea for excuses. In Philosophical Papers, 175-204. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4. Barry, A. (1991). Narrative style and witness testimony. Journal of Narrative and Life History 1 (4): 281-293.
5. Bennet, W. L. and Feldman, M. (1981). Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
6. Clark, H. H. and Gerrig, R. G. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66 (49): 764-805.
7. Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002). The News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8. Conley, J. M. and O'Barr, W. M. (1990). Rules versus Relationships. The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
9. Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review 14 (3): 445-564.
10. Drew, P. (1979). The production of justifications and excuses by witnesses in cross-examination. In Order in Court, J. M. Atkinson and P. Drew (eds.), 136-187. London: MacMillan.
11. - (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), 470-520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. - (2005). Conversation analysis. In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, Fitch K. L. and Sanders R. E. (eds.), 71-102. Mahaw, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13. - (2006). Mis-alignments in 'after-hours' calls to a British GP's practice: A study in telephone medicine. In Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care Physicians and Patients, J. Heritage and D. W. Maynard (eds.), 416-444. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Ford, C. and Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intonational and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Interaction and Grammar, E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (eds.), 134-184. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. Galatolo, R. (2003). Les stratégies de changement de footing dans le témoignage commun au tribunal: Une resource pour la construction de crédibilité. In Dialogue Analysis 2000, M. Bondi and S. Stati (eds.), 209-218. Niemeyer: Tübingen.
16. - (forthcoming). Active voicing in court. Witness use of direct reported speech in testimony. In Voicing: Reported Speech and Footing in Conversation, E. Holt and R. Clift (eds.), 253-285. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17. Galatolo, R. and Mizzau, M. (2005). Quoting dialogues and the construction of the narrative point of view in legal testimony. The role of prosody and gestures. Studies in Communication Sciences (Special issue: Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction) June: 217-232.
18. Gnisci, A. and Pontecorvo, C. (2004). The organization of questions and answers in the thematic phases of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 36 (5): 965-995.
19. Harris, S. (2001). Fragmented narratives and multiple tellers: Witness and defendant accounts in trials. Discourse Studies 3 (1): 53-74.
20. Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Etnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
21. - (1988). Explanations and accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In Analyzing Everyday Explanations: A Casebook of Methods, C. Antaki (ed.), 127-144. London: Sage.
22. Hutchby, I. and Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.
23. Jacquemet, M. (1996). Credibility in Court: Communicative Practices in Camorra Trials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
24. Komter, M. L. (1994). Accusations and defences in courtroom interaction. Discourse and Society 5 (2): 165-187.
25. - (1998). Dilemmas in the Courtroom. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.
26. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27. Luchjenbroers, J. (1997). 'In your own words ...' Questions and answers in a Supreme Court trial. Journal of Pragmatics 27 (4): 477-503.
28. Lynch, M. and Bogen, D. (1996). The Spectacle of History. Speech, Text, and Memory at the Iran-Contra Hearings. Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press.
29. Matoesian, G. (1999a). Intertextuality, affect and ideology in legal discourse. Text 19 (1): 73-109.
30. - (1999b). The grammaticalization of participation roles in the constitution of expert identity. Language in Society 28 (4): 491-521.
31. Maynard, D. (1988). Narratives and narrative structure in plea bargaining. Law and Society Review 22 (3): 449-481.
32. O'Barr, W. (1982). Linguistic Evidence. San Diego: Academic Press.
33. Ochs, E. and Capps, L. (2001). Living Narrative. Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
34. Penman, R. (1987). Discourse in courts: Cooperation, coercion and coherence. Discourse Processes 10 (3): 201-218.
35. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dipreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational Analysis, J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), 57-101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Raymond, G. (2000). The structure of responding: Type-conforming and nonconforming responses to yes/no type interrogatives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
37. - (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review 68 (Dec): 939-967.
38. Sacks, H. (1992 [1966]). Intelligibility; Causally efficacious categories. In Lectures on Conversation, vol. 1, G. Jefferson (ed.), 456-460. Oxford: Blackwell.
39. - (1992 [1970]). Storyteller as 'witness'; Entitlement to experience. In Lectures on Conversation, vol. 2, G. Jefferson (ed.), 242-248. Oxford: Blackwell.
40. Schegloff, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of 'uh uh' and other things that come between sentences. In Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics, D. Tannen (ed.), 71-93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
41. - (1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjecture. Social Problems 35 (4): 442-457.
42. - (1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction and Grammar, E. Ochs, E. A. Schegloff, and S. A. Thompson (eds.), 52-133. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43. Scott, M. B. and Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociologial Review 33: 46-62.
44. Sterponi, L. and Pontecorvo, C. (2003). Morale situata: Costruzione discorsiva delle norme e del posizionamento morale attraverso l'attività del 'render conto'. Rivista Italiana di Psicolinguistica Applicata III (I): 139-158.
45. Stivers, T. and Heritage, J. (2001). Breaking the sequential mold: Answering 'more than the question' during comprehensive history taking. Text 21 (1/2): 151-185.
46. Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica 48 (3/4): 197-228.
47. Wooffitt, R. (1992). Telling Tales of the Unexpected. The Organization of Factual Discourse. Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
48. - (2001). Raising the dead: Reported speech in medium-sitter interaction. Discourse Studies 3 (3): 351-374.