Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

“Now you got a dead baby on your hands”: Discursive tyranny in “cop talk”

  • Articles
  • Published:
Revue internationale de semiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. W.K. Muir,Police: Streetcorner Politicians (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977), 227.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ibid., at 231.

    Google Scholar 

  3. G.M. Matoesian,Reproducing Rape: Domination Through Talk in the Courtroom (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  4. R.M. Emerson,Judging Delinquents: Context and Process in Juvenile Court (Chicago: Aldine Publishing, 1969).

    Google Scholar 

  5. P. Drew and J. Heritage, “Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction”, inTalk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. P. Drew and J. Heritage (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  6. G. Psathas,Conversational Analysis: The Study of Talk-in-Interaction (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  7. G.M. Matoesian, “You Were Interested in Him as a Person? Rhythms of Domination in the Kennedy-Smith Rape Trial”,Law and Social Inquiry 22 (1997), 301–341.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E. Mertz, “Linguistic Ideology and Praxis in U.S. Law School Classrooms”,Pragmatics 2 (1993), 325–334.

    Google Scholar 

  9. B. Arrigo, “Insanity Defense Reform and the Sign of Abolition: Re-Visiting Montana's Experience,”International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 29 (1997), 191–211; B. Arrigo,The Contours of Psychiatric Justice: A Postmodern Critique of Mental Illness (New York: Garland, 1996); B. Jackson,Semiotics and Legal Theory (New York: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1985); D. Milovanovic, “Re-Thinking Subjectivity in Law and Ideology: A Semiotic Perspective,”Journal of Human Justice 4(1) (1994), 31–53; D. Milovanovic, “‘Rebellious Lawyering’: Lacan, Chaos, and the Development of Alternative Juridico-Semiotic Forms”,Legal Studies Forum 20 (3) (1996), 295–321.

    Google Scholar 

  10. M. Lazarus-Black, “The Rites of Domination: Practice, Process and Structure in Lower Courts”,American Ethnologist 24 (1997), 628–651.

    Google Scholar 

  11. J.Q. Wilson,Varieties of Police Behavior: The Management of Law and Order in Eight Communities (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 85–86.

    Google Scholar 

  12. P.K. Manning,Symbolic Communication: Signifying Calls and the Police Response (Cambridge MA: MIT Press, 1988), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  13. G. Button and J.R.E. Lee, eds.,Talk and Social Organization (Philadelphia: Multilingual Matters Ltd., 1987).

    Google Scholar 

  14. M.G. Maxfield and E. Babbie,Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1995).

    Google Scholar 

  15. R. Scollon and S.W. Scollon.Intercultural Communication (Cambridge MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1995), 21–23.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Supra n.12, at 33.

  17. R. Wardaugh,An Introduction to Sociolinguistics (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1984), 253.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Supra n.16, at 35.

  19. Ibid., at 36.

  20. Supra n.1, at 101–125.

  21. Supra n.16, at 36–39.

  22. R. Lakoff, “The Logic of Politeness: Or Minding Your P's and Q's”, in G.M. Green,Pragmatics and Natural Language Understanding (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996), 147–152.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Supra n. 23, at 36–39.

  24. Supra n. 23, at 151.

  25. Supra n. 23, at 150.

  26. Supra n. 16, at 42.

  27. K.E. Boulding,Three Faces of Power (Newbury Park CA: Sage Publications Inc., 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  28. Supra n. 5, at 3–64.

  29. H. Molotch and D. Boden, “Talking Social Structure: Discourse, Domination and the Watergate Hearings”,American Sociological Review 50 (1985), 273–288.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Supra n.5, at 3–64.

  31. Supra n. 18, at 265–274.

  32. Ibid., at 270.

  33. Ibid., at 270.

  34. Ibid., at 273.

  35. Ibid., at 268.

  36. J.R.E. Lee, “Prologue: Talking Organization,” in Button and Lee,supra n. 14, at 19–53.

  37. J. Heritage, “Conversation Analysis and Institutional Talk: Analyzing Data”, inQualitative Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, ed. D. Silverman (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 1997), 161–182.

    Google Scholar 

  38. E.A. Schegloff, “On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions”, inTalk at Work, supra n.5, at 101–134.

  39. Supra n.3, at 101.

  40. Supra n.30, at 273–288.

  41. Supra n.38, at 161–182.

  42. A. Garcia, “Dispute Resolution Without Disputing: How the Interactional Organization of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argument”,American Sociological Review 56 (1991), 818–834.

