Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
In This Section

Text & Talk

An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse & Communication Studies

Ed. by Sarangi, Srikant

6 Issues per year


IMPACT FACTOR 2016: 0.448
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 0.686

CiteScore 2016: 0.63

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2015: 0.644
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2015: 0.508

Online
ISSN
1860-7349
See all formats and pricing
In This Section
Volume 26, Issue 3 (May 2006)

Issues

Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial

Esther Pascual
  • Corresponding author
  • Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam
  • Email:
Published Online: 2009-10-21 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.014a

Abstract

In the adversarial legal system, talk-in-interaction is extremely fixed and regulated. Such rigidity motivates the emergence of what may be termed ‘fictive interaction’ (Pascual 2002). This constitutes a conceptual channel of communication underlying the observable interaction between participants. Regardless of its overt interactional structure (monologue, dialogue), I assume that Western courtroom communication typically involves an implicit trialogue between (i) the prosecution, (ii) the defense, and (iii) the judge/jury. The focus is on questions in legal monologues, which have barely been studied. Four complex instances of ‘fictive’ questions (and question–answer pairs) from a prosecutor’s closing argument and rebuttal are discussed: (i) a set of expository questions and answers; (ii) a subsequently answered rhetorical question; (iii) a clausal question used as a definition; and (iv) a word-level question characterizing the prosecutor’s own argument. These questions are argued to set up an interactional structure that maps the fictive trialogue underlying the discourse and overall situation of communication they occur in. They also show that fictive interaction can serve as an e¤ective argumentative strategy manifested at the discourse as well as the sentential and intra-sentential levels. This paper is based on fieldwork on a high-profile murder trial I observed in a California court in 2000.

Keywords: questions; monologues; fictive interaction; fictive trialogue; courtroom communication; argumentation

About the article

Esther Pascual

Esther Pascual is a post-doctoral scholar at the Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam. She is currently working on a four-year project on the conceptualization and strategic use of speech representation in Dutch and American criminal trials. She has carried out research on courtroom interaction and language use in Spain, the United States, Belgium, and the Netherlands.


1Address for correspondence: Dept. of Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, Vrije Universiteit, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV-Amsterdam, The Netherlands


Published Online: 2009-10-21

Published in Print: 2006-05-19



Citation Information: Text & Talk - An Interdisciplinary Journal of Language, Discourse Communication Studies, ISSN (Online) 1860-7349, ISSN (Print) 1860-7330, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.014a. Export Citation

Citing Articles

Here you can find all Crossref-listed publications in which this article is cited. If you would like to receive automatic email messages as soon as this article is cited in other publications, simply activate the “Citation Alert” on the top of this page.

[1]
[2]
Rafael Rigol Verdejo and Carmen Sancho Guinda
Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 2015, Volume 173, Page 132
[4]
Alan Cienki and Gianluca Giansante
Journal of Language and Politics, 2014, Volume 13, Number 2, Page 255
[5]
TODD OAKLEY and VERA TOBIN
Language and Cognition, 2014, Volume 6, Number 01, Page 79

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in