Courtroom Questioning and Discourse

Henderson, Emily; Heffer, Christopher; Kebbell, Mark Rhys

doi:10.1002/9781118769133.ch9

Cited by 3 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Doty, 2010;Harris, 1990Harris, , 1995Jacobsen, 2003Jacobsen, , 2004Jacobsen, , 2008Jacobsen, , 2012Marmor, 2008;Mason & Stewart, 2014), legal and criminology studies (e.g. Bhatia et al, 2008;Henderson et al, 2016), and interpreting studies (e.g. Berk-Seligson, 2002Hale, 2002Hale, , 2004Hale, , 2007.…”

Section: Cross-linguistic Challenges In Court Interpretingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Manner of Speech in Australian Courts: A Study of Chinese-English Professional Interpreters in Remote Settings

2023

FITISPos-IJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Professional interpreters are bound by the code of conduct to interpret everything that has been said in courts. In particular, the manner that the propositional content is conveyed in the target language. Using the experiment method and questionnaire instruments, the mixed-methods research investigates the manner of speech and its interpretation in virtual courtroom discourse during remote interpreting. The working article presents the initial findings from two questionnaire instruments: one for demographics and general knowledge about speech style and discourse markers, the other for views and strategies related to the manner of speech in the interpreted utterances. Questionnaire data collected from fifty consented interpreters revealed the three main views on the rendition of the manner of speech: complete disregard as “irrelevant”, verbatim rendition without pragmatic considerations, and pragmatic equivalents for its possible impact on the court decision, ethical conduct, and professionalism. The findings intend to inform future pedagogical practice.

show abstract

Section: Cross-linguistic Challenges In Court Interpretingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Manner of Speech in Australian Courts: A Study of Chinese-English Professional Interpreters in Remote Settings

2023

FITISPos-IJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An example of this is Chang's 2004 study that examined the goal of questions in Chinese criminal courtrooms and found that the goal was to persuade the judge and not to obtain information. There are also many studies exploring questions from a legal (Henderson et al, 2015) or a psychologicalcognitive perspective (Walczyk et al, 2013). Most of these focus on the use of questions in cross-examinations.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Most of these focus on the use of questions in cross-examinations. For example, Henderson et al (2015) examined courtroom questioning and discourse, with a focus on the advantages and disadvantages of accusatorial systems and inquisitorial systems on the effectiveness and validity of crossexaminations. They point to research by Vrij et al (2009) that suggests using open ended questions are more effective in getting information.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

A look at WH-questions in direct and cross-examinations: Authentic vs. TV courtroom language

Chen

Reppen

2020

DELTA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using a corpus-based register approach, this study explores language use of authentic and TV courtroom discourse through the lens of WH-questions, with a focus on direct and cross-examinations. Results show that in addition to differences as a result of these two discourse settings (i.e., authentic and TV courtroom), WH-questions accomplish different goals across the registers of direct and cross-examinations. For example, WH-questions are avoided in authentic cross-examinations, while in TV courtroom discourse WH-questions are used to engage viewers. Results explore how the different communicative purposes of authentic and TV courtroom settings impact the use of WH-questions in direct and cross-examinations.

show abstract

Obtaining Testimony from Autistic People

Maras

2021

Handbook of Autism Spectrum Disorder and the Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Courtroom Questioning and Discourse

Cited by 3 publications

References 45 publications

Assessing the Manner of Speech in Australian Courts: A Study of Chinese-English Professional Interpreters in Remote Settings

Assessing the Manner of Speech in Australian Courts: A Study of Chinese-English Professional Interpreters in Remote Settings

A look at WH-questions in direct and cross-examinations: Authentic vs. TV courtroom language

Obtaining Testimony from Autistic People

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About