Epistemic Stance in Courtroom Interaction

Chapter
First Online:
Part of the Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology book series (PEPRPHPS, volume 10)

Abstract

The oral examination of defendants and witnesses is a cornerstone in most criminal trials, where the weight and credibility of what is said and the certainty with which testimony is delivered will often be decisive for the ruling of the court. This chapter presents a case study of the linguistic construction of certainty and uncertainty – or epistemic stance taking – in Danish courtroom interaction. Based on transcribed audio recordings from a criminal trial in Denmark in 2014, we examine the ways in which the defendant, the alleged victim and an eyewitness construct epistemic stances during their examinations. The study combines a quantitative and a qualitative approach. In the first part of the chapter we develop a method that allows us to compare the epistemic expressions used by the three trial participants and the frequency with which the expressions are employed. In the second part we build on the quantitative findings by characterising and comparing the contextualised pragmatic functions of typical epistemic stances taken by two of the participants. Based on the analyses we argue that the trial participants may be said to adopt different epistemic stance styles, and we suggest that these styles may be motivated by pragmatic and rhetorical aims related to the individuals’ roles in the case.

Keywords

Danish courtroom interaction Epistemic stance Witness examination Forensic linguistics 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References4

  1. Adelswärd, V., Aronsson, K., & Linell, P. (1988). Discourse of blame: Courtroom construction of social identity from the perspective of the defendant. Semiotica, 71(3-4), 261–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adolphs, S. (2008). Definitely maybe: Modality clusters and politeness in spoken discourse. In P. Skandera (Ed.), Phraseology and culture in English (pp. 257–274). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, S. (1992). The transition from inquisitorial to adversarial criminal procedure in Denmark. Scandinavian Studies, 64(2), 181–198.Google Scholar
  4. Atkinson, J. M. (1992). Displaying neutrality: Formal aspects of informal court proceedings. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 199–211). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bednarek, G. A. (2014). Polish vs. American courtroom discourse: Inquisitorial and adversarial procedures of witness examination in criminal trials. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  7. Bennet, W. L., & Feldman, M. S. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom. London: Tavistock.Google Scholar
  8. Beyer, J. (2013). Retorik i retten. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.Google Scholar
  9. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Biscetti, S. (2006). Tag questions in courtroom discourse. In M. Gotti & J. Flowerdew (Eds.), Studies in specialized discourse (pp. 209–238). Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  11. Boye, K. (2012). Epistemic meaning: A cross-linguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bülow-Møller, A. M. (1991). Trial evidence: Overt and covert communication in court. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 38–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Caffi, C. (2007). Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  14. Carretero, M. (1992). The role of epistemic modality in English politeness strategies. Miscelánea: A journal of english and american studies, 13, 17–36.Google Scholar
  15. Christensen, T. K. (2007). Hyperparadigmer – en undersøgelse af paradigmatiske samspil i danske modussystemer, PhD thesis, Roskilde: Roskilde University.Google Scholar
  16. Coates, J. (1987). Epistemic modality and spoken discourse. Transactions of the Philological Society, 85(1), 110–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Coates, J. (1990). Modal meaning: The semantic–pragmatic interface. Journal of Semantics, 7(1), 53–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. M. (1998). Just words: Law, language and power. Chicago: The University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  19. Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and power in court : A linguistic analysis of the O. J. Simpson trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  22. Damaška, M. R. (1997). Evidence law adrift. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Dong, J. (2013). Interpersonal metaphor in legal discourse: Modality in cross-examinations. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 4(6), 1311–1321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3–65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Pragmatics & beyond new series (Vol. 164, pp. 139–182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  27. Edmondson, W. J. (1981). Spoken discourse: A model for analysis. London/New York: Longman Group.Google Scholar
  28. Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
  29. Haberland, H., & Mortensen, J. (2015). Transcription as second-order entextualization: The challenge of heteroglossia. In A. Capone & J. L. Mey (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies in pragmatics, culture and society (pp. 581–600). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  30. Hansen, E., & Heltoft, L. (2011). Grammatik over det danske sprog. København/Odense: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab/Syddansk Universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
