Power in Courtroom Discourse: Direct-Examination and Cross-Examination Questioning

This dissertation focuses on the power dynamics in courtroom discourse, specifically within direct-examination and cross-examination questioning. It aims to analyze the language use in these types of questioning and determine if one type shows greater power. The study explores the discourse in the courtroom and its impact on the final verdict. The research objectives include understanding how power is shown in the courtroom, analyzing the variance in sentences, and evaluating the interpretation of witness responses. The study is significant in providing insights into the power discourse in a courtroom setting.

Running head: DISSERTATION
English Language and Linguistics Dissertation
Topic: Power shown via courtroom discourse within
direct-examination and cross-examination questioning
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

DISSERTATION 1
Table of Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction:.............................................................................................................4
1.1 Overview of the research:................................................................................................4
1.2 Background of the study:.................................................................................................5
1.3 Rationale of the study:.....................................................................................................5
1.4 Aim of the research:.........................................................................................................6
1.5 Research objectives:.........................................................................................................6
1.6 Research question:...........................................................................................................7
1.7 Significance of the study:.................................................................................................7
Chapter 2: Literature review:.....................................................................................................8
2.1 Introduction:.....................................................................................................................8
2.2 Understanding power through discourse:.........................................................................8
2.3 The impact and importance of asymmetry in the power discourse:...............................10
2.4 Overview of the institutional discourse:........................................................................11
2.5 Analysis of power through direct examination and cross examination questions:........13
Chapter 3: Methodology:.........................................................................................................15
3.1 Introduction:...................................................................................................................15
3.2 Research overview:........................................................................................................15
3.3 Linguistic analysis of the discourse:..............................................................................15
3.4 Data collection method:.................................................................................................17
3.5 Method of data analysis:................................................................................................18

DISSERTATION 2
3.6 Limitation of the study:..................................................................................................19
Chapter 4: Data analysis and Discussion.................................................................................20
4.1 Introduction....................................................................................................................20
4.2 Direct-examination.........................................................................................................20
4.2.1 Analysis of the open-ended questions:........................................................................20
4.2.2 Analysis of the closed-ended questions:.....................................................................21
4.2.3 Analysis of the leading questions:...............................................................................22
4.2.4 Analysis of Turn-taking/asymmetry:..........................................................................23
4.3 Cross-examination..........................................................................................................24
4.3.1 Analysis of the open-ended questions:........................................................................24
4.3.2 Analysis of the closed-ended questions:.....................................................................25
4.3.3 Analysis of the leading questions:...............................................................................25
4.3.4 Analysis of Turn-taking/asymmetry:..........................................................................27
4.4 Comparison of direct-examination and closed examination questions:.........................28
4.5 Usage of punctuations to show power in discourse:......................................................30
4.6 Usage of ‘so’ in interrogation showing power discourse:..............................................30
4.7 Other linguistic tools used in power discourse:.............................................................31
4.8. Summary:......................................................................................................................32
Chapter 5: Conclusion:.............................................................................................................34
5.1 Conclusion:....................................................................................................................34
5.2 Linking with the other research objectives:...................................................................34

DISSERTATION 3
5.3 Recommendations:.........................................................................................................35
5.4 Future scope of the study:..............................................................................................36
References:...............................................................................................................................37

DISSERTATION 4
Chapter 1: Introduction:
1.1 Overview of the research:
The title of my dissertation is ‘Courtroom discourse – Power in language within
direct-examination and cross-examination questioning’. By definition, Direct-examination
question is the first examination question asked by the party calling the witness and Cross-
examination question is the question raised by the opposing party to the same witness in
order to check or discredit the testimony of the same witness. This is how the knowledge,
testimony and credibility of the witness are tested and countered (Holmes and Stubbe, 2015).
Direct-examination questions question the witness who is in favour of the represented client.
On the other hand, cross-examination question is raised by the opposing lawyer questioning
the opposition’s witness in order to discredit their testimony in favour of his own client. This
is an interesting approach to power in language as solely knowing what these two types of
questioning are, we can readily assume that one may show evidence of greater power shown
due to the individual role it plays (Burman and Parker, 2016).
I wanted to explore this method of question deeper whilst looking to separate
similarities and differences between the two types of questioning as well as determining if
one type shows greater power via the language use within the questioning. This study is
focused on the dialogue in the courtroom discourse and several studies have been researched
that focused on the courtroom discourse. However, it should be noted that not all these
studies concentrated solely on the questioning but it also concentrated on the language used
within the opening and closing statements.

