This article examines a questioning strategy in trial crossexamination designed to control an evasive witness, and how that control functions through the interactive contours of verbal and visual conduct to index identity, construct multidimensional forms of participation and project intertextual relations. In the process of nailing down an answer, attorney and witness manipulate linguistic ideologies and project participations of power to calibrate the epistemological criteria for determining the legitimacy of legal realities. I demonstrate how indexical iconicities of trial dialogic form emerge as a contested ritual of truth in the situated details of multimodal discursive practices.
Bakhtin, M. (1981) The Dialogic Imagination. Austin, TX: University of Texas .
2.
Clayman, S. (2001) ‘Answers and Evasions’ , Language in Society30(3): 403–442 .
3.
Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002) The News Interview. New York: Cambridge University Press .
4.
Conley, J. and O'Barr, W. (1998) Just Words. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
5.
Cotterill, J. (2003) Language and Power in Court. New York: Palgrave Macmillan .
6.
Drew, P. (1985) ‘Analyzing the Use of Language in Courtroom Interaction’, in T. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis,Vol. 3, pp. 133–147. New York: Academic Press .
7.
Drew, P. (1992) ‘Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work,pp. 470–520. New York: Cambridge University Press .
8.
Ehrlich, S. (2001) Representing Rape. New York: Routledge .
9.
Erickson, F. and Schultz, J. (1982) The Counselor as Gatekeeper. New York: Academic Press .
10.
Gibbons, J. (2003) Forensic Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell .
11.
Goffman, E. (1981) Forms of Talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press .
12.
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. (1987) ‘Concurrent Operations on Talk: Notes on the Interactive Organization of Assessments’ , IPrA Papers in Pragmatics1(1): 1–52 .
13.
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. (2004) ‘Participation’, in A. Duranti (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, pp. 222–244. Oxford: Blackwell .
14.
Goodwin, M. (1990) He-Said-She-Said. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press .
15.
Harris, S. (1984) ‘Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrate's Court’ , International Journal of Sociology of Language49: 5–27 .
16.
Heritage, J. and Drew, P. (1992) ‘Analyzing Talk at Work: An Introduction’, in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds), Talk at Work, pp. 1–65. New York: Cambridge University Press .
17.
Hobbs, P. (2003) ‘You Must Say it for Him: Reformulating a Witness' Testimony on Cross-Examination at Trial’ , Text23(4): 477–511 .
18.
Irvine, J. (1996) ‘Shadow Conversations: The Indeterminacy of Participant Roles’, in M. Silverstein and G. Urban (eds) Natural Histories of Discourse, pp. 131–160. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
19.
Johnson, A. (2002) ‘ So...?: Pragmatic Implications of So-Prefaced Questions in Formal Police Interviews’, in J. Cotterill (ed.) Language in the Legal Process, pp. 91–110. New York: Palgrave Macmillan .
20.
Kendon, A. (2002) ‘Some Uses of the Head Shake’ , Gesture2(2): 147–182 .
21.
Komter, M. (2003) ‘The Interactional Dynamics of Eliciting a Confession in a Dutch Police Interrogation’ , Research on Language and Social Interaction36(4): 433–471 .
22.
Kotthoff, H. (1993) ‘Disagreement and Concession in Dispute’ , Language in Society22(2): 193–216 .
23.
Mauet, T. (1996) Trial Techniques. Boston, MA: Little, Brown & Co .
24.
Maynard, D. (2003) Bad News, Good News. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press .
25.
Mehan, H. (1979) Learning Lessons. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
26.
Mertz, E. (forthcoming) Law School Language: Learning to ‘Think’ like a Lawyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press .
27.
Molotch, H. and Boden, D. (1985) ‘Talking Social Structure’ , American Sociological Review50(3): 273–287 .
28.
Perrin, L.T. , Caldwell, H.M. and Chase, C. (2003) The Art and Science of Trial Advocacy. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson .
29.
Philips, S. (1987) ‘On the Use of WH Questions in American Courtroom Discourse: A Study on the Relation between Language Form and Language Function’, in L. Kedar (ed.) Power through Language, pp. 83–112. Norwood, NJ: Ablex .
30.
Philips, S. (1998) Language in the Ideology of Judges. New York: Oxford University Press .
31.
Raymond, G. (2003) ‘Grammar and Social Organization’ , American Sociological Review68(6): 939–966 .
32.
Silverstein, M. (1993) ‘Metapragmatic Discourse and the Metapragmatic Function’, in J. Lucy (ed.) Reflexive Language, pp. 33–58. New York: Cambridge University Press .
33.
Silverstein, M. (1998) ‘The Improvisational Performance of Culture in Realtime Discursive Practice’, in R.K. Sawyer (ed.) Creativity in Performance,pp. 266–312. London: Ablex .
34.
Streeck, J. and Hartege, U. (1992) ‘Previews: Gestures at the Transition Place’, in P. Auer and A. di Luzio (eds) The Contextualization of Language, pp. 135–157. Amsterdam: John Benjamins .
35.
Stygall, G. (2001) ‘A Different Class of Witnesses: Experts in the Courtroom’ , Discourse Studies3(3): 327–349 .
36.
Thornborrow, J. (2002) Power Talk. New York: Longman .
37.
Tsu, A. (1991) ‘The Pragmatic Functions of I Don't Know’ , Text11(4): 607–622 .
38.
Volosinov, V.N. (1973) Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press .
39.
Walker, A. (1987) ‘Linguistic Manipulation, Power, and the Legal Setting’, in L. Kedar (ed.) Power through Language, pp. 55–76. Norwood, NJ: Ablex .
40.
Watson, R. (1990) ‘Some Features of the Elicitation of Confessions in Murder Interrogations’, in G. Psathas (ed.) Interaction Competence, pp. 263–295. Lanham, MD: University of America Press .
41.
Woolard, K. (1998) ‘Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry’, in B. Schieffelin , K. Woolard and P. Kroskrity (eds) Language Ideologies, pp. 3–47. New York: Oxford University Press .
42.
Wortham, S. (2001) Narratives in Action. New York: Teachers College Press .
