The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction

Abstract

This paper deals with the interaction between legal Professionals and defendants in criminal court trials, The data corpus consists of40 trials recorded in aSwedish district court, all featuring minor economic offences. Analyses focus particularly upon the ways in which the discourse space is shared. The interplay between the various types ofdirecting and controlling moves adopted by fudges and lawyers, and defendants' attempts to voice their points ofview is accounted for. The quantitative pari of the study makes use ofa coding system in which actors f contributions to the dialogue are characterized in terms of different types of initiatives and responses. Furthermore, the differential effects of specific questioning styles are investigated. Trials are shown to vary in several dimensions of interactional asymmetry. It appears that defendants who have committed relatively more vs less serious offences are treated in significantly different ways; relatively more interrogation-like vs more conversation-like ways of condttcting the courtroom hearings are identified.

Multi-unit questions in institutional interactions: Sequential organizations and communicative functions

“…Open single-unit questions sometimes occur as opening questions in courtroom interviews. Nevertheless, Adelswärd et al (1987) found that legal professionals often preferred topic-openers with multi-unit designs ending in closed-ended questions (see extract [1] lines [1][2][3][4][5]. Interestingly, this happened more often with more serious offenders ('recidivists') than with first-time defendants; it seems that the professionals used the constraining 'question cascades' (i.e., 'different versions of what is ostensibly the same question' [Clayman and Heritage 2002: 757]) when they were particularly concerned about controlling and steering the interview more strongly.…”

Changing dominance in mixed profession groups: putting theory into practice

“…During the observer training, several indicators of dominance were discussed: interruption, questioning, topic control, formulation and amount of talk (e.g., Adelswärd et al, 1987;Duff, 1986;Kollock, Blumstein, & Schwartz, 1985;Linell, 1990;Roger & Schumacher, 1983;Ten Have, 1991). Observers evaluated this relative dominance between dental and dental hygiene students within a mixed profession group using an ordinal scale (to score the perceived image related to dominance): −1 = dental dominance, 0 = no dominance, +1 = dental hygiene dominance.…”

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

“…Reformulations can be hence described as ''combative'' in the witness examination since they create a linguistic conflict between the legal professional and the witness. Indeed, as [1] explain, the lawyer proposes a version of the evidence only picking up certain elements of the witness' narrative chosen to be favourable to his/her line of argument and changing those conflictual. The task of the legal professionals is to create a credible narrative to be submitted to the jury in order to obtain a positive verdict for their clients.…”