DISSERTATION 5
1.2 Background of the study:
In the view point of Kang, Ji-Hae (2014), discourse analysis is the means of analysing
language beyond the sentences. This is indeed contradictory to the types of analysis done in
the modern day linguistics. Discourse analysis is mainly concerned with the study of
grammar, smaller bits of language, usage of phonetics and phonology, parts of speech and
also considering the order of the words in a sentence. It is important to study a chunk of
sentence in order to understand the discourse and the flow of language. The aim of the
discourse analysts is to understand how the usage of words and grammar is actually changing
the meaning of the conversation. In the discussion, Griscti, Odette et al. (2017) highlighted a
simple example with two sentences, “Please use the toilet, not the pool” and the other
sentence as “Pools are available for members only”. If these sentences are taken together, the
derived meaning would be completely something else. Thus, interpreting the meaning of the
sentences and the intensions behind such sentences is what discourse analysis for. However,
in contradictory to this, Harris, Sandra (2003) said that these assumptions are completely
depended on the on the person as how things are interpreted or signalled. Things can be
wrongly interpreted in case the person was not listening carefully or might have missed a
vital bodily signal like eye contact or response to the listener.
1.3 Rationale of the study:
Human beings are continuously engaged in various social activities and interaction
with people. People make all the possible approaches needed for interaction and convey their
messages. As pointed out by Zhang, Meifang (2015), it is completely dependent on a person
to deliver a word or a sentence that the person feels like but the interpretation completely
depends on the person who is listening and is at the receiving end. Human beings can be
involved in usual conversations, any kind of negotiation or even an argument. The

DISSERTATION 6
construction of the sentences and the meaning derived from the sentences are completely
unanimous to the sender as well as the receiver.
If the situation of a courtroom is considered, as per the topic of this dissertation, it can
be said that the final verdict of the court is depended on the entire conversation carried on at
the courtroom by the means of direct examination and cross examination questions. The
lawyers from both the parties always show the tendency of manipulating the sentences or the
sentences said by the witness or the one being questioned in a way that would satisfy their
point of view. In such cases, the winning party is definitely the one who will be able to show
more power via their conversation and sentences. Thus, studying discourse analysis of direct
examination and cross examination questions in the courtroom would provide another level
of analytical skills to the professionals.
1.4 Aim of the research:
The aim of the dissertation is to find out the ways in which lawyers show power in
their language within direct-examination and cross-examination questioning. The study will
not only focus on one of the questioning process but both direct-examination and cross-
examination questioning so that we can see the opposing sides of a court case and how each
side claims power.
1.5 Research objectives:
The objectives of the research are:
i. To find out how power is shown in the courtroom by discourse analysis in terms
of direct examination and cross examination questions.
ii. To analyse the variance in sentences while asking direct examination and cross
examination questions by the lawyers from both the parties

DISSERTATION 7
iii. To evaluate how the response of the witness is interpreted after asking a question
by the lawyer
1.6 Research question:
RQ: How power is shown via courtroom discourse within direct-examination and cross-
examination questioning?
1.7 Significance of the study:
This study will help to understand how a professional, for this research a lawyer can
use different set of sentences and words in order to meet the expected outcome of the entire
situation. The evaluation of the entire transcript of the courtroom scenario would give a clear
understanding on how direct examination and cross examination questions have helped the
lawyers from both the parties to take their own toll. Thus, this study would be further helpful
in analysing power discourse of sentences in a conversation.

