Difference between revisions of "Matoesian1998"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m
Line 3: Line 3:
 
|Author(s)=Greg Matoesian
 
|Author(s)=Greg Matoesian
 
|Title=Discursive hegemony in the Kennedy Smith rape trial: Evidence of an age graded allusion in expert testimony
 
|Title=Discursive hegemony in the Kennedy Smith rape trial: Evidence of an age graded allusion in expert testimony
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Rape; Courtroom Interaction; Hegemony; Testimony;  
+
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Rape; Courtroom Interaction; Hegemony; Testimony;
 
|Key=Matoesian1998
 
|Key=Matoesian1998
 
|Year=1998
 
|Year=1998
 +
|Language=English
 
|Journal=Pragmatics
 
|Journal=Pragmatics
 
|Volume=8
 
|Volume=8
Line 12: Line 13:
 
|URL=https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/prag.8.1.01mat/fulltext
 
|URL=https://benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/prag.8.1.01mat/fulltext
 
|DOI=10.1075/prag.8.1.01mat
 
|DOI=10.1075/prag.8.1.01mat
 +
|Abstract=In this study, I examine how the category of “expert” emerges as a persuasive force
 +
in  discursive  interaction  between  the  prosecuting  attorney  and  expert  witness  in
 +
cross-examination.
 +
Using audio-video recordings of testimony from the Kennedy Smith rape trial,  I demonstrate how both the prosecuting attorney and witness co-construct and co-ordinate chronological age disclosure as an epistemological and persuasive strategy for
 +
undermining  the  expert’s  competence  and  credibility.  Focusing  on  categorization  in interaction,    I  explore  how  discursive  forms  such  as  repetition,  repair,  and  intonation intersect with linguistic ideologies to realign categorial identity from expert to age, along with the prejudicial stereotypes associated with this social identity.  Rather than reify this identity and leave it as an unproblematic legal argument,  as exogenously given in some way,  I address the following question: How do attorneys and witnesses mobilize the above mentioned discursive resources to sustain, undermine, and negotiate an expert identity?  Put another way,  how is an expert identity processually forged through these situated verbal practices to foster a favorable or unfavorable impression on the jury? 
 
}}
 
}}

Revision as of 07:17, 1 January 2018

Matoesian1998
BibType ARTICLE
Key Matoesian1998
Author(s) Greg Matoesian
Title Discursive hegemony in the Kennedy Smith rape trial: Evidence of an age graded allusion in expert testimony
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Rape, Courtroom Interaction, Hegemony, Testimony
Publisher
Year 1998
Language English
City
Month
Journal Pragmatics
Volume 8
Number 1
Pages 3–19
URL Link
DOI 10.1075/prag.8.1.01mat
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

In this study, I examine how the category of “expert” emerges as a persuasive force in discursive interaction between the prosecuting attorney and expert witness in cross-examination. Using audio-video recordings of testimony from the Kennedy Smith rape trial, I demonstrate how both the prosecuting attorney and witness co-construct and co-ordinate chronological age disclosure as an epistemological and persuasive strategy for undermining the expert’s competence and credibility. Focusing on categorization in interaction, I explore how discursive forms such as repetition, repair, and intonation intersect with linguistic ideologies to realign categorial identity from expert to age, along with the prejudicial stereotypes associated with this social identity. Rather than reify this identity and leave it as an unproblematic legal argument, as exogenously given in some way, I address the following question: How do attorneys and witnesses mobilize the above mentioned discursive resources to sustain, undermine, and negotiate an expert identity? Put another way, how is an expert identity processually forged through these situated verbal practices to foster a favorable or unfavorable impression on the jury?

Notes