Edwards2011
| Edwards2011 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Edwards2011 |
| Author(s) | Derek Edwards, Elizabeth H. Stokoe |
| Title | “You don't have to answer”: Lawyers’ contributions in police interrogations of suspects |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Courtroom Interaction, Conversation Analysis, Interrogations, Sequence organization |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2011 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | Research on Language and Social Interaction |
| Volume | 44 |
| Number | 1 |
| Pages | 21-43 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1080/08351813.2011.543877 |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
We examine the location and function of lawyers' contributions in police interrogations of crime suspects, focusing on sequence organization to identify a typology of lawyers' contributions. Lawyers' contributions occurred in four main environments: (a) as compound turns built off police officers' routine elicitations of self-identification by all parties present at the interview; (b) as responses to police officers' routine invitations, prior to closing the interview, for lawyers to add anything further; (c) as responses to suspects' appeals for advice during the interview; and (d) as spontaneous interventions at junctures such as between first and second parts of an adjacency pair (typically, police questions and suspects' answers), or as interjected clarifications for the suspect, of what a police question may be implying. We also address how regular features of lawyers' contributions instantiate the lawyers' role in the setting, including features that make for success in objecting to a line of questioning.
Notes