DISSERTATION 8
Chapter 2: Literature review:
2.1 Introduction:
In the section of the literature review, the discussion is based on the approaches to
power and what different theorists such as Foucault and Fairclough have to say about power
within discourse. Understanding the concept of power itself will help prepare one’s mind for
the basis of this dissertation. Moving forward, the discussion is about one of the key
components of power within talk, which is asymmetry within talk. This is often referred to as
‘turn-taking’ by conversation analysis scholars. The literature review will directly focus on
asymmetry within institutional settings which fulfils the focus of courtroom discourse making
the research less general and more specific to the topic. The research is based on
understanding the uneven distribution of talk within a courtroom setting and what researchers
such as Drew and Heritage (1992) have to say regarding power shown via asymmetry.
Furthermore, the research will focus on the institutional discourse and what researchers such
as Thornborrow (2002) and Drew and Heritage (1992) have to say regarding the topic, for
example, the restrictions within an institutional setting. Moving forward, the discussion will
be based on the main theme of theme dissertation, which is direct-examination and cross-
examination questioning.
2.2 Understanding power through discourse:
The understanding of power has been developing over large periods of time. The idea
and acknowledgment of power originates in Foucault’s theory of power (1977, 1980, as
quoted in Thornborrow 2002:77). Foucault suggests that power is activated through
interaction. Many critical linguists, who seemed to be inspired by Foucault, claim that rather
than being negotiable, power is pre-determined. ‘Discourse in Foucault’s sense is not simply
to talk itself, but also the way that something gets talked about’ (Yates, 2002). The way that

DISSERTATION 9
people talk about an issue is in relation to the way they think about it and so act accordingly
suggesting that discourse is thus a ‘locus of power’ (Daldal, 2014). In the view point of Pitsoe
and Letseka, (2012), Discourse can be both an instrument and an effect of power but also a
hindrance, a stumbling block, a point of resistance and a starting point for an opposing
strategy.’ Contradicting this point, according to Foucault, power is omnipresent, not because
it embraces everything uniformly, but because it comes from everywhere. Reading
Tkacukova, (2010), it has been well observed that ‘power is attributed to the participants of
talk according to their institutional identity, social status or gender.’ It is definitely true that
power tends to be associated with competition, coercion and domination between two or
more persons. The words, sentences and the subjects that we use during the discourse are
largely influenced by the way we act. A multi-dimensional linguistic approach or the use of
words and phrases during a discourse plays a significant role in the power discourse. The
evidences of which are easily noticed in human history as well.
Fairclough (1989) took the main ideas of critical linguists and developed them into a
complex theory of ‘power in discourse’ and ‘power behind discourse.’ Fairclough believed
that ‘power is won, held and lost in social struggle’ (Tkacukova, 2010). In addition,
Thornborrow (2002: 16) states that this approach makes considering social relations (e.g.
turn-taking and politeness features) as well as social reality (e.g. lexical choices) necessary
when analysing power within texts. As commented by Macgilchrist, Felicitas (2013),
according to the basic discourse theory, there are various ways by which a subject can be
influenced and it completely reflects on the way we act with the subject. If the Western-
liberal societies are considered, their discourses are exclusively conflicting and adversary
when it comes to any negotiation of conflict resolution. In the recent time, power discourse
has been significantly getting highlighted by the feminist writers where the writers are
finding precise ways of discourse to show power. As pointed out by Etchanchu, Helen and

