Abstract
It is well established that within the legal system there is one mainstream discourse that is controlled by a dominant, authoritative figure (e.g., police officer or lawyer) who determines the form and function of all contributions between him or herself, the layperson and the court. It is similarly well reported that all witnesses new to the legal process are not familiar with the rules of the various legal settings in which they find themselves (in terms of rules of interaction, vocabulary, and so on). In this sense, their discourse skills represent a deficit or a deficiency when they are engaged in police interviews and/or in the court. Recent legislation in England and Wales has been introduced with the purpose of widening access to justice and the legal process for people in general, to enable them to participate within the legal system. However, as an increasing number of participants from different socio-economic backgrounds, and in different kinds of legal cases, take part as witnesses and/or victims, it remains to be established to what extent an increased access to the legal process has improved their ability to negotiate their way to justice.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance for Vulnerable or Intimidated Witnesses, including Children. Home Office and the Department of Health report (2001/2007) London: HMSO.
Aldridge, M. & Luchjenbroers, J. (2007) Linguistic manipulations in legal discourse: framing questions and ‘smuggling’ information. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 14(1): 85–101.
Aldridge, M. & Luchjenbroers, J. (2008) Vulnerable witnesses and problems of portrayal: a consideration of videotaped interviews in child rape case. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(3): 266–84.
Aldridge, M. & Wood, J. (1998) Interviewing children: A guide for child care and forensic practitioners. Chichester: Wiley & Sons.
Brennan, M. (1995) The discourse of denial: cross-examining child victim witnesses. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(1): 71–91.
Brennan, M. & Brennan, R. (1988) Strange Language: Child Victims under Cross-Examination. Wagga Wagga, NSW: Riverina Murray Institute of Higher Education.
Coates, L., Bavelas, J. & Gibson, J. (1994) Anomalous language in sexual assault trial judgments. Discourse & Society, 5(2): 189–206.
Conley, J. M. & O’Barr, W. (2005) Just Words: Law, Language, and Power. 2nd edn. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Cook, G. (1989) Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, G., Wilson, C., Mitchell, R. & Milsom, J. (1995) Videotaping Children’s Evidence: An Evaluation. London: HMSO.
Drew, P. (1985) Analyzing the use of language in courtroom interaction. In T. A. van Dijk (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3. London: Academic Press, pp. 133–48.
Drew, P. (1992) Contested evidence in courtroom examination: the case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (eds.) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 2–65.
Erhlich, S. (2001) Reproducing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. London: Routledge.
Fauconnier, G. (1985/1994) Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge MA: MIT Press. [rev. edn, New York: Cambridge University Press].
Fauconnier, G. & Sweetser, E. (eds.) (1996) Spaces, Worlds, and Grammar. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fillmore, C. (1982) Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (ed.) Linguistics in the Morning Calm. Seoul: Hanshin, pp. 111–38.
Goffman, E. (1974) Frame Analysis: An Essay on the Organization of Experience. New York: Harper & Row.
Goodman, G. S. (1984) Children’s testimony in historical perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 40 (2): 9–31.
Grice, P. H. (1975) Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 3: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press, pp. 41–58.
Grice, P. (1978) Further notes on logic and conversation. In P. Cole (ed.) Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 9: Pragmatics. New York: Academic Press, pp. 113–27.
Hamlyn, B., Phelps, A., Turtel, J. & Sattar, G. (2004) Are Special Measures Working? Evidence from Surveys of Vulnerable and Intimidated Witnesses. London: Home Office Research Study. No. 283.
Hoyle, S. & Ribeiro, B. T. (2003) Frames, schemas, and scripts. In W. Fawley (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Linguistics, 2nd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
Lakoff, G. (1987) Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Larcombe, W. (1994) The ‘ideal’ victim v. successful rape complainants: Not what you might expect. Feminist Legal Studies, 10(2): 131–48.
Luchjenbroers, J. (2006) Discourse, gesture, and mental spaces manoeuvres: Inside versus outside F-space. In J. Luchjenbroers (ed.) Cognitive Linguistics Investigations. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 87–105.
Luchjenbroers, J. & M. Aldridge. (2007) Conceptual manipulation by metaphors and frames: Dealing with rape victims in legal discourse. Text & Talk, 27(3): 339–59.
Matoesian, G. (1993) Reproducing Rape: Domination Through Talk in the Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Minsky, M. (1975) Frame-system theory. In P. Johnson-Laird & P. Watson (eds.) Thinking: Readings in Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 355–76.
Plotnikoff, J. & Woolfson, R. (2004) In Their Own Words: The Experience of 50 Young Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings. London: NSPCC Policy Practice Research Studies (in partnership with Victim Support).
Regan, L. & Kelly, L. (2003) Rape: Still a Forgotten Issue. Child and Woman Abuse Studies Unit, London Metropolitan University.
Ribeiro, B. T. & Hoyle, S. (2009) Frame analysis. In F. Brisard, J. Ostman & J. Verschuren (eds.) Grammar, Meaning and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 74–90.
Saywitz, K. (1995) Improving children’s testimony: the question, the answer and the environment. In M. S. Zaragoza, J. R. Graham, G. C. N. Hall, R. Hirschman & Y. S. Ben-Porath (eds.) Memory and Testimony in the Child Witness. London: Sage, pp. 109–40.
Shuy, R. (1993) Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Shuy, R. (1998) The Language of Confession, Interrogation and Deception. London: Sage.
Tiersma, P. (1999) Legal Language. Chicago / London: University of Chicago Press.
Walker, A. & Warren, A. (1995) The language of the child abuse interview. Asking the questions, understanding the answers. In T. Ney (ed.) True and False Allegations of Child Sex Abuse: Assessment and Case Management. New York: Bruner-Mazel, pp. 153–62.
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2011 Michelle Aldridge & June Luchjenbroers
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Aldridge, M., Luchjenbroers, J. (2011). Constructing Vulnerability: The Experience of Children and Other Groups within Legal Discourse. In: Candlin, C.N., Crichton, J. (eds) Discourses of Deficit. Palgrave Studies in Professional and Organizational Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299023_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230299023_2
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32089-9
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-29902-3
eBook Packages: Palgrave Language & Linguistics CollectionEducation (R0)