Matoesian1998
| 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 | |
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