DISSERTATION 10
Djelic, Marie-Laure (2016) , these discourses can be understood as an alternative power to
fight against the social injustice and to be precisely when talking about power.
2.3 The impact and importance of asymmetry in the power discourse:
A key idea that is of importance is the concept of ‘asymmetry’ within talk. As stated
by Sullivan, Jessica and Barner, David (2016), in an institutional communication, the role of
the participants can be determined by institutional frame and by the distribution of power
through asymmetrical discourse. Conversation analysis scholars have been studying the
question of power whilst using the preferred term ‘asymmetry’. This is often referred to as
‘turn-taking’ between each participant present in the conversation. The linguistic approach of
the role of asymmetry clearly defines the structural organisation and the sequences of the
usage of parts of speech (Pritchard, Madeleine et al. (2014). These words and phrases clearly
differentiate among interruption, enforcing a topic, formulating or controlling the topic in
discussion. The role of participants in the institutional communication is defined by the
various norms of the institution. These norms can vary from one person to another and also
according to the profession. For instance, the conversation between a doctor and patient and
that of a lawyer and witness can never be similar to the daily conversation that one does with
a family member or a friend (Zorčič, Sabina (2012)). Thus, the asymmetry completely
depends on the interaction between the people and also to show domination or power in
interaction with people.
Drew and Heritage (1992: 47) have described talk as being ‘characteristically
asymmetrical’ in an institutional setting. Within institutional settings, the participants have
certain set tasks to fulfil in accordance to the role they play. For example, in a courtroom, the
lawyer poses and asks the questions and the witness answers them. In this case, the lawyer
has control over which questions he poses and is able to choose which direction he would like

DISSERTATION 11
to take the focus of the questioning. Drew and Heritage (1992: 47-51) talk about three
reasons which give a rise to asymmetries in institutional discourse: ‘a question-answer pattern
of interaction, different amount of knowledge shared by the participants, and the perception
of a client’s unique case as a routine situation’ (Tkacukova, 2010). Drew and Heritage
consider the interaction of question-answer patterns to be the most crucial reasoning behind
asymmetries (Drew and Heritage 1992: 47-51). Therefore, ‘asymmetry is viewed mainly in
terms of interactional space and turn-taking management’. (Thornborrow 2002: 21).
Considering the in depth study of the use of the language or talking about the social
community inseparably, there are cultural and anthropological factors that play crucial role
and develop the ethnography of communication.
2.4 Overview of the institutional discourse:
In various researches carried on to understand the variance in the power discourse, it
has been found that there is a specific distinction between institutional and non-institutional
settings via the use of three features: firstly, it is goal or task oriented; secondly, it involves
constraints on what counts as legitimate contributions to that goal or task and, thirdly, it
produces particular kinds of inferences in the way speakers interpret, or orient to, utterances.”
(Thornborrow, 2013: 2). The three features claim that, due to the preferred outcome of the
situation, institutional talk differs from non-institutional talk. Institutional talks where
specific audience is present will influence the way the speaker uses their language.
Furthermore, another key concept is that power can be seen as an ‘emergent feature’ of
orientated-to discourse practices in given settings (Hutchby 1996: 482). This can be seen via
the idea of participants being able to have control over the level of power that seems available
to them in an interaction through the ways in which they decide to design their talk. Adding
to this, Zimmermann, Camilla (2012) highlighted another typical feature of institutional

DISSERTATION 12
discourse; that is restrictions on types of contributions that participants are allowed to make.
Thornborrow (2002: 4) specifies two types of such restrictions: the asymmetrical distribution
of speaker rights and obligations and the differential access to discursive resources and
identities. Adding to this, Drew and Heritage (1992: 25-27) claimed that institutional
interactions that are set in formal settings share a greater number of common features in
comparison to institutional settings in informal settings. For example, examination of
witnesses within a courtroom and interviews are formal institutional settings and display
common features, such as restrained turn-taking.
Discussing about the institutional setup like a court and the discourse in the
examination of the conversation it has been found that in the view point of Henrichs, Lotte
and Leseman, Paul (2014), the objective of direct examination question in a courtroom is the
process to understand and remember the dialogues and the conversations between the witness
and the proceeding. It should be understood that there are two types of questioning carried on
in a courtroom. The first is direct examination question where the lawyer or the prosecutor
questions the witness called by the first lawyer and then the same witness is being
interrogated by the other lawyer as well and there are cross examination questions done by
the other lawyer to the same witness in order to cross check whatever the person had said in
favour or against the case (Kumar, 2019). Here, Kumar, (2019) pointed out that the discourse
in an institution is largely dependent and affected by the political scenario as well. For
example, the discourse in a film that is made available among the population worldwide
needs to be decided considering the political situation of the particular nation. If anything
apolitical condition happens due to the poorly delivered discourse in the film, the makers will
be questioned on the making. Thus, the dialogue delivery or the discourse neutral enough to
defend any comment that might arise in case there is any changes in the economic, political

