Linguistic analysis of gender asymmetry in courtroom interaction discourse. Analysis of questioning strategies in domestic violence trials in Italy
DOI
https://doi.org/10.25267/Pragmalinguistica.2024.i32.04Información
Autores/as
- Novella Benedetti (ES) Universitat de Vic - Universitat Central de Catalunya https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3616-3875
Resumen
El artículo realiza un análisis exploratorio de las estrategias de interrogatorio en juicios italianos de violencia doméstica. El objetivo es comparar el interrogatorio de denunciantes (supervivientes) y acusados (presuntos agresores) para determinar si existe asimetría de género (es decir, diferencias en el tratamiento de denunciantes y acusados). Los datos recopilados incluyen cuatro audiencias en las que las denunciantes y cuatro en las que los acusados fueron testigos. El análisis se basa en Archer (2005) y Mortensen (2020) y se lleva a cabo mediante una perspectiva cuantitativa y cualitativa (morfosintaxis). Los resultados cuantitativos muestran que a los denunciantes se les hacen más preguntas y pueden hablar menos en sus respuestas. En cuanto a la morfosintaxis, en el interrogatorio directo se hacen más preguntas de alto control a los acusados; en el contrainterrogatorio ocurre lo contrario. Según estos resultados, puede que exista una situación de asimetría de género.
Palabras clave
Descargas
Cómo citar
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2024 Novella Benedetti
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Citas
ADELSWÄRD, V., ARONSSON, K., JÖNSSON, L. & LINELL, P. (1987): “The Unequal Distribution of Interactional Space: Dominance and Control in Courtroom Interaction”, Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 7(4), pp. 313–346. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1987.7.4.313
ALDRIDGE, M. & LUCHJENBROERS, J. (2007): “Linguistic Manipulations in Legal Discourse: Framing Questions and “Smuggling” Information”, The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14(1), 85-107. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.85
ARCHER, D. (2005): Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). A sociopragmatic analysis, Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.135
ATKINSON, M. J. & DREW, P. (1979): Order in Court, London: Palgrave Mcmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5
BELLUCCI, P. & TORCHIA, M. C. (2013): “La Regia del Discorso in Tribunale: Il Potere delle Domande”, Bambi, F. & Mariani Marini A. (eds.), Lingua e diritto: Scritto e Parlato nelle Professioni Legali, Pisa: Pisa University Press, pp. 79-106.
BELLUCCI, P. (2005): A onor del vero. Fondamenti di Linguistica Giudiziaria, Torino: UTET Libreria.
BENEDETTI, N. & QUERALT, S. (2023): “A Literature Review of the Role of Forensic Linguistics in Gender-Based Violent Crimes in Italy: Supporting Legal Professionals and Providing Scientific Evidence”, Llengua i Dret, 79, pp. 140-157. https://doi.org/10.58992/rld.i79.2023.3857
BENEVIERI, I. (2022): Cosa Indossavi? Le Parole nei Processi Penali per Violenza di Genere, Roma: Tab edizioni.
BOGOCH, B. (2007): “The Victim as ‘Other’: Analysis of the Language of Acquittal Decisions in Sexual Offences in the Israeli Supreme Court”, Cotterill J. (ed.), The Language of Sexual Crime, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 159-179. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230592780_9
BOGOCH, B. (1999): “Courtroom Discourse and the Gendered Construction of Professional Identity”, Law & Social Inquiry, 24, pp. 329-375. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1999.tb00133.x
BOURDIEU, P. (1992): Language and Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Polity Press.
BOURDIEU, P. (1998): Il Dominio Maschile, Milano: Feltrinelli.
CARLEN, P. (1976a): Magistrates” Justice, London: Martin Robertson.
CARLEN, P. (ed.) (1976b): The Sociology of Law, University of Keele: Sociological Review Monograph, 23.
Case of Y. v. Slovenia. (w.r.): https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-154728%22]} (Date of consultation: 26/04/2023).
Causa J.L. c. Italia (w.r.): https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-212904%22]} (Date of consultation: 26/04/2023).
CHAEMSAITHONG, K. (2019): “Deconstructing Competing Courtroom Narratives: Representation of Social Actors”, Social Semiotics, 29(2), pp. 240-260. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2018.1434978
CHANG, Y. (2004): “Courtroom Questioning as a Culturally Situated Persuasive Genre of Talk”, Discourse & Society, 15(6), pp. 705-722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504046501
CLARK, H. H., & FOX TREE, J. E. (2002): “Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking”, Cognition, 84, 73-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3
CONLEY, J. M. & O’BARR, W. M. (2005): Just words - Law, Language, Power. (2nd ed.), Chicago and London: University Chicago Press.
