Reformulation and Conflict in the Witness Examination: The Case of Public Inquiries

Article

Abstract

This paper focuses on the development of witness examination as an argumentative dialogue between legal professionals and lay-people, considering in particular the case of Public Inquiries in Great Britain. This paper discusses the retention of traces of the adversarial system, typical of Common Law trials, in this type of inquisitorial proceedings, stressing on how counsels exploit some linguistic features to control both the form and the ideational content of the exchange as well as the power relationship with the witness. The analysis is carried out on a corpus of 15 days of witness examination transcripts (507,346 words) collected from three different Public Inquiries, namely Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Northern Ireland), Shipman Inquiry (England), and Cullen Inquiry (Scotland), to achieve a wider perspective on Common Law administrative justice. The study is based on a discourse and genre analytic approach for the macro-analysis of Public Inquiries in the context of courtroom discourse and of witness examination as a genre that develops within this discourse framework. Subsequently, a micro-analysis of the linguistic features used by counsel in questions to argumentatively shape the content and the form of the exchange is provided. We also take into consideration the role of metadiscourse (textual and interpersonal), repetitions and reformulations. Preliminary results show that these linguistic features provide valuable evidence for the hypothesis that the adversarial side of the argumentative dialogue between legal professionals and lay-people during the witness examination of Public Inquiries is retained.

References

  1. 1.
    Adelswärd, V., K. Aronsson, L. Jönsson, and P. Linell. 1987. The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction. Text 7: 313–346.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Atkinson, J., and P. Drew. 1979. Order in court—the organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bamford, J. 2000. You can say that again: Repetition in dialogue. Bologna: CLUEB.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bradley, A.W., and K.D. Ewing. 2003. Constitutional and administrative law, 13th ed, 677–684. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conley, J., and W. O’Barr. 1990. Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cotterill, J. ed. 2002. Language in the legal process. Houndsmill: Palgrave.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cotterill, J. 2003. Language and power in court. London: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Danet, B., and B. Bogoch. 1980. Fixed fight or free-for-all? an empirical study of combativeness in the adversary system of justice. British Journal of Law and Society 7: 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Drew, P. 1985. Analyzing the use of language in courtroom interaction. In Handbook of discourse analysis, ed. T. van Dijk, vol. III, 133–147. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Drew, P. 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. P. Drew, and J. Heritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Fairclough, N. 2003. Analysing discourse textual analysis for social research. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gnisci, A., and C. Pontecorvo. 2004. The organization of questions and answers in thematic phases of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 2004(36): 965–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Heffer, C. 2005. The language of jury trial–a corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hobbs, P. 2003. You must say it for him: Reformulating a witness testimony on cross-examination trial. Interdisciplinary Journal for the study of Discourse 23(4): 477–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hyland, K. ed. 2005. Metadiscourse. Continuum guides to discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mauranen, A. 2006. Rhetorically speaking: Repetition and repair in making a point. In Managing interaction in professional discourse: intercultural and interdiscoursal perspectives, ed. Julia Bamford and Marina Bondi. Roma: Officina Edizioni.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Dipartimento di Studi Linguistici sulla Testualità e la TraduzioneUniversità degli Studi di Modena e Reggio EmiliaModenaItaly

Personalised recommendations