Difference between revisions of "Licoppe2014a"
SaulAlbert (talk | contribs) |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) m |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
|Author(s)=Christian Licoppe; | |Author(s)=Christian Licoppe; | ||
| − | |Title=Two modes of referring to the case file in the courtroom The use of indirect reported text and text-as-addressed speech in case summaries | + | |Title=Two modes of referring to the case file in the courtroom: The use of indirect reported text and text-as-addressed speech in case summaries |
|Tag(s)=EMCA | |Tag(s)=EMCA | ||
|Key=Licoppe2014a | |Key=Licoppe2014a | ||
|Year=2014 | |Year=2014 | ||
|Journal=Language & Communication | |Journal=Language & Communication | ||
| + | |Volume=36 | ||
| + | |Pages=83–96 | ||
| + | |URL=http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0271530913000827 | ||
| + | |DOI=10.1016/j.langcom.2013.10.001 | ||
| + | |Abstract=This paper analyzes summaries of the written case file which judges produce at the onset of pre-parole pluridisciplanary hearings for assessing the future dangerousness of an inmate. Such summaries of the case file are a highly reflexive discursive practice, as the inmate who appears before the committee is simultaneously the object of the written expert assessments that are re-enacted by the judge and the recipient of these reenactments. Both the production of the summary as an extended turn-at-talk and the procedures for referring to the file are sensitive to this “participative dilemma”. Two different modes for referring to the file are identified: “indirect reported text” and “text-as-addressed speech.” Each has different sequential implications and invokes different epistemic domains and asymmetries. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 10:18, 11 March 2016
| Licoppe2014a | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Licoppe2014a |
| Author(s) | Christian Licoppe |
| Title | Two modes of referring to the case file in the courtroom: The use of indirect reported text and text-as-addressed speech in case summaries |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2014 |
| Language | |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Language & Communication |
| Volume | 36 |
| Number | |
| Pages | 83–96 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.10.001 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper analyzes summaries of the written case file which judges produce at the onset of pre-parole pluridisciplanary hearings for assessing the future dangerousness of an inmate. Such summaries of the case file are a highly reflexive discursive practice, as the inmate who appears before the committee is simultaneously the object of the written expert assessments that are re-enacted by the judge and the recipient of these reenactments. Both the production of the summary as an extended turn-at-talk and the procedures for referring to the file are sensitive to this “participative dilemma”. Two different modes for referring to the file are identified: “indirect reported text” and “text-as-addressed speech.” Each has different sequential implications and invokes different epistemic domains and asymmetries.
Notes
