The Courtroom Hearing as a Middle Ground: Speech Accommodation by Lawyers and Defendants

Abstract

A criminal court trial may be characterised in terms of interactional asymmetry and by largely conflicting goals and interests on the part of the principal actors. It is also an arena where different linguistic varieties and modes of interaction meet. In this paper, we analyse Swedish court hearings as a middle ground where actors, defendants as well as legal professionals, attenuate a number of differences in their respective discourse styles, e.g. as regards vocabulary and information density. Despite what defendants claim in interviews, they themselves attenuate their colloquial jargons when they speak to judges and lawyers in courts. At the other side, legal professionals routinely change their language considerably as they move from the monological phases of the trials to the rather informal dialogical phases (hearings), in which they directly interact with defendants. Furthermore, professionals are also shown to accommodate to the linguistic styles of individual defendants (as regards level of information density). Results are interpreted in terms of speech accommodation theory and provide support for the validity of the theory for authentic interaction in real social life.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Adelswärd, V. , Aronsson, K. , Jönsson, L. and Linell, P. (1987) The uncqual distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction. Text, 7, 313–46.

Adelswärd, V., Aronsson, K. and Linell, P. (in press) Discourse of blame: Courtroom construction of social identity from the perspective of the defendant. Semiotica.

Andenaes, J. (1968) The legal framework. In N. Christie (ed.), Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, Vol. II. Oslo & London: Universitetsförlaget & Tavistock Publications.

Atkinson, M. and Drew, P. (1979) Order in Court. London: McMillan.

Beebe, L. M. and Giles, H. (1984) Speech-accommodation theories: a discussion in terms of second-language acquisition. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 46, 5–32.

Bell, A. (1984) Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145–204.

Bondeson, U. (1968) Argot knowledge as an indicator of criminal socialization. In N. Christie (ed.), Scandinavian Studies in Criminology, Vol. II. Oslo & London: Universitetsförlaget & Tavistock Publications.

Bourhis, R. (1979) Language in ethnic interaction: A social psychological approach. In H. Giles & B. Saint-Jacques (eds), Language and Ethnic Relations. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Bourhis, R. (1984) Cross-cultural communication in Montreal: Two field studies since Bill 101. International Journal of Social Psychology, 46, 33–47.

10.

Bradac, J. and Mulac, A. (1984) A molecular view of powerful and powerless speech styles: Attributional consequences of specific language features and communication intentions. Communication Monographs, 51, 307–19.

11.

Charrow, V. (1982) Linguistic theory and the study of legal and bureaucratic language. In L. Obler & L. Menn (eds), Exceptional Language and Linguistics. New York: Academic Press.

12.

Coupland, N., Coupland, L., Giles, H. and Henwood, K. (in press) Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society.

13.

Danet, B. (1980) Language in the legal process. Law & Society Review, 14, 445–564.

14.

Danet, B. (1984) Studies of legal discourse. Special issue of Text, 4: 1–3.

15.

Danet, B. and Troutzer, I. (1983) Eve against Eve in the Promised Land: Sex, speech style and impression formation in the Israeli courtroom. Ms. Hebrew University of Jerusalem: The Communications Institute.

16.

Drew, P. (1985) Analyzing the use of language in courtroom interaction. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 3: Discourse and Dialogue. New York: Academic Press.

17.

Giles, H. and Smith, P. (1979) Accommodation theory: optimal levels of convergence. In H. Giles & R. St Clair (eds), Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Blackwell.

18.

Giles, H. , Mulac, A. , Bradac, J. J. and Johnson, P. (1986) Speech accommodation theory: The last decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (ed.), Communication Yearbook, 10. Beverly Hills: Sage.

19.

O'Barr, W. (1982) Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.

20.

Philips, S. U. (1985) Strategies of clarification in judges' use of language: From the written to the spoken. Discourse Processes, 8, 421–36.

21.

Snow, C. , van Eeden, R. and Muysken, P. , (1981) The interactional origins of foreigner talk: Muncipal employees and foreign workers. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 28, 81–91.

22.

Snow, C. and Hoefnagel-Höhle, M. (1982) School-age second language learners' access to simplified linguistic input. Language Learning, 32, 411–29.

23.

Thakerar, J. , Giles, H. and Cheshire, J. (1982) Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation. In C. Fraser & K. Scherer (eds), Advances in the Social Psychology of Language. Cambridge University Press.

24.

Wodak, R. (1980) Discourse analysis and courtroom interaction. Discourse Processes, 3, 369–80.