ANALYSIS OF LEGAL DISCOURSE IN CROSS-EXAMINATION QUESTIONINGS: ADAMA CITY CRIMINAL COURTROOMS, OROMIA REGIONAL STATE, ETHIOPIA

Ejarra Batu Balcha

DOI Number
-
First page
269
Last page
274

Abstract


Recent studies of cross-examination questions focused on linguistic and nonlinguistic contexts in order to supplement the limitations of early studies which had focused on question-answer pair. Yet, there is a visible limitation of linguistic analysis of oral discourse based on original data which consequently reduces the credibility of the results. The analysis of this study is based on the authentic, naturally occurring courtroom cross-examination interaction ofAdamaCityCriminal Courtrooms in order to fill the existing gap of performing a linguistic analysis of oral discourse using secondary data. The aim of the study is, therefore, to present the discursive strategies of cross-examination questioning forms and functions in their attempts to deconstruct persuasive testimony. In doing so, employing the cross-examination combative nature of courtroom interaction, the study focuses on the analysis of cross-examination question forms and functions from the pragma-dialectical discourse perspectives. The finding of the study suggests that the use of declarative question, tag question, and projection question forms are the lawyers’ discursive strategies to control and dominate the language of the witnesses.


Full Text:

PDF

References


Bennett, W. L. & Feldman, M. S. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom. London: Tavistock Publications.

Christophe, V.B. (2007). Ethiopia: Constitutional Protection Of Ethnic Minorities At The Regional Level. Begium.afrika focus, vol. 20, nr. 1-2, 2007, pp. 105-151

Cotterill, J. (2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the OJ Simp-son Trial, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Danet, B. & Kermish, N. C. (1978). Courtroom questioning: A sociolinguistic perspective. In L. N. Massery (ed.), Psychology and Persuasion in Advocacy 413–441. Washington DC: Association of Trial Lawyers of America, National College of Advocacy.

Drew, P. (1992). “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice Sys-tem. Malden, Mass.; Oxford: Blackwell Pub.

______(2004). ‘Language and the Law’, in A. Davies and C. Elder, The handbook of applied linguistics(eds) Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 285-303

______(2007). Forensic Linguistics. In M. Hellinger and A. Pauwels, Handbook of Lan-guage and Communication: Diversity and Change.Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, D-10785 Berlin. VOL. 9, 429-458.

______ (2008). ‘Questioning in common law criminal courts’. In J. Gibbons and M. T.Turell (eds), Dimensions of forensic linguistics: The Netherlands, John Benjamins Publishing Company. (pp. 115-130)

Hale, S.,B. (2004). The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse practices of the law, the witness and the interpreter. John Benjamins B.V.

Heffer, C. (2005). The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal–Lay Dicourse, Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan

New York University (2006). Guide to Foreign and International Legal Citations. New York University. School of Law: Journal of International Law and Politics.

Shuy, R.W. (2006). Linguistics in the Courtroom: A Practical Guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Tkacuková, T. (2010). Lay People as Cross-Examiners: A Linguistic Analysis of the Li-bel Case McDonald’s Corporation v. Helen Steel and David Morris. Masaryk University, Faculty of Arts Department of English and American Studies: Un-published PhD Dissertation


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


ISSN 2334-9182 (Print)
ISSN 2334-9212 (Online)