DISSERTATION 13
or the social issues portrayed in a film. Likewise, when there is any institutional discourse,
the dependency to show power on the discourse increases.
2.5 Analysis of power through direct examination and cross examination questions:
The power of questioning has been researched over time in different types of
institutional discourse, for example, courtroom discourse (Matoesian 2005, Chang 2004,
Bülow-Møller 1992) and police discourse (Haworth 2006, Newbury &Johnson 2006).
Hutchby (1996: 484) states that asking questions is a powerful tool as it allows a person to
limit the recipient in their discourse and forces them to provide an answer. Wang (2006)
suggests that ‘the inborn features of questions make the person naturally bound up with
power in that questions possessing the ability to dominate and control’ (Tkacukova, 2010).
As mentioned by Sacks et al (1974), a question is typically followed by a response. An
important aspect of questioning is that the person asking the question has the power to define
the length, topic and the type of response (Wang 2006: 533).
While we can assume that during a direct examination the witnesses are prepared for
the questions they will be asked, while during the cross examination questions, the lawyer
proceeds in a hostile atmosphere as the witnesses do not know what to expect from the
opposing counsel. ‘The main aim of a cross-examiner is to discredit the testimonies of
witnesses by casting doubt on their credibility or their presentation of events’ (Gibbons 2003:
112). Hobbs (2002: 413-414), a former practising lawyer, stresses that counsels expect the
audience to draw inferences on the basis of implicit connections proposed through their
questions. Quantitative research on cross-examination questioning in court has shown that the
most frequent types of questions counsels use are closed questions. Closed questions give
counsels an opportunity to give evidence on behalf of witnesses (Hobbs 2003: 486-487).
Matoesian (2005: 755) describes the ‘nailing down’ strategy as a tactic used by the cross-

DISSERTATION 14
examiner, where a series of questions regarding the same focus are asked, slowly
underpinning single details. Syntactic forms of questions are used to define the boundaries of
response pragmatic strategies hold just as much importance. The pragmatic strategies help
establish a strong understanding of the communication, the meaning and the context via the
interaction. It has been found in the research carried out on pragmatic cross-examination
strategies that the counsels take advantage of and use the different areas of language and
communication.

DISSERTATION 15
Chapter 3: Methodology:
3.1 Introduction:
This chapter of the dissertation discusses the research methodology used for carrying
out the research. It is important to decide on the methodology part of the research so that the
research can be carried on in a more precise and accurate manner. Same was done for this
research as well. This chapter consists of the research philosophy, paradigm, and research
approach along with the research design. The different methods of the research will be
discussed and at the same time, the justification of the selected method and elimination of the
other methods will be discussed.
3.2 Research overview:
In order to support the analysis of the data, it was important to support the facts with
the help of certain concepts and literature. Therefore, for this particular research, positivism
research philosophy has been selected as it was important to understand the issue in a way
and how power discourse is carried on in the courtroom by the means of direct examination
questions and cross-examination questions. The positivism approach helped to evaluate the
research rationale by supporting the arguments and counter-arguments with the concepts and
literature. The deductive research approach has been used and the analysis is entirely based
on the view points of the authors. The example of the data has been supported by the
literature review on the different aspects of language and linguistics and how the usage of
words and phrases can be a means of showing power during a discourse.
3.3 Linguistic analysis of the discourse:
The main aim of the analysis of the data is to understand how linguistics approaches
can show power in a conversation and that too depending on the usage of the types of