COTTERILL, J. (2001): “Domestic Dischord, Rocky Relationships: Semantic Prosodies in Representations of Marital Violence in the O. J. Simpson Trial”, Discourse & Society, 12(3), pp. 291-312. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926501012003002
COTTERILL, J. (2003a): Language and Power in Court. A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial, London: Palgrave Mac Millan.
COTTERILL, J. (ed.) (2003b): Language in the legal process, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
COTTERILL, J. (2004): “Collocation, Connotation, and Courtroom Semantics: Lawyers” Control of Witness Testimony through Lexical Negotiation”, Applied Linguistics, 25/4, pp. 513-537. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.4.513
COTTERILL, J. (2007a): “‘I Think He Was Kind of Shouting or Something’: Uses and Abuses of Vagueness in the British Courtroom”, Cutting, J. (ed.), Vague language explored, London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 97-114. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230627420_6
COTTERILL, J. (ed.) (2007b): The Language of Sexual Crime, Palgrave Macmillan, London.
COULTHARD, M. (2011): “Making a difference: critical linguistic analysis in a legal context”, Pragmatics and Society, 2(2), 171-186. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.2.2.03cou
DANET, B. (1980): “Language in the Legal Process”, Law & Society Review, 14(3), pp. 445-564. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192
DE LEEUW, E. (2007): “Hesitation markers in English, German, and Dutch”, Journal of Germanic Linguistics, 19(2), 85-114. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1470542707000049
DREW, P. (1990): “Strategies in the Contest Between Lawyer and Witness in Cross-Examination”, Walker, J. L. A. (ed.), Language in the Judicial Process, New York: Plenum Press, pp. 39-64. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3719-3_2
EADES, D. (2010): Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process, Multilingual Matters Ltd.
EHRLICH, S. (2001): Representing rape: Language and sexual consent, London: Routledge.
EHRLICH, S. (2010): “Rape victims. The Discourse of Rape Trials”, Coulthard, M. & Johnson A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 265-280. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607
FERNÁNDEZ LEÓN, Ó. (2019): Máximas del Interrogatorio: 50 Reglas, Consejos y Recomendaciones para un Interrogatorio Eficaz, Pamplona: Aranzadi.
GALATOLO, R. & DREW, P. (2006): “Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony”, Text & Talk, 26(6), pp. 661-698. https://doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.028
GALATOLO, R. (2002): “La Comunicazione in Tribunale”, Bazzanella C. (ed.), Sul Dialogo. Contesti e Forme di Interazione Verbale, Milano: Guerini e Associati, pp. 137-152. https://doi.org/10.3280/SA2015-003005
GARFINKEL, H. (1967): Studies in Ethnomethodology, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
GIBBONS, J. (2003): Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System, Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
GNISCI, A. (2000): “Le Domande nella Conversazione Legale Dialogica. Proposta di una tassonomia basata su criteri sintattici e intonazionali”, Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata, 32, 2, pp. 45-80.
GNISCI, A. (2005): “Sequential Strategies of Accommodation: A New Method in Courtroom”, British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, pp. 621-643. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604X16363
GNISCI, A. & PACE, A. (2016): “Italian Politicians Hauled over the Coals: The Pragmatic Effects of Questions on Answers in TV Interviews and in Courtroom Examinations”, Journal of Pragmatics, 93, pp. 32-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2015.12.005
GNISI, 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, pp. 965-995. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.005
GREVIO’s (Baseline) Evaluation Report on Legislative and Other Measures Giving Effect to the Provisions of the Council of Europe Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence (Istanbul Convention) – ITALY, Council of Europe, 2020. https://rm.coe.int/grevio-report-italy-first-baseline-evaluation/168099724e (Date of consultation: 02/05/23)
HARRIS, S. (1984): “Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrate’s courts”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 49, pp. 5-28. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1984.49.5
HEFFER, C. (2005): The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal–Lay Discourse, London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502888
HOBBES, P. (2008): “It’s not What You Say but How You Say it: The Role of Personality and Identity in Trial Success”, Critical Discourse Studies, 5(3), pp. 231-248. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900802131744
HOLT, E. & JOHNSON, A. (2010): “Legal Talk. Socio-pragmatic Aspects of Legal talk: Police Interviews and Trial Discourse”, Coulthard M. & Johnson A. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, London and New York: Routledge, pp. 265-280. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607
ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI STATISTICA (2018): Le Vittime di Omicidio. https://www.istat.it/it/files//2020/03/Report-Le-vittime-di-omicidio.pdf (Date of consultation: 30/05/2023).
ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI STATISTICA (2014): La Violenza contro le Donne dentro e fuori la Famiglia. https://www.istat.it/it/files//2015/06/Violenze_contro_le_donne.pdf (Date of consultation: 30/05/2023).
ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI STATISTICA (w.r.): Condanne. https://www.istat.it/it/violenza-sulle-donne/il-percorso-giudiziario/condanne (Date of consultation: 30/05/2023).