    Google Scholar 

  43. M. Komter, “Accusations and Defenses in Courtroom Interaction”,Discourse and Society 5 (1994), 165–187.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Supra n.3, at 109.

  45. G. Jefferson, “On Exposed and Embedded Correction in Conversation”, in Button and Lee,supra n. 14, at 66–100.

  46. Supra n.3, at 111.

  47. A. Duranti,Linguistic Anthropology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  48. J. Conley and W. O'Barr,Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Supra n.43, at 818–834.

  50. Ibid., at 825.

  51. P.C. Patch and B.A. Arrigo, “Police Officer Attitudes and Use of Discretion in Situations Involving the Mentally Ill: The Need to Narrow the Focus”,International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 20/10 (1988), 1–13, at 6.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Supra n.4; M. Feeley,The Process is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1979).

    Google Scholar 

  53. R.A. Jacobs,English Syntax: A Grammar for English Language Professionals (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), 272.

    Google Scholar 

  54. C. Baker, “Membership Categorization and Interview Accounts”, inQualitative Research: Theory, Method, and Practice, ed. D. Silverman (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications Inc., 1997), 130–143.

    Google Scholar 

  55. H. Sacks,Lectures on Conversation, Vol. 1 (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  56. L. Jayyusi,Categorization and the Moral Order (Boston, MA: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  57. Supra n. 1, at 158.

  58. J. Jacobs,Stateville: The Penitentiary in Mass Society (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  59. L. Frohmann, “Discrediting Victim's Allegations of Sexual Assault: Prosecutorial Accounts of Case rejection”,Social Problems 38 (1992), 213–226.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Supra n.3; G.M. Matoesian, “‘I'm Sorry We Had to Meet Under These Circumstances’: Verbal Artistry (and Wizardry) in the Kennedy-Smith Rape Trial”, inLaw in Action: Ethnomethodological and Conversational Analytic Approaches to Law, ed. M. Travers and J. Manzo (Brookfield VT: Ashgate Publishing Co., 1997), 137–182.

    Google Scholar 

  61. See also several applications of Jaques Lacan's “four discourses” to law, B. Arrigo, “Legal Discourse and the Disordered Criminal Defendant: Contributions from Psychoanalytic Semiotics and Chaos Theory,”Legal Studies Forum 18(1) (1994), 91–112; D. Milovanovic, “‘Rebellious Lawyering’: Lacan, Chaos, and the Development of Alternative Juridico-Semiotic Forms,”Legal Studies Forum 20(2) (1996), 295–321; H. Stacey, “Lacan's Split Subjects: Raced and Gendered Transformations,”Legal Studies Forum 29(3) (1996), 277–293.

    Google Scholar 

  62. See also B. Yngvesson,Virtuous Citizens: Disruptive Subjects (New York: Routledge, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  63. M. Walzer,Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality (New York: Basic Books Inc., 1983), 10.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ibid., at 11.

  65. T. Eagleton,Ideology (New York: Verso, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  66. American Heritage Dictionary (Boston MA: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1982, 2nd ed.), 416.

  67. B. Pascal,Pensées (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1966), Sec III: 58.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Supra n.64, at 21.

  69. Grice's cooperative principle of conversation illustrates the existence of rules that participants are expected to abide by. When this rule is violated, it can be considered a morally face threatening act. For a discussion of politeness theory and conversation, seesupra n.23, at 147–156.

  70. Supra n.10, at 628–651.

  71. Ibid., at 636–637.

  72. Supra n.55, at 130–143.

  73. For a discussion of parental competence assertions and its dilemmas, see J. Heritage and S. Sefi, “Dilemmas of advice: aspects of the delivery and reception of advice in interactions between health visitors and first-time mothers”, inTalk at Work: inTalk at Work, supra n.5, at 359–417.

  74. Supra n.64, at 21.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Illinois at Chicago, USA

    Phillip Chong Ho Shon

Authors
  1. Phillip Chong Ho Shon
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

I am indebted to Gegory Matoesian for his guidance in developing the ideas presented in this article. I would also like to thank Jess Maghan and Dragan Milovanovic for all their support and encouragement.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ho Shon, P.C. “Now you got a dead baby on your hands”: Discursive tyranny in “cop talk”. Int J Semiot Law 11, 275–301 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01110410

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01110410

Keywords

Search

Navigation