FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2565785114> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2565785114 abstract "The Authority of Law and the Production of Truth in India Daniela Berti (bio) Authors who have analyzed the linguistic mechanisms by which power is exercised in a formal setting have focused on courtroom interactions and on the strategic use of language in a legal context. Courtroom studies have been undertaken since the 1980s and 1990s by authors working on ethnomethodology or conversation analysis (Atkinson and Drew 1979; Matoesian 1993; Conley and O’Barr 1998; Drew and Heritage 1992). By drawing mostly on Foucault’s notion of “micro-power” (1977:26-27), these authors have studied how lawyers and judges regulate the turn-taking process, the role of silence, the forms of questioning or of interrupting, and the imbalance of power that emerges from courtroom dialogues. The aim of these works has been to study how power is concretely enacted in a day-to-day situation by examining the face-to-face interactions that constitute courtroom proceedings and the microdetails of discursive practices. Here, power is seen as emanating from courtroom-defined speaking roles, from linguistic mechanisms of talk in the courtroom, and from professional speech styles. It is the power to control a setting where rules and turns of speech are very different from those in everyday conversation, where some are authorized to speak and others are restricted to giving answers, and where, by using a legal technique of interrogation, professionals transform a dialogue into a self-serving monologue (Conley and O’Barr 1990:21). Some of these works focus on the “rigidity” of court interactions and on the asymmetrical distribution of communicative resources (Conley and O’Barr 1990:21). Others have shown the more creative, improvisational nature of these features of speech, the “relative narrative and conversational freedom” of the lawyer and the witnesses that enables them to produce various strategies to utilize these interactions for their own pragmatic purposes (Gnisci and Pontecorvo 2004:967). In a case-study involving an Italian political leader, Gnisci and Pontecorvo show, for example, that although the formal asymmetry of roles during the hearing might make the legal professional appear as the “powerful director of the conversation” (2004:982), observations of trial interactions reveal that the witness disposes of various devices to make their point: they can change the topic, broach other topics, comment on evidence, modify the duration of turn, or interrupt. Within this study they show how a form of arena for verbal combat is created with the witnesses orienting their strategies to give an “elaborate answer” that not only aims at satisfying the requirements of the question, but also at imposing their own line of argument. The authors also note that although one option available to the witness is to simply provide no information at all, by saying that he or she does not remember or by evading the question, there are few replies of this kind compared to elaborate answers due to the negative effect they may have on the witness’s credibility (Gnisci and Pontecorvo 2004). This article draws on this idea of shared control over trial interactions between witnesses and legal professionals to analyze a criminal case observed at Shimla District Court in Northern India. In this case, the complainant along with other prosecutor witnesses turned hostile during the trial and denied all previous accusations. Unlike the high-profile Italian case mentioned above where witnesses were linguistically equipped to engage in a “war of words” (Gnisci and Pontecorvo 2004:981) with the legal specialist, the case analyzed here is in a setting where the linguistic authority of the legal professionals, who speak English and who have mastered judicial procedures, starkly contrasts with the poor content of the replies given by the witnesses, who do not understand English and are completely unfamiliar with juridical notions. By focusing on the mechanism of narrative production and on how oral and written statements are produced in court, I will show how the witness’s replies, even though they consist in simply nodding or saying “I don’t know” or “It is not true,” succeed in demolishing the prosecutor’s case and in preventing the judge from convicting the accused. More generally, the case analyzed here demonstrates how the power of..." @default.
• W2565785114 created "2017-01-06" @default.
• W2565785114 creator A5059643431 @default.
• W2565785114 date "2016-01-01" @default.
• W2565785114 modified "2023-10-10" @default.
• W2565785114 title "The Authority of Law and the Production of Truth in India" @default.
• W2565785114 cites W1481821564 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W1513874694 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W1541308586 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W1551803645 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W1560602352 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W1984830409 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W1997372575 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2016308116 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2025541983 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2045916273 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2073496637 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2083192553 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2093235491 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2097659655 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2107502898 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2319921555 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2326968483 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2332086916 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2497116563 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2777929607 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W3134427541 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W399797358 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W601884850 @default.
• W2565785114 cites W2032713873 @default.
• W2565785114 doi "https://doi.org/10.1353/ort.2016.0016" @default.
• W2565785114 hasPublicationYear "2016" @default.
• W2565785114 type Work @default.
• W2565785114 sameAs 2565785114 @default.
• W2565785114 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W2565785114 countsByYear W25657851142018 @default.
• W2565785114 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2565785114 hasAuthorship W2565785114A5059643431 @default.
• W2565785114 hasBestOaLocation W25657851141 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C107038049 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C121332964 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C13077596 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C163258240 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C166957645 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C2777200299 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C2779343474 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C2780829048 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C2781115785 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C36289849 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C46312422 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C56230252 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C62520636 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConcept C95457728 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C107038049 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C121332964 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C13077596 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C138885662 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C144024400 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C163258240 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C166957645 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C17744445 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C199539241 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C2777200299 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C2779343474 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C2780829048 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C2781115785 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C36289849 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C41895202 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C46312422 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C56230252 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C62520636 @default.
• W2565785114 hasConceptScore W2565785114C95457728 @default.
• W2565785114 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W2565785114 hasLocation W25657851141 @default.
• W2565785114 hasLocation W25657851142 @default.
• W2565785114 hasLocation W25657851143 @default.
• W2565785114 hasLocation W25657851144 @default.
• W2565785114 hasLocation W25657851145 @default.
• W2565785114 hasLocation W25657851146 @default.
• W2565785114 hasOpenAccess W2565785114 @default.
• W2565785114 hasPrimaryLocation W25657851141 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W113772940 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W1595878812 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W2059005716 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W2127115115 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W2218339582 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W2350629700 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W2477524906 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W2515896240 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W2743427179 @default.
• W2565785114 hasRelatedWork W2804008955 @default.
• W2565785114 hasVolume "30" @default.
• W2565785114 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2565785114 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2565785114 magId "2565785114" @default.

• next