ISTITUTO NAZIONALE DI STATISTICA (w.r.): Normativa Internazionale. https://www.istat.it/it/violenza-sulle-donne/il-contesto/normativa-internazionale (Date of consultation: 30/05/2023).
LUCHJENBROERS, J. (1997): “‘In your own Words …’: Questions and Answers in a Supreme Court Trial”, Journal of Pragmatics, 27(4), pp. 477-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00033-1
MALTZ, D. N. & BORKER, R. A. (1983): “A Cultural Approach to Male-Female Miscommunication”, Gumperz J. (ed.), Language and Social Identity, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 196-216. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620836.013
MATCZAK, A. & REKOSZ-CEBULA, E. (2022): “The Meaning of Gender in Sentencing Domestic Violence Homicide Cases in Poland”, Masson, I. & Booth, N. (eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Women’s Experiences of Criminal Justice, London: Routledge, pp. 279-290. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003202295
MATOESIAN, G. (1995): “Language, Law and Society: Policy Implications of the Kennedy Smith Rape Trial”, Law and Society Review, 29, pp. 669-701. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053918
MINISTERO DELLA GIUSTIZIA (2020): Il Rapporto: un Anno di “Codice Rosso”. https://www.giustizia.it/cmsresources/cms/documents/codicerosso_rapporto_24nov2020.pdf (Date of consultation: 10/07/2023).
MORTENSEN, S. S. (2020): “A Question of Control? Forms and Functions of Courtroom Questioning in Two Different Adversarial Trial Systems”, Scandinavian Studies in Language, 11(1), pp. 239–278. https://doi.org/10.7146/sss.v11i1.121370
O’BARR, W. (1982): Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power and Strategy in the Courtroom, New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500011015
OLANREWAJU, F. R. (2009): “Forensic Linguistics: Power and Asymmetrics in the Nigerian Courtroom Discourse”, Awka Journal of Linguistics and Languages, 5(1), pp. 19-37.
PALLOTTI, G. (1998): “La conversazione in contesti giudiziari”, Galatolo R. & Pallotti G. (eds.), Di Pietro e il giudice. L”interrogatorio al Tribunale di Brescia, Bologna: Pitagora editrice, pp. 9-19.
PONTEROTTO, D. (2007): “The Repertoire of Complicity vs. Coercion: The Discursive Trap of the Rape Trial Protocol”, Cotterill, J. (ed.), The Language of Sexual Crime, London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 104-125. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230592780_6
QUERALT, S. (2022): Estafas Amorosas: El Donjuán Seduce, Convence y Manipula. Barcelona: Larousse.
RIGER, S., FOSTER-FISHMAN, P., NELSON-KUNA, J., CURRAN, B. (1995): “Gender Bias in Courtroom Dynamics”, Law and Human Behavior, 19, 5, pp. 465-480. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01499338
ROSULEK, L. F. (2014): Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
SEUREN, L. M. (2019): “Questioning in Court: The Construction of Direct Examinations”, Discourse Studies, 21(3), pp. 340–357. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618770483
STONE, M. (1995): Cross-Examination in Criminal Trials, London: Butterworths.
TANNEN, D. (1993): “The Relativity of Linguistic Strategies: Rethinking Power and Solidarity in Gender and Dominance”, Tannen D. (ed.), Gender and Conversational Interaction, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 165-188. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500018662
TANNEN, D. (1999): “The Display of (Gendered) Identities in Talk at Work”, Bucholtz, M., Liang, A. C., Sutton A. (eds.). Reinventing Identities. The Gendered Self in Discourse, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 221-240.
TANNEN, D. (2013): You Just Don’t Understand!, New York: William Morrow Paperbacks – HarperCollins Publisher.
VISENTIN, F. (2023, March 23): “La Giudice Paola Di Nicola: ‘È Urgente Formare i Magistrati, Spesso Sottovalutano le Violenze’”, La 27esima ora, Corriere della Sera, https://27esimaora.corriere.it/23_marzo_26/giudice-paola-nicola-formare-magistrati-sottovalutano-violenze-intervista-317ede16-c33a-11ed-af09-a18a8fb0afbe.shtml (Date of consultation: 25/03/2023).
WALKER, A. (1987): “Linguistic Manipulation, Power, and the Legal Setting”, Kedar L. (ed.), Power through Discourse, Norwood, N J: Ablex, pp. 57-80.
WELLS, E. C. (2012): ““But Most of All, They Fought Together”: Judicial Attributions for Sentences in Convicting Battered Women Who Kill”, Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(3), pp. 350-364. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312448932
WOODBURY, H. (1984): “The Strategic Use of Questions in Court”, Semiotica, 48 (3-4), pp. 197-228. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1984.48.3-4.197