The broad aim of this research is to show the usefulness of sequential analytic methods when studying courtroom interaction within a communication accommodation theory (CAT) framework. Mutual influences between lawyers and witnesses during courtroom examinations were studied. A previous study examined associations between the content of lawyers' questions and witnesses' answers. In contrast, the present study examines turn taking and turn length, each in relation to the other and both in relation to the content of the interlocutor's previous turn. Using sequential log-linear techniques, this study analyzes 1850 question—answer exchanges from 47 examinations. Results show that lawyers were effective in constraining the quantitative aspects of witnesses' turns and, to a much lesser degree, the content aspects. These and other results are discussed in light of the literature on courtroom speech and of the advantages of using sequential methods when studying CAT strategies.
Adelswärd, V., Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction. Text,7, 313—346.
2.
Argyle, M. (1969). Social interaction. Chicago: Aldine .
3.
Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The courtroom hearing as a middle ground: Speech accommodation by lawyers and defendants. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 99—115.
4.
Atkinson, J.M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court. The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
5.
Bakeman, R., & Gnisci, A. (2005). Sequential observational methods. In M. Eid & E. Dieneer (Eds.), Handbook of multimethod measurement in psychology (pp. 127—140). Washington, DC: APA.
6.
Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J.M. (1997). Observing interaction. An introduction to sequential analysis (2nd ed.). New York : Cambridge University Press.
7.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995a). Analyzing interaction. Sequential analysis with SDIS and GSEQ. New York: Cambridge University Press.
8.
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (1995b). Log-linear approaches to lag-sequential analysis when consecutive codes may and cannot repeat. Psychological Bulletin, 118, 272—284.
9.
Bakeman, R., & Robinson, B.F. (1994). Understanding log-linear analysis with ILOG. An interactive approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
10.
Beattie, G.W., Cutler, A., & Pearson, M. (1982). Why is Mrs. Thatcher interrupted so often?Nature, 300, 744—747.
11.
Bogoch, B., & Danet, B. (1984). Challenge and control in lawyer-client interaction: A case study in an Israeli Legal Aid office. Text,4, 249—275.
12.
Bull, P. (1994). On identifying questions, replies and non-replies in political interview. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 13, 115—131.
13.
Bull, P. (2002). Communication under the microscope. The theory and the practice of microanalysis. New York: Routledge.
14.
Bull, P., & Mayer, K. (1993). How not to answer questions in political interview . Political Psychology, 4, 651—666.
15.
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., & Henwood, K. (1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society, 17, 1—41.
16.
Danet, B., & Bogoch, B. (1980). Fixed fight or free-for-all? An empirical study of combativeness in the adversary system of justice. British Journal of Law and Society, 7, 36—60.
17.
Danet, B., & Kermish, N. (1978). Courtroom questioning: A sociolinguistic perspective . In L. N. Massery (Ed.), Psychology and persuasion in advocacy (pp. 412—441). Washington, DC: National College of Advocacy.
18.
Dunstan, R. (1980). Context of coercition: Analyzing propriety of courtroom questions. British Journal of Law and Society, 7, 61—77.
19.
Giles, H. (1973). Accent mobility: A model and some data. Anthropological Linguistics, 15, 87—109.
20.
Giles, H. (1977). Social psychology and applied linguistic. ITL: Review of Applied Linguistics, 33, 27—42.
21.
Giles, H. (1980). Accommodation theory: Some new directions. York Papers in Linguistics, 9, 105—136.
22.
Giles, H. & Johnson, P. (1981). The role of language in ethnic group relations . In J. C. Turner & H. Giles (Eds.), Intergroup behavior (pp. 199—243). Oxford: Blackwell.
23.
Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J.J., & Johnson, P. (1987). Speech accommodation theory: The next decade and beyond. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication yearbook (pp. 13—48). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
24.
Giles, H., & Powesland, P.F. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. London: Academic Press .
25.
Gnisci, A. (2005). Sequential strategies of accommodation: A new method in courtroom. British Journal of Social Psychology , 44, 621—643.
26.
Gnisci, A., & Bonaiuto, M. (2003). Grilling politicians. Politicians' answers to questions in television interviews and legal examinations. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 22, 384—413.
27.
Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2004). The organization of questions and answers in the thematic phases of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 965—995.
28.
Haberman, S.J. (1982). Analysis of dispersion of multinomial responses . Journal of the American Statistical Association,77, 568—580.
29.
Heyns, R.W., & Lippitt, R. (1954). Systematic observational techniques. In G. Lindsey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology. Vol. 1. Theory and method (pp. 370—404). London: Addison-Wesley .
30.
Hosticka, C.J. (1979). We don't care about what happened, we only care about what is going to happen: Lawyer-client negotiations of reality. Social Problems, 26, 599—610.
31.
Ishii-Kuntz, M. (1994). Ordinal log-linear models. London: Sage.
32.
Jones, E., Gallois, C., Callan, V., & Baker, M. (1999). Strategies of accommodation: Development of a coding system for conversational interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 18, 123—152.
33.
Levin, H., & Lin, T. (1988). An accommodating witness. Language and Communication, 8, 195—197.
34.
Linell, P. (1991). Accommodation on trial: Processes of communicative accommodation in courtroom interaction. In H. Giles, J. Coupland, & N. Coupland (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation: Developments in applied sociolinguistics (pp. 103—130). Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
35.
Matoesian, G.M. (1993). Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
36.
Murray, S.O. (1985). Toward a model of member's methods for recognizing interruption. Language and Society, 1, 31—38.
37.
Neiderhoffer, K.G., & Pennebaker, J.W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology , 4, 337—360.
38.
Ng, S.H., & Reid, S.A. (2000). Power. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 357—370). New York: Wiley.
39.
O'Barr, W.M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language power and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
40.
Pamparana, A. (1994). Il processo Cusani (The criminal trial against Cusani). Milano: Mondadori.
41.
Penman, R. (1987). Discourse in courts: Cooperation, coercion and coherence. Discourse Processes, 10, 201—118.
42.
Peréz Gonzaléz, L. (2006). Interpreting strategic recontextualization cues in the courtroom: Corpus-based insights into the pragmatic force of non-restrictive relative clauses. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 390—417.
43.
Perugini, M., & Gallucci, M. (2001). Individual differences and social norms: The distinction between reciprocators and prosocials. European Journal of Personality, 15, 19—35.
44.
Roger, D., Bull, P., & Smith, S. (1988). The development of a comprehensive system for classifying interruptions. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 7, 27—34.
45.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 4, 696—735.
46.
Shannon, C.E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379—423 and 623—656.
47.
Shepard, C.A., Giles, H., & Le Poire, B. (2001). Communication accommodation theory. In W. P. Robinson & H. Giles (Eds.), The new handbook of language and social psychology (pp. 33—56). New York: Wiley .
48.
Thakerar, J., Giles, H., & Cheshire, J. (1982). Psychological and linguistic parameters of speech accommodation theory. In C. Fraser & K. R. Scherer (Eds.), Advances in the social psychology of language (pp. 205—255). Cambridge , UK: Cambridge University Press.
49.
Thomas, A.P., Roger, D., & Bull, P. (1983). A sequential analysis of dyadic conversation using Markov chains. British Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 177—188.
50.
Wickens, T.D. (1989). Multiway contingency tables analysis for the social science. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica, 48, 3—4, 197—228.
