Reformulation and Conflict in the Witness Examination: The Case of Public Inquiries

Abstract

This paper focuses on the development of witness examination as an argumentative dialogue between legal professionals and lay-people, considering in particular the case of Public Inquiries in Great Britain. This paper discusses the retention of traces of the adversarial system, typical of Common Law trials, in this type of inquisitorial proceedings, stressing on how counsels exploit some linguistic features to control both the form and the ideational content of the exchange as well as the power relationship with the witness. The analysis is carried out on a corpus of 15 days of witness examination transcripts (507,346 words) collected from three different Public Inquiries, namely Bloody Sunday Inquiry (Northern Ireland), Shipman Inquiry (England), and Cullen Inquiry (Scotland), to achieve a wider perspective on Common Law administrative justice. The study is based on a discourse and genre analytic approach for the macro-analysis of Public Inquiries in the context of courtroom discourse and of witness examination as a genre that develops within this discourse framework. Subsequently, a micro-analysis of the linguistic features used by counsel in questions to argumentatively shape the content and the form of the exchange is provided. We also take into consideration the role of metadiscourse (textual and interpersonal), repetitions and reformulations. Preliminary results show that these linguistic features provide valuable evidence for the hypothesis that the adversarial side of the argumentative dialogue between legal professionals and lay-people during the witness examination of Public Inquiries is retained.

Performing self on the witness stand: Stance and relational work in expert witness testimony

“…Over the past four decades or so, the courtroom has been shown to be a site of linguistic control and manipulation. Several studies reveal that examiners strategically use questions to elicit and provide specific information that supports the goal of advocacy for their side, and to constrain defendants’ and witnesses’ discursive leeway that may produce the opposite effect (Cavalieri, 2009; Danet et al, 1980; Harris, 1984; McCaul, 2011; Matoesian, 1993, 1999, 2001; Walker, 1982, 1987; Woodbury, 1984).…”

Repeticiones y (re)formulaciones dialógicas en el interrogatorio judicial: reparación heteroiniciada, registro y comprensión empática de la perspectiva ajena

“…Sin embargo, lo cierto es que esta dominancia o control no solo se ejerce mediante las preguntas, sino también a través de la recuperación (y recontextualización) de las palabras del interrogado. En este sentido, algunos estudios realizados para el ámbito anglosajón han llamado ya la atención sobre cómo los fiscales y abogados recuperan el discurso del interrogado para confirmarlo, reconducirlo o perfilarlo (Gaines, 1996;Hobbs, 2003;Gnisci & Pontecorvo, 2004;Cavalieri 2009), o incluso para extraer conclusiones o asignarle una interpretación determinada (Adelswärd et al, 1987: 323). Tales estudios se han centrado, por un lado, en analizar los mecanismos de cita implícitos o explícitos empleados por los operadores jurídicos, entre los que predomina el uso del discurso indirecto (Gaines, 1996) y, por otro, en mostrar algunas funciones de las repeticiones o de las reformulaciones dialogales de palabras del testigo.…”

“…Por lo que respecta a las reformulaciones, si bien pueden emplearse para colaborar o para entrar en conflicto con la narrativa de los hechos propuesta por el declarante (Cavalieri, 2009), los estudios existentes se han centrado en el análisis del segundo tipo, las conflictivas, que se emplean para desvelar contradicciones que cuestionen la credibilidad del discurso del testigo (Cavalieri, 2009: 218), o bien para intentar que este valide una versión de lo que acaba de decir ligeramente distinta y más conforme a los intereses del interrogador, a través de la alteración de algunas de sus palabras (Luchjenbroers, 1997;Hobbs, 2003;Cotterill, 2004;Gnisci & Pontecorvo, 2004).…”