Refashioning confession: The recontextualisation of digital confession evidence in court

如果口供被记录下来，它更有可能被法庭接纳为证据(Solan和Tiersma 2005)。关于口供的研究很多(例如，Kassin，2008年)，但关于律师在案件进入法庭时如何使用口供的研究很少。然而，律师如何重新表述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在证人讯问和结案辩论中如何谈论数字供词证据。重新文本化指的是历史文本如何在新的背景下使用(Johnson 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(Barlow 2015)。此外，再语境化形式--如朗读、释义、报告演讲(见Heffer、Rock和Conley 2013)--有不同的功能。例如，直接引用被认为是准确的(飞利浦1986)；它减少了“互文差距”(Bauman And Briggs 1990)。至关重要的是，重新设置语境的文本是如何在词汇和句法上构成框架的(Bauman 1986；D‘Hondt 2009)，以及它们是如何执行的(Matoesian 2000)，都有助于它们的影响。然而，很少有研究对选择、构思和表现给予同等的重视。我广泛的研究问题是：口供是如何在庭审中重新语境的？具体地说，我问：律师和口供证人在证人讯问和结案陈词过程中，如何在词汇、句法和副语言上重新构建口供的意义、权威和意义？为了回答这个问题，我将选择三个带有相应数字口供证据的审判。音频和视频记录将使用氏族(2022)和伊兰(2022)进行转录和注释。文本将完全按照书面形式转录。为了进行分析，我将使用互动社会语言学(Gumperz 1982)，因为它欣赏“小规模互动的大规模社会学效应”(Jacquement 2014：475)，非常适合于分析法医互动的规则约束背景。审判的焦点是口供被提及的情况，然后将其与口供证据的“来源”：数字录音进行比较。在学术上，这项研究将增强对以下方面的知识：重新语境化、数字证据、口供。在社会上，无辜的人是根据供词被判有罪的--这一决定在法庭上取决于他们的重新语境。通过提出沟通改革的建议，这项研究可以改善司法公正。参考文献，Barlow，C.2015。压制对方：共同指控的女性罪犯的性别陈述。《霍华德犯罪与司法杂志》54(5)：469-488。鲍曼，1986。故事、表演和事件：口头叙事的语境研究。剑桥：剑桥大学出版社，鲍曼，R.和布里格斯，C.L.1990。诗学和表演作为对语言和社会生活的批判性视角。《人类学年度评论》19：59-88.D‘Hondt，S.2014。通过分离进行辩护：比利时刑事听证中结盟和立足点的变迁。《语言与交际》36：66-82.冈珀兹，J.J.1982。话语策略。剑桥：剑桥大学。赫弗，C.，洛克，F.和康利，J.法律--通俗交流：法律中的文本旅行。纽约：牛津大学雅克门特分校，2014年。这卷书的简介。《语言人类学杂志》23：113-114.卡辛，S.M.2008。虚假供述：原因、后果和对改革的影响。“当代心理学方向”17(4)：249-253.马托森，G.2000。报道演讲中的互文权威：肯尼迪史密斯强奸案中的生产媒体。《语用学杂志》32(7)：879-914.菲利普斯，1986。在一次美国审判中作为证据报道的讲话。收录于：Tannen，D.和Alatis，J.E.编辑。语言和语言学：理论、数据和应用的相互依存。《华盛顿：乔治城大学》，154-170。索兰，L.M.和蒂尔斯马，2005年。谈犯罪：刑事司法的语言

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