Difference between revisions of "Franzen2018"
m (key) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
|Key=Franzen2018 | |Key=Franzen2018 | ||
|Year=2018 | |Year=2018 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Journal=Discourse Studies | |Journal=Discourse Studies | ||
|Volume=20 | |Volume=20 | ||
|Number=5 | |Number=5 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=577–597 |
| − | |URL=https://doi | + | |URL=https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1461445618760605 |
|DOI=10.1177/1461445618760605 | |DOI=10.1177/1461445618760605 | ||
|Abstract=Courtroom talk in child custody interrogations recurrently features contrasting event descriptions about ‘what happened’, as well as contrasting person descriptions. This case study – from a large set of audio-recorded courtroom examinations – documents how social workers’ contrasting narrative versions about alleged domestic violence are related to divergent problem formulations. Blame-account sequences feature descriptions of a particular event as violent or nonviolent and descriptions of a new partner as ‘non-adult’ or merely as ‘impulsive’ but ‘concerned’. Other contrasting person descriptions feature a target child either as ‘normal’ or as someone who ‘has a diagnosis’. This involves categorizations of the particular child either as a victim (‘normal child’) or as someone ‘with a diagnosis’, two contrasting accounts that provide divergent explanatory formulations of what the overall problem is. Ultimately, divergent testimonies also reflect how social accounts in court reflect both mitigated/aggravated descriptions of violence and divergent accounts of parents’ and children’s agency and accountability. | |Abstract=Courtroom talk in child custody interrogations recurrently features contrasting event descriptions about ‘what happened’, as well as contrasting person descriptions. This case study – from a large set of audio-recorded courtroom examinations – documents how social workers’ contrasting narrative versions about alleged domestic violence are related to divergent problem formulations. Blame-account sequences feature descriptions of a particular event as violent or nonviolent and descriptions of a new partner as ‘non-adult’ or merely as ‘impulsive’ but ‘concerned’. Other contrasting person descriptions feature a target child either as ‘normal’ or as someone who ‘has a diagnosis’. This involves categorizations of the particular child either as a victim (‘normal child’) or as someone ‘with a diagnosis’, two contrasting accounts that provide divergent explanatory formulations of what the overall problem is. Ultimately, divergent testimonies also reflect how social accounts in court reflect both mitigated/aggravated descriptions of violence and divergent accounts of parents’ and children’s agency and accountability. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 06:22, 13 January 2020
| Franzen2018 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Franzen2018 |
| Author(s) | Anna Franzén, Karin Aronsson |
| Title | ‘Then she got a spanking’: Social accountability and narrative versions in social workers’ courtroom testimonies |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Discursive Psychology, accounts, accounting, formulation, categorizations, child custody disputes, courtroom talk, event descriptions, narrative versions, person descriptions, problem formulation, accountability |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2018 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Discourse Studies |
| Volume | 20 |
| Number | 5 |
| Pages | 577–597 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1177/1461445618760605 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
Courtroom talk in child custody interrogations recurrently features contrasting event descriptions about ‘what happened’, as well as contrasting person descriptions. This case study – from a large set of audio-recorded courtroom examinations – documents how social workers’ contrasting narrative versions about alleged domestic violence are related to divergent problem formulations. Blame-account sequences feature descriptions of a particular event as violent or nonviolent and descriptions of a new partner as ‘non-adult’ or merely as ‘impulsive’ but ‘concerned’. Other contrasting person descriptions feature a target child either as ‘normal’ or as someone who ‘has a diagnosis’. This involves categorizations of the particular child either as a victim (‘normal child’) or as someone ‘with a diagnosis’, two contrasting accounts that provide divergent explanatory formulations of what the overall problem is. Ultimately, divergent testimonies also reflect how social accounts in court reflect both mitigated/aggravated descriptions of violence and divergent accounts of parents’ and children’s agency and accountability.
Notes
