Difference between revisions of "Seuren2019"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (SaulAlbert moved page 10.1177/1461445618770483 to Seuren2019 without leaving a redirect: Incorrectly titled page)
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
|Author(s)=Lucas M Seuren;
+
|Author(s)=Lucas M. Seuren;
 
|Title=Questioning in court: The construction of direct examinations
 
|Title=Questioning in court: The construction of direct examinations
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; action formation; American English; interaction; direct examination; leading questions; question constraints; question design
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; action formation; American English; interaction; direct examination; leading questions; question constraints; question design
 
|Key=Seuren2019
 
|Key=Seuren2019
 
|Year=2019
 
|Year=2019
 +
|Language=English
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Journal=Discourse Studies
 
|Volume=21
 
|Volume=21
 
|Number=3
 
|Number=3
|Pages=340-357
+
|Pages=340–357
|URL=https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618770483
+
|URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461445618770483
 
|DOI=10.1177/1461445618770483
 
|DOI=10.1177/1461445618770483
 
|Abstract=While courtroom examinations are often recognized as a distinct speech-exchange system, little is known about how participants do an examination beyond its unique turn-taking system. This article attempts to shed some light on this issue by studying the question design during the direct examination in an American criminal court case using Conversation Analysis. It shows that attorneys use different question forms compared to casual conversation: declaratives are far less prevalent and questions are often designed as requests for action. In addition, attorneys make use of forms that are not found in other types of interaction, such as the tag (is that) correct. The way in which attorneys design their questions additionally shows that the rules of the courtroom have procedural consequences for how the interaction is done. But these rules have to be enacted, and it is in their violation that participants bring about categories such as leading questions.
 
|Abstract=While courtroom examinations are often recognized as a distinct speech-exchange system, little is known about how participants do an examination beyond its unique turn-taking system. This article attempts to shed some light on this issue by studying the question design during the direct examination in an American criminal court case using Conversation Analysis. It shows that attorneys use different question forms compared to casual conversation: declaratives are far less prevalent and questions are often designed as requests for action. In addition, attorneys make use of forms that are not found in other types of interaction, such as the tag (is that) correct. The way in which attorneys design their questions additionally shows that the rules of the courtroom have procedural consequences for how the interaction is done. But these rules have to be enacted, and it is in their violation that participants bring about categories such as leading questions.
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 08:31, 16 January 2020

Seuren2019
BibType ARTICLE
Key Seuren2019
Author(s) Lucas M. Seuren
Title Questioning in court: The construction of direct examinations
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, action formation, American English, interaction, direct examination, leading questions, question constraints, question design
Publisher
Year 2019
Language English
City
Month
Journal Discourse Studies
Volume 21
Number 3
Pages 340–357
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/1461445618770483
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

While courtroom examinations are often recognized as a distinct speech-exchange system, little is known about how participants do an examination beyond its unique turn-taking system. This article attempts to shed some light on this issue by studying the question design during the direct examination in an American criminal court case using Conversation Analysis. It shows that attorneys use different question forms compared to casual conversation: declaratives are far less prevalent and questions are often designed as requests for action. In addition, attorneys make use of forms that are not found in other types of interaction, such as the tag (is that) correct. The way in which attorneys design their questions additionally shows that the rules of the courtroom have procedural consequences for how the interaction is done. But these rules have to be enacted, and it is in their violation that participants bring about categories such as leading questions.

Notes