Cross-examining lawyers, facework and the adversarial courtroom  

Oleh:

Archer, Dawn

Jenis: Article from Journal - ilmiah internasional
Dalam koleksi: Journal of Pragmatics: An Interdiciplinary Journal of Language Studies vol. 43 no. 13 (2011), page 3216–3230.
Topik: Face threat Courtroom Adversarial Ambiguity Indirectness Intent Multifunctional Multiple goals
Fulltext: Archer_D.pdf (301.45KB)

Isi artikel

This paper proposes a Goffman-inspired framework for capturing lawyers’ facework activities. Goffman’s (1967:14) three levels of face threat – intentional, incidental and accidental – differ according to the extent to which the S[peaker] is seen to be engaging in: 1. ‘‘malicious and spiteful’’ face damage; 2. activities where face damage may be an ‘‘unplanned by-product’’ of an interchange (which S is nevertheless prepared to undertake); 3. activities where face damage is completely unintended on S’s part, such that S ‘‘would have attempted to avoid’’ such activities had s/he ‘‘foreseen’’ the potentially ‘‘offensive consequences’’. Current (linguistic) impoliteness models tend to draw on Goffman’s intentional level to explain impoliteness in conflictive text-types which include the courtroom (i.e. 1). This paper argues, in contrast, that a cross-examining lawyer’s (facework) strategy will fall somewhere between Goffman’s intentional and incidental level, in the main (i.e. 1 and 2). A new zone is thus proposed – that of strategic ambivalence – which is situated (so as to allow for movement) between Goffman’s (1967) intentional and incidental levels. The three levels, in turn, become a facework aggravation scale/continuum. Intention, here, is used in a pragmatic – specifically, a discursive – sense as opposed to a philosophical or legal sense.

Opini Anda

Klik untuk menuliskan opini Anda tentang koleksi ini!

Kembali