Turn-taking management during cross-examination: Lay people as cross-examiners

TKAČUKOVÁ, Tatiana. Turn-taking management during cross-examination: Lay people as cross-examiners. In Topics in Linguistics. Politeness and Interaction. Nitra: Constantine the Philosopher University, 2008, s. 72-77. ISSN 1337-7590.

Základní údaje

Originální název

Turn-taking management during cross-examination: Lay people as cross-examiners

Název česky

Střídání mluvčích během křížových výslechů: Laikové během křížového výslechu

Autoři

TKAČUKOVÁ, Tatiana (203 Česká republika, garant)

Vydání

Nitra, Topics in Linguistics. Politeness and Interaction. od s. 72-77, 6 s. 2008

Nakladatel

Constantine the Philosopher University

---

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Stať ve sborníku

Obor

60200 6.2 Languages and Literature

Stát vydavatele

Slovensko

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14410/08:00032743

Organizační jednotka

Pedagogická fakulta

ISSN

Klíčová slova anglicky

cross-examination; courtroom discourse; institutional talk; turn-taking; overlapping speech; speaker selection; three-part structure of interaction

Štítky

courtroom discourse, cross-examination, distribution of turns, institutional talk, litigants-in-person, locally-managed aspects of turn-taking, management transition relevant places, overlapping speech, pre-specified aspects of turn-taking, speaker selection, speaker transition, three-part structure of interaction, turn order, turn size, turn-taking, type of turn

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno

---

Anotace

V originále

The paper compares the turn-taking management (i.e. simultaneous speech, interruptions, third turns) of two self-represented litigants with the turn-taking management a professional lawyer. The data are drawn from the libel case McDonald's corporation v. H. Steel and D. Morris, which was tried in Great Britain. Turn-taking in Steel and Morris's cross-examination parts is similar to the conversational turn-taking due to frequent overlaps and follow-ups that are sometimes too supportive and not challenging enough. In contrast to the self-represented litigants, the professional lawyer preserves the pre-allocated character of cross-examination turn-taking (i.e. turn order and distribution of turns). As a result, his cross-examination is more orderly and professional.

Česky

The paper compares the turn-taking management (i.e. simultaneous speech, interruptions, third turns) of two self-represented litigants with the turn-taking management a professional lawyer. The data are drawn from the libel case McDonald's corporation v. H. Steel and D. Morris, which was tried in Great Britain. Turn-taking in Steel and Morris's cross-examination parts is similar to the conversational turn-taking due to frequent overlaps and follow-ups that are sometimes too supportive and not challenging enough. In contrast to the self-represented litigants, the professional lawyer preserves the pre-allocated character of cross-examination turn-taking (i.e. turn order and distribution of turns). As a result, his cross-examination is more orderly and professional.