From the same journal

From the same journal

Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. / Galatolo, Renata; Drew, Paul.

In: Text and Talk, Vol. 26, No. 6, 2006, p. 661-698.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

Galatolo, R & Drew, P 2006, 'Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony', Text and Talk, vol. 26, no. 6, pp. 661-698. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.028

APA

Galatolo, R., & Drew, P. (2006). Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. Text and Talk, 26(6), 661-698. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.028

Vancouver

Galatolo R, Drew P. Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. Text and Talk. 2006;26(6):661-698. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.028

Author

Galatolo, Renata ; Drew, Paul. / Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. In: Text and Talk. 2006 ; Vol. 26, No. 6. pp. 661-698.

Bibtex - Download

@article{d81bd8062afc48cb99f44db586d72e39,
title = "Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony",
abstract = "This article analyses witnesses' expanded answers to yes/no questions during direct and cross examination. Among possible types of expansions, the analysis focuses on 'narrative expansions', i.e., on expansions that go beyond the framework of the question. In the trial context, witnesses' expansions serve as a defensive resource, by allowing the witness to create an additional interactional space that counterbalances the asymmetry in favor of legal professionals typical of trial interaction. The general aim of the article, which utilizes data taken from an Italian murder trial that took place in 1998, is to show how expansions accomplish this defensive task. The analysis focuses on the discursive devices witnesses adopt in order to accomplish their expansions after having produced the requested minimal answer: prosodic or verbal devices that can appear as associated or isolated. The analysis identifies two specific interactional functions of these expansions, that of further substantiating information provided in the first part of the answer, and that of contextualizing the information conveyed in the initial answer. Witnesses seem to make recourse to this tactic out of a desire to change or mitigate the version of facts conveyed by the questions.",
keywords = "expanded answers, narrative expansions, defensive devices, allocation, of blame accounts, trial interaction, QUESTIONS, ORGANIZATION, ANSWERS",
author = "Renata Galatolo and Paul Drew",
year = "2006",
doi = "10.1515/TEXT.2006.028",
language = "English",
volume = "26",
pages = "661--698",
journal = "Text and Talk",
number = "6",

}

RIS (suitable for import to EndNote) - Download

TY - JOUR

T1 - Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony

AU - Galatolo, Renata

AU - Drew, Paul

PY - 2006

Y1 - 2006

N2 - This article analyses witnesses' expanded answers to yes/no questions during direct and cross examination. Among possible types of expansions, the analysis focuses on 'narrative expansions', i.e., on expansions that go beyond the framework of the question. In the trial context, witnesses' expansions serve as a defensive resource, by allowing the witness to create an additional interactional space that counterbalances the asymmetry in favor of legal professionals typical of trial interaction. The general aim of the article, which utilizes data taken from an Italian murder trial that took place in 1998, is to show how expansions accomplish this defensive task. The analysis focuses on the discursive devices witnesses adopt in order to accomplish their expansions after having produced the requested minimal answer: prosodic or verbal devices that can appear as associated or isolated. The analysis identifies two specific interactional functions of these expansions, that of further substantiating information provided in the first part of the answer, and that of contextualizing the information conveyed in the initial answer. Witnesses seem to make recourse to this tactic out of a desire to change or mitigate the version of facts conveyed by the questions.

AB - This article analyses witnesses' expanded answers to yes/no questions during direct and cross examination. Among possible types of expansions, the analysis focuses on 'narrative expansions', i.e., on expansions that go beyond the framework of the question. In the trial context, witnesses' expansions serve as a defensive resource, by allowing the witness to create an additional interactional space that counterbalances the asymmetry in favor of legal professionals typical of trial interaction. The general aim of the article, which utilizes data taken from an Italian murder trial that took place in 1998, is to show how expansions accomplish this defensive task. The analysis focuses on the discursive devices witnesses adopt in order to accomplish their expansions after having produced the requested minimal answer: prosodic or verbal devices that can appear as associated or isolated. The analysis identifies two specific interactional functions of these expansions, that of further substantiating information provided in the first part of the answer, and that of contextualizing the information conveyed in the initial answer. Witnesses seem to make recourse to this tactic out of a desire to change or mitigate the version of facts conveyed by the questions.

KW - expanded answers

KW - narrative expansions

KW - defensive devices

KW - allocation

KW - of blame accounts

KW - trial interaction

KW - QUESTIONS

KW - ORGANIZATION

KW - ANSWERS

U2 - 10.1515/TEXT.2006.028

DO - 10.1515/TEXT.2006.028

M3 - Article

VL - 26

SP - 661

EP - 698

JO - Text and Talk

JF - Text and Talk

IS - 6

ER -