DISSERTATION 16
statements. The idea was to understand the power discourse by the means of direct
examination and cross examination questions by the lawyers of both the parties. There were a
various set of questions asked to the witnesses. It has been identified that the lawyers were
coming up with a different set of expressions and types of questions being asked to the
witness. In order to analyse the power shown by the lawyers at the courtroom, the
conversation has been segregated into the types of questions asked and how the conversation
proceeded.
In the data analysis, the conversation has been analysed from the data or the transcript
of the court case. For convenience, the data of the first 170 questions or lines have been used
for the analysis. At first, the open ended questions and the closed ended questions will be
analysed and how power is shown by the respective lawyers while carrying out the discourse.
Open ended questions gives a chance to the respondent to response in a more elaborative way
but there always lies the tricks the way the question is being asked. On the other hand, the
closed ended questions are only based on certain options and assumptions and it gives more
opportunity to the one asking the question to frame the answer in a way where the respondent
has to agree or disagree with the point. Thus, at first the power through open ended and
closed ended questions will be taken into consideration. Next, the leading questions will be
analysed in terms of both sided lawyers. The leading questions at different points of time will
be discussed that gave more chances to the witness and the respondent to come up with their
own view point. While discussing the usage of leading questions showing power in court
discourse, the impact of turn taking and asymmetry will also be shown in the context of
analysing the power discourse.
Not to forget, the analysis also involves quantitative data as well and the number of
open ended or closed ended as well as the number of leading questions will be analysed. For
this, a separate table of the number of questions will be framed and accordingly, the questions

DISSERTATION 17
will be analysed. This way there we be a clarity on the frequency of each type of question and
how effectively does it work when it comes to the power discourse. These tables are based on
the 170 questions from the transcript only. Each and every analysis is backed up examples
from the transcript to give evidence and support the argument of the power discourse in
courtroom conversation. Lastly, there will a comparison of the types of questions asked
during the direct examination and the cross examination question that would eventually help
to analyse the importance of each type of question during the direct and cross examination.
All these analysis is back up by the secondary data gathered from the literature review. Thus,
there will be a direct connection between what has been done in the literature review and
what has been found in the transcript as the data. This would help to understand the scholarly
approach of the use of linguistics terms and how effectively it acts in the power discourse.
3.4 Data collection method:
The data collection method involves primary data collection and the secondary data
collection. Primary data is collected by the means of involving a number of people. This
method involves either a survey or interview process with the people involved in the
research. The secondary research involves taking the information from the exiting data
available. These data involve the research articles from various journals, books, case studies
available over the internet in various magazines and newspapers. This research on the power
discourse in the courtroom is completely based on the existing resources including research
papers, books, articles, journals and other academic sources. There was no scope of including
or using any kind of primary data for this research.
In order to get the data for this dissertation, I had to collect my data of both a direct-
examination and cross-examination. It was difficult to find this as it required both a direct and
cross-examination of the same case to avoid any bias when comparing and contrasting. After

DISSERTATION 18
long research, an online journal transcript of a case that contained both the direct-examination
and cross-examination of the same witness in the same court case was found that would be
equally helpful for the research. The pdf version of the data retrieved was converted to the
editable word document. This data or the entire discourse is qualitative data as the analysis
will be based on the words and the sentence construction with the use of the asymmetry in the
discourse will be analysed in the direct examination questioning and cross examination
questioning rather than numbers. However, in order to show certain calculation of the
numbers, there will be instances of quantitative data when calculating the number of a certain
type of question asked. For instances, the number of open ended or closed-ended question,
the number of direct examination questions and other ways in which a quantitative approach
can be drawn.
3.5 Method of data analysis:
The main aim of the data analysing is to show the features of language that show
power within both direct-examination and cross-examination. This will be shown by the
means of qualitative analysis by analysing the texts and the usage of various parts of speech.
In addition to this, separate quantitative data tables within each feature analysis showing the
frequency of each feature used within direct-examination and cross-examination will also be
drawn that would give a glimpse of the number of questions framed in each section. In order
to retrieve the quantitative data, the data to the first 170 questions from both direct and cross
examination were narrowed down and the questions were counted manually as the number of
closed, open-ended and leading questions. In order to present the quantitative data, a table
containing the number of words spoken by the council and the number of words spoken by
the witness in both the direct-examination and cross-examination will be added after a
thorough analysis. In addition to this, the tables will also show qualitative data when
analysing the turn-taking within both questionings. The analysis will be based on the research

