Houwen2009
| Houwen2009 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Houwen2009 |
| Author(s) | Fleur van der Houwen |
| Title | Formulating disputes |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Conversation Analysis, Formulations, Dispute, Institutional talk in the media |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2009 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Journal of Pragmatics |
| Volume | 41 |
| Number | 10 |
| Pages | 2072-2085 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.02.009 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper analyzes the role of formulations in dispute resolution as portrayed on the court show Judge Judy. Formulations have been studied in various institutional settings, but no studies, to my knowledge, have examined their role in a small claims court setting. The data for this study come from the court show Judge Judy, presided over by Judge Judith Sheindlin, a former family court judge. In this televised small claims court, a new version of events is co-constructed out of various competing stories. This study illustrates how various types of formulations constrain and project subsequent interaction. Formulating parts of litigants accounts allow Sheindlin to transform the plaintiff's and the defendant's opposing stories into a new version of events on which she can base her judgment. Litigants may resist some of the transformations by disconfirming and repairing Sheindlin's formulations.
Notes