  31. Harris, S. (1984). Questions as a mode of control in magistrates’ courts. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 49, 5–28.Google Scholar
  32. Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. West Sussex: Wiley/Blackwell Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Holmes, J. (1988). Doubt and certainty in ESL textbooks. Applied Linguistics, 9(1), 21–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Hosman, L. A. (1989). The evaluative consequences of hedges, hesitations, and intensifies powerful and powerless speech styles. Human Communication Research, 15(3), 383–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. House, J., & Kasper, G. (1981). Politeness markers in English and German. In F. Coulmas (Ed.), Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech (pp. 157–185). The Hague: Mouton Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. Jacobsen, B. (2002). Pragmatic meaning in court interpreting : An empirical study of additions in consecutively interpreted question-answer dialogues, PhD thesis, Aarhus: Aarhus School of Business, The Faculty of Modern Languages.Google Scholar
  37. Jacquemet, M. (1996). Credibility in court: Communicative practices in the camorra trials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Jensen, E. S. (2000). Danske sætningsadverbialer og topologi i diakron belysning, PhD thesis, Copenhagen: University of Copenhagen.Google Scholar
  39. Kæraa, C. (2011). Domstolene på tværs af landegrænser. Retten Rundt (Domstolsstyrelsen), 8, 24–27.Google Scholar
  40. Kjær, A. L., Adrian, L., Cederstrøm, C. B., Engberg, J., Gabrielsen, J., Rosenmeier, M., & Schaumburg-Müller, S. (eds.). (2015). Retten i Sproget: Samspillet mellem ret og sprog i juridisk praksis. Copenhagen: Jurist- og Økonomiforbundets Forlag.Google Scholar
  41. Kärkkäinen, E. (1992). Modality as a strategy in interaction: Epistemic modality in the language of native and non-native speakers of English. Pragmatics and Language Learning, 3, 197–216.Google Scholar
  42. Komter, M. (1995). The distribution of knowledge in courtroom interaction. In P. ten Have & G. Psathas (Eds.), Situated Order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities (pp. 107–128). Washington: University Press of America.Google Scholar
  43. Komter, M. (2013). Conversation analysis in the courtroom. In J. Sidnell & T. Stivers (Eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis (pp. 612–629). Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  44. Lakoff, R. T. (1975). Language and woman’s place. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  45. Law, J. & Martin, E.A. (2014). A dictionary of law, 7 ed. (Online Version), Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  46. Lind, E. A., & O’Barr, W. M. (1978). The social significance of speech in the courtroom. In H. Giles & R. N. S. Clair (Eds.), Language and social psychology (pp. 67–87). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  47. MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Mininni, G., Scardigno, R., & Grattagliano, I. (2014). The dialogic construction of certainty in legal contexts. Language and Dialogue, 4(1), 112–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mortensen, J. (2010). Epistemic stance marking in the use of English as a lingua franca, PhD thesis, Roskilde: Roskilde University.Google Scholar
  50. Mortensen, J. (2012). Epistemisk positionering i dansk talesprog. NyS, Nydanske Sprogstudier, 42, 62–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Nikula, T. (1996). Pragmatic force modifiers: A study in interlanguage pragmatics. Jyväskyla: University of Jyväskyla.Google Scholar
  52. Nølke, H., Fløttum, K., & Norén, C. (2004). ScaPoLine: La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Editions Kimé.Google Scholar
  53. O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York/London: Academic.Google Scholar
  54. Ochs, E. (1992). Indexing gender. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon (pp. 335–358). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  55. Simon-Vandenbergen, A. M., & Aijmer, K. (2007). The semantic field of modal certainty: A corpus-based study of English adverbs. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Staffe, M. L. (2008). Retsretorik. Copenhagen: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
  57. Szczyrbak, M. (2013). “I think my own view is that…” On the linguistic construction of evidence in courtroom discourse. Topics in Linguistics, 12, 65–74.Google Scholar
  58. Therkelsen, R. (2004). Polyfoni som sproglig begrebsramme og som redskab i tekstanalysen. Sproglig polyfoni: arbejdspapirer, 1, 79–109.Google Scholar
  59. Thompson, J. K. (2002). “Powerful/Powerless” language in court: A critical re-evaluation of the Duke language and law programme. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 9(2), 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Toska, B. (2012). Epistemic hedges and boosters as stance markers in legal argumentative discourse. Topics in Linguistics, 10, 57–62.Google Scholar
  61. White, P. R. R. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text: Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 23(2), 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Youmans, M. (2001). Cross-cultural differences in polite epistemic modal use in American English. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, 22(1), 57–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Communication and ArtsRoskilde UniversityRoskildeDenmark
  2. 2.Centre for Internationalisation and Parallel Language Use, Department of English, Germanic and Romance StudiesUniversity of CopenhagenCopenhagenDenmark

Personalised recommendations