Refashioning confession: The recontextualisation of digital confession evidence in court

重塑认罪：法庭上数字认罪证据的重新语境化

• 批准号: 2747169
• 金额: --
• 依托单位: CARDIFF UNIVERSITY
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Studentship
• 财政年份: 2022
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2022 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=studentship-2747169
• 关键词: Refashioning; confession; recontextualisation; digital; evidence

If a confession is recorded, it is more likely to be admitted to court as evidence (Solan and Tiersma 2005). Research on confessions is plentiful (e.g. Kassin 2008), but there are very few studies into how lawyers use confessions when cases go to court. Yet how lawyers reformulate confessions might affect jurors' interpretations, so this project investigates how lawyers and witnesses talk about digital confession evidence in witness examination and closing arguments.Recontextualisation refers to how historic texts are used in new contexts (Johnson 2013). Looking beyond confessions, we know that lawyers are selective; evidence is often presented partially (Barlow 2015). Further, recontextualisation forms - like reading aloud, paraphrasing, reported speech (see e.g. Heffer, Rock and Conley 2013) - have distinct functions. Quoting directly, for example, is seen as accurate (Philips 1986); it reduces the 'intertextual gap' (Bauman and Briggs 1990). Crucially, how recontextualised texts are framed, lexically and syntactically (Bauman 1986; D'hondt 2009), as well as how they are performed (Matoesian 2000), all contribute to their impact. Yet few studies give equivalent weight to selection, framing and performance.My broad research question is:How are confessions recontextualised at trial?Specifically, I ask:How - lexically, syntactically and paralinguistically - do lawyers and confession witnesses re-, de- and co-construct the meaning, authority and significance of confessions during witness examination and closing arguments?To answer this, I will select three trials with corresponding digital confession evidence. Audio and video recordings will be transcribed and annotated using CLAN (2022) then ELAN (2022). Texts will be transcribed exactly as written. To analyse, I will use interactional sociolinguistics (Gumperz 1982) because it appreciates the "large-scale sociological effects of small-scale interactions" (Jaquement 2014: 475), ideal for analysing the rule-bound context of forensic interaction. The trial foci are instances where confessions are spoken about, which will then be compared to the 'source' confession evidence: the digital recordings.Academically, this study will enhance knowledge of: recontextualisation, digital evidence, confessions. Societally, innocent people are found guilty based on confessions - a decision made in court dependent on their recontextualisation. By suggesting communicative reforms, this study could improve judicial fairness.ReferencesBarlow, C. 2015. Silencing the other: Gendered representations of co-accused women offenders. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice 54(5): 469-488.Bauman, R. 1986. Story, performance, and event: Contextual studies of oral narrative. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Bauman, R. and Briggs, C. L. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 59-88.D'hondt, S. 2014. Defending through disaffiliation: The vicissitudes of alignment and footing in Belgian criminal hearings. Language & Communication 36: 66-82.Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge UP.Heffer, C., Rock, F. and Conley, J. Legal-lay communication: Textual travels in the law. New York: Oxford UP.Jaquement, M. 2014. Introduction to the volume. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 23: 113-114.Kassin, S. M. 2008. False confessions: Causes, consequences, and implications for reform. Current Directions in Psychological Science 17(4): 249-253.Matoesian, G. 2000. Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics 32(7): 879-914.Philips, S. 1986. Reported speech as evidence in an American trial. In: Tannen, D. and Alatis, J. E. eds. Language and linguistics: The interdependence of theory, data, and application. Washington: Georgetown UP, 154-170.Solan, L. M. and Tiersma, P. 2005. Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justic

如果供词被记录下来，它更有可能被法庭接受为证据（Solan和Tiersma，2005年）。关于供词的研究很多（例如Kassin 2008），但很少有研究涉及律师在案件上法庭时如何使用供词。然而，律师如何改写供词可能会影响陪审员的解释，所以这个项目调查了律师和证人如何在证人询问和结案陈词中谈论数字供词证据。重新语境化是指历史文本如何在新的语境中使用（约翰逊2013）。除了供词，我们知道律师是有选择性的;证据往往是部分呈现的（巴洛，2015）。此外，再语境化形式--如大声阅读、释义、转述（参见Heffer、Rock和Conley，2013）--具有不同的功能。例如，直接引用被认为是准确的（Philips 1986）;它减少了“互文性差距”（Bauman and Briggs 1990）。重要的是，如何重构文本的框架，词汇和句法（鲍曼1986; D 'hondt 2009），以及他们是如何执行（Matoesian 2000），都有助于他们的影响。然而，很少有研究对选择、框架和表现给予同等的重视。我的主要研究问题是：供词在审判中是如何被重新语境化的？具体来说，我问：如何-词汇，句法和语法-做律师和供词证人重新，去和共同构建的意义，权威和意义的供词在证人审查和结案陈词？为了回答这个问题，我将选择三个有相应数字供词证据的审判。将使用CLAN（2022）然后ELAN（2022）转录和注释音频和视频记录。文本将完全按照书面形式转录。为了进行分析，我将使用交互社会语言学（Gumperz 1982），因为它赞赏“小规模互动的大规模社会学效应”（Jaquement 2014：475），这是分析法医互动的规则约束背景的理想选择。审判的焦点是供词被谈论的情况，然后将其与“源”供词证据：数字录音进行比较。在学术上，这项研究将提高对：重新语境化，数字证据，供词的认识。在社会上，无辜的人根据供词被判有罪-法庭上的决定取决于他们的重新语境化。通过建议沟通改革，本研究可以提高司法公正。2015.压制对方：同案女罪犯的性别代表。《犯罪与司法霍华德杂志》54（5）：469- 488. 1986.故事、表演和事件：口头叙事的语境研究。剑桥：北剑桥。和Briggs，C. L. 1990.作为语言和社会生活批判视角的诗学和表演。《人类学年鉴》19：59- 88。2014.通过分离辩护：比利时刑事听证会中的对齐和立足点的变迁。语言与交流36：66- 82. Gumperz，J. J. 1982.话语策略。剑桥：北剑桥。Heffer，C.，Rock，F. Conley，J. Legal-lay communication：Textual travels in the law.纽约：牛津大学。2014.卷的介绍。语言人类学杂志23：113- 114. M. 2008.《假口供：原因、后果和对改革的影响》。心理科学的当前方向17（4）：249- 253. Matoesian，G. 2000.报道演讲中的互文权威：肯尼迪·史密斯强奸案审判中的制作媒体。Journal of Pragmatics 32（7）：879- 914. 1986.在美国的一次审判中，被报道的演讲作为证据。Tannen，D.和Alatis，J.E. eds.语言和语言学：理论、数据和应用的相互依赖。华盛顿：乔治敦大学出版社，154- 170。M. Tiersma，P. 2005.犯罪的语言：刑事司法