Difference between revisions of "Haworth2006"
PaultenHave (talk | contribs) (Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Kate Haworth |Title=The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse |Tag(s)=EMCA; conversation analysis; critical dis...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Number=6 | |Number=6 | ||
|Pages=739–759 | |Pages=739–759 | ||
| + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0957926506068430 | ||
|DOI=10.1177/0957926506068430 | |DOI=10.1177/0957926506068430 | ||
| − | |Abstract= | + | |Abstract=This is a study of police interviewing using an integrated approach, drawing on conversation analysis (CA), critical discourse analysis (CDA) and pragmatics. The study focuses on the balance of power and control, finding that in particular the institutional status of the participants, the discursive roles assigned to them by the context, and their relative knowledge, are significant factors affecting the dynamics of the discourse. Four discursive features are identified as particularly significant, and a detailed analysis of the complex interplay of these features shows that power and control are constantly under negotiation, and are always open to challenge and resistance. Further it is shown that discursive dominance is not necessarily advantageous to participants, due to the specific goals and purposes of the police interview context. A wider consideration of the context illustrates the contribution that linguistics can make to the use of police interview data as evidence in the UK criminal justice system. |
| − | approach, drawing on conversation analysis (CA), critical discourse analysis | ||
| − | (CDA) and pragmatics. The study focuses on the balance of power and control, | ||
| − | finding that in particular the institutional status of the participants, the | ||
| − | discursive roles assigned to them by the context, and their relative knowledge, | ||
| − | are significant factors affecting the dynamics of the discourse. Four discursive | ||
| − | features are identified as particularly significant, and a detailed analysis of the | ||
| − | complex interplay of these features shows that power and control are | ||
| − | constantly under negotiation, and are always open to challenge and | ||
| − | resistance. Further it is shown that discursive dominance is not necessarily | ||
| − | advantageous to participants, due to the specific goals and purposes of the | ||
| − | police interview context. A wider consideration of the context illustrates the | ||
| − | contribution that linguistics can make to the use of police interview data as | ||
| − | evidence in the UK criminal justice system. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:33, 13 November 2019
| Haworth2006 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Haworth2006 |
| Author(s) | Kate Haworth |
| Title | The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, conversation analysis, critical discourse analysis, forensic linguistics, institutional discourse, police interview, power |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2006 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse & Society |
| Volume | 17 |
| Number | 6 |
| Pages | 739–759 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/0957926506068430 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This is a study of police interviewing using an integrated approach, drawing on conversation analysis (CA), critical discourse analysis (CDA) and pragmatics. The study focuses on the balance of power and control, finding that in particular the institutional status of the participants, the discursive roles assigned to them by the context, and their relative knowledge, are significant factors affecting the dynamics of the discourse. Four discursive features are identified as particularly significant, and a detailed analysis of the complex interplay of these features shows that power and control are constantly under negotiation, and are always open to challenge and resistance. Further it is shown that discursive dominance is not necessarily advantageous to participants, due to the specific goals and purposes of the police interview context. A wider consideration of the context illustrates the contribution that linguistics can make to the use of police interview data as evidence in the UK criminal justice system.
Notes
