Abstract
Polish vs. American Courtroom Discourse by Grażyna Anna Bednarek locates itself at the nexus of research and practice, connecting methods of discourse analysis to comparative studies on criminal cases in two different cultures. By employing ethnography, conversation analysis (CA), and pragmatics, this book tries to validate the truth of two hypotheses put forward in Chapter 1, which postulate that courtroom discourse is (1) a culturally varied and (2) a socially conditioned phenomenon. It is structured clearly and coherently, starting with a very brief ‘Introduction’, and is organized into four chapters which relate to particular themes.
In the ‘Introduction’, the author introduces the primary aim of her study, that is, to provide new insights into the language used in criminal trials (p. 1). By doing so, the author intends to examine ‘how, by what means and to what extent the social (institutional), cultural and historical contexts affect the use of language in court’ (p. 2). It also briefly surveys the major content of each chapter. Although quite useful and clear, this section could also have placed some attention on the author’s motives for writing such a book and on introducing the research background so as to inspire readers’ interest.
Chapter 1 gives a general outline of the major objectives of the book and rationale of the research. It provides a comprehensive literature review illustrating the lack of comparative analysis of courtroom discourse under different legal systems and states the novelty of the research (i.e. the comparative analysis, the two hypotheses, and the three research methods, as referred to earlier) (p. 9). It also revisits certain key concepts and notions in the field, such as civil law, common law, cultural immersion, linguistic anthropology, etc.; presents the general research perspectives; and explains the data collection as well as methodological issues. As stated by the author, the book relies on data deriving from real criminal cases (O.J. Simpson trials in America and criminal trials in Poland) and integrates both qualitative studies of inquisitorial and adversarial procedures of witness examination and qualitative studies of questions posed during trials (pp. 19–20).
Chapters 2 and 3 constitute the core part of data analysis, in which the author attempts to investigate American courtroom discourse and Polish courtroom discourse, respectively, by means of the three research methods. In the two chapters, the courtroom discourse in the O.J. Simpson trials and that in criminal trials in Poland are examined, respectively, by means of Hymes’ (1972) SPEAKING grid (i.e. S: setting, P: participants, E: ends, A: act sequence, K: key, I: instrumentalities, N: norms of interaction, G: genres). CA is then applied in each chapter to examine turn-taking organization, courtroom interaction, question–answer adjacency pairs, and the social roles of the key partakers. Finally, using a pragmatic approach to the analysis of American and Polish courtroom discourse, the two chapters explore to what extent the key partakers abide by or flout the maxims of the cooperative principle (CP) as put forward by Grice (1975) and what assorted speech acts are employed during the examination of witnesses.
Starting with a brief review of the objectives and methodology of the book, Chapter 4 (also the final chapter) presents the results of the author’s comparative study of Polish and American courtroom discourse. The ethnography of the communication approach reveals that there are profound disparities in most aspects of the SPEAKING grid, although there are similarities in the very serious atmosphere of witness examination and in the spoken genre to which both the Polish and American speech events belong. The analysis of Polish versus American courtroom discourse by means of CA also demonstrates that the two speech events diverge with reference to aspects such as their structural organization, courtroom interaction, social roles, turn-taking system, etc. (p. 180). The pragmatic study shows that both Polish and American speech communities generally follow the CP, although there are also instances of flouting specific maxims. Comparative analysis of the assorted speech acts also confirms that the two speech communities are basically similar in communicative competence, with differences only in the manner in which they express speech acts. With no separate conclusion chapter, the author summarizes the major findings and their implications, and emphasizes that the disparities between Polish and American courtroom discourse derive from ‘the culturally varied and socially conditioned dissimilar nature of the inquisitorial and adversarial verbal interaction during the witness examination’ (p. 181). The book ends with a brief discussion of its contribution – to verify the original hypotheses of the book, giving a holistic picture of both American and Polish courtroom discourse – and of the implications for interpretation, court translation, and discourse analysis.
Through an in-depth comparison of American and Polish courtroom discourse, this book presents a clear picture of how to undertake comparative studies of courtroom discourse under different legal systems. The most salient feature of this book is that it presents readers with three research approaches to courtroom discourse analysis with naturally occurring data collected from two culturally and socially different legal systems. It is, however, regrettable that the beginning and end of the book are not well organized for the convenience of readers, for the volume begins with a very brief and insufficient ‘Introduction’ and has no comprehensive ‘Conclusion’ section to separate it from the comparative analysis. With only four chapters, the book is also rather short for an academic monograph. Nevertheless, it is one of the relatively rare publications in the field of courtroom discourse analysis with a truly interdisciplinary perspective. The author displays great expertise in both discourse analysis and the legal system, and the book would provide an excellent basis for wide-ranging discussions concerned with courtroom discourse, social-legal studies, and discourse analysis in general.