Difference between revisions of "Galatolo2015"
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=INCOLLECTION | |BibType=INCOLLECTION | ||
|Author(s)=Renata Galatolo; | |Author(s)=Renata Galatolo; | ||
| − | |Title=Reporting | + | |Title=Reporting talk when testifying: intertextuality, consistency and transformation in witnesses use of direct reported speech |
|Editor(s)=Baudouin Dupret; Michael Lynch; Tim Berard; | |Editor(s)=Baudouin Dupret; Michael Lynch; Tim Berard; | ||
|Tag(s)=Law; Ethnomethodology; Reported Speech; | |Tag(s)=Law; Ethnomethodology; Reported Speech; | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
|Publisher=Oxford University Press | |Publisher=Oxford University Press | ||
|Year=2015 | |Year=2015 | ||
| + | |Language=English | ||
|Address=Oxford | |Address=Oxford | ||
|Booktitle=Law at Work: Studies in Legal Ethnomethods | |Booktitle=Law at Work: Studies in Legal Ethnomethods | ||
|Pages=139–162 | |Pages=139–162 | ||
| + | |URL=https://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210243.001.0001/acprof-9780190210243-chapter-7 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210243.003.0007 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This chapter focuses on cases of consistency, across different testimonies of the same trial, in representing the ‘same’ discursive event using direct reported speech (DRS). This consistency emerged both in comparisons of testimonies of witnesses appearing for the same side in the trial and comparisons of testimonies of witnesses appearing for opposing sides. In all cases, DRS is used in correspondence with problematic elements of the version of facts the witness supports or counters, that is, with elements for which it is important to offer a persuasive representation. This result is compared with previous analyses of DRS in court that showed consistency in its use by legal professionals and in the absence of its use in witnesses’ discourse. The chapter demonstrates that witnesses and professionals share the discursive competence that brings them to choose to represent the important elements for supporting or countering the charge of using DRS. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 08:45, 16 December 2019
| Galatolo2015 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | INCOLLECTION |
| Key | Galatolo2015 |
| Author(s) | Renata Galatolo |
| Title | Reporting talk when testifying: intertextuality, consistency and transformation in witnesses use of direct reported speech |
| Editor(s) | Baudouin Dupret, Michael Lynch, Tim Berard |
| Tag(s) | Law, Ethnomethodology, Reported Speech |
| Publisher | Oxford University Press |
| Year | 2015 |
| Language | English |
| City | Oxford |
| Month | |
| Journal | |
| Volume | |
| Number | |
| Pages | 139–162 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190210243.003.0007 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | Law at Work: Studies in Legal Ethnomethods |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This chapter focuses on cases of consistency, across different testimonies of the same trial, in representing the ‘same’ discursive event using direct reported speech (DRS). This consistency emerged both in comparisons of testimonies of witnesses appearing for the same side in the trial and comparisons of testimonies of witnesses appearing for opposing sides. In all cases, DRS is used in correspondence with problematic elements of the version of facts the witness supports or counters, that is, with elements for which it is important to offer a persuasive representation. This result is compared with previous analyses of DRS in court that showed consistency in its use by legal professionals and in the absence of its use in witnesses’ discourse. The chapter demonstrates that witnesses and professionals share the discursive competence that brings them to choose to represent the important elements for supporting or countering the charge of using DRS.
Notes
