I think that's not an assumption you ought to make
Challenging presuppositions in inquiry testimony
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 2887409 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Susan Ehrlich (York University), Jack Sidnell (0000-0002-7546-872X, University of Toronto) |
| Year | 2006 |
| Volume | 35 |
| Issue | 05 |
| Pages | 655-676 |
| Publication date | 2006-11-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | No |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Language in Society (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0047-4045 • E-ISSN: 1469-8013 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1017/s0047404506060313 |
| OpenAlex | W2120603548 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 23 |
| References cited | 11 |
This article examines data drawn from a 2001 Ontario (Canada) provincial inquiry into the deaths of seven people as a result of water contamination in a small Ontario town. The examination focuses on question-answer sequences in which the premier of Ontario, Michael Harris, attempted to resist lawyers' attempts to control and restrict his responses. In particular, on the basis of the data it is argued that the power of cross-examining lawyers does not reside solely in their ability to ask controlling and restrictive questions of witnesses, but rather is crucially dependent on their ability to compel witnesses to produce straightforward, or “type-conforming,” answers to these controlling and restrictive questions. The witness whose testimony is analyzed was not compelled to produce answers that logically conformed to the form of the lawyers' questions (i.e., “yes” or “no”) and, as a result, often usurped control over the topical agenda of the proceedings. In this sense, the present work builds on Eades's conclusion that “we cannot rely on question form to discover how witnesses are controlled.”A previous version of this article was presented at Sociolinguistics Symposium 15, Newcastle, U.K., in April 2004. We thank audience members at that conference and two reviewers for Language in Society for comments on previous versions. The research on which this article is based was funded in part by a SSHRCC Regular Research Grant (#410-2000-1330) to the first author
Epistemology · Presupposition · Sociology · Discourse Analysis in Language Studies · Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies · Philosophy · Rhetoric and Communication Studies
Knowledge moves in conversational exchanges
Presupposition and Entailment
The workings of multiple principles in student-teacher interactions
Language games and their types
Challenges of Interviewers' Institutional Positionings
Presupposition as investigator certainty in a police interrogation
Talk, listen, think’
Beyond texts in context
Pursuing Answers to Questions in Broadcast Journalism
Responding With Resistance to Wh -Questions in Japanese Talk-in-Interaction
Knowing how to present yourself by knowing how to recognize false true facts
La función de las preguntas en un discurso agonal
“Signature Habits” and “Strict Rules”
I just need a yes or no
It's just a process
Questions, questioning, and institutional practices
Scaling as an argumentative resource in television talk shows
Negative interrogatives and adversarial uptake
Language ideology, fractal recursivity, and discursive agency in the legal construction of linguistic evidence
Transformative answers
Doing 'being interrupted' in political talk
Invoking Uncertainty
Jurisdiction
Representing Rape
Just Words
The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions
There’s Risks in Everything
Answers as Interactional Products
Grammar and Social Organization
The strategic use of questions in court
Questions as a mode of control in magistrates' courts
I don't think it's an answer to the question
| Unique citing works | 23 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 1,35 |
| Citation span | 2009 - 2026 (18) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 22 |