DISSERTATION 19
objectives set and step by step each point will be discussed and analysed.
The next step in the data analysis method moves onto discussing the use of closed
questions within both direct-examination and cross-examination. For this, a quantitative data
table that consist the number of closed questions used within both questionings will be
presented, followed by qualitative evidence from the data. The way power is shown via these
closed questions will be discussed. As well as closed questions, open-ended questions will be
analysed. Leading questions will be assessed in the same way as the other question types
mentioned above. A quantitative table showing the frequency of leading questions used
within both direct-examination and cross-examination proceeded by qualitative data
examples and a discussion on how power will be revealed within leading questions.
3.6 Limitation of the study:
The constrained time and the availability of the resources on the topic are the main
limitations of the study. Apart from this, as this dissertation does not involve any kind of
primary research and thus, there is no involvement of primary participants in the study. The
analysis was limited only on the transcript selected for the study. The final data choice is a
direct-examination and cross-examination questioning in the case ‘United States v. William
Jeffers’ and the entire data analysis is based on that data only.

DISSERTATION 20
Chapter 4: Data analysis and Discussion
4.1 Introduction
A detailed analysis of the direct examination questions and cross examination
questions carried out in the conversation at the courtroom will be carried on in this section of
the dissertation. It has been clearly understood that direct examination question is a stage in
the process of adducing evidences from the one who is considered as the witness of the case
in the particular court of law. The objective of the direct examination questions is to question
the witness by the one who has called the person for trial at the court. The process helps in
questioning the person so that the facts can be supported and the claim or the defence of the
party can be satisfied. The data analysis of the case undertaken for this dissertation is based
on both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative analysis is entirely based on the
transcript between the guilty and the lawyer and the quantitative analysis is based on the
number of questions asked in terms of direct and indirect questions along with the open and
closed ended questions. There are around 170 direct-examination and 170 cross-examination
questions in the entire case transcript and these questions will be analysed in this section.
4.2 Direct-examination
4.2.1 Analysis of the open-ended questions:
The open ended questions are the ones where the person asking the question comes
up with a question where a brief or at times a detailed answer is needed depending on the
need of the query. Examples of such statements are ‘In what context did you meet him?’. This
was a powerful question as the word context fixed the response to a certain extent as the
answer remain fixed and the respondent would say only in what context he met him. Another
vital open-ended question was ‘What was Mr. Maalouf’s position at that time?’, this question

DISSERTATION 21
also showed power as to understand what help from the government officials were taken
during the theft.
Direct-examination
Open-ended questions 85/170
Table 1: Data of the number of open-ended questions in direct-examination
From the above table, it is clear that in the direct examination questioning, the lawyer
chose almost to ask 50% of the questions to be open ended. It has been found that the direct
questions asked to the witness were based on various parameters. For instance, it has been
noticed that during the direct questioning, few questions were related to the personal
background of the person and not directly related to the case. Example, ‘Very briefly, can you
just explain the facts behind the scheme, just in a sentence or two?’ (p. 112) If the power of
the direct questioning is considered, it can be said that these questions were equally important
as these basic questions would give an understanding of the nature or personality of the
person or why the person could have done the probable crime. The lawyer gave little scope to
explain the scheme and focused twice on the fact to be concise about what the witness says,
by saying ‘very briefly’ and again ‘just in a sentence or two’. As understood reading Singh,
(2015), that this way the lawyer showed power by not giving enough opportunity to the
witness to elaborate his part and that the witness would have come up with several other
points that would have inclined the argument in favour of the witness.
4.2.2 Analysis of the closed-ended questions:
Closed ended questions are the types of interrogative statements where the one who
questions the person gives option/s to the person or frame the question in a way that the
respondent is left only with the option of either yes or no, or to agree or disagree with the
view point of the one asking question. In the view point of (Matoesian 2005, Chang 2004,

DISSERTATION 22
Bülow-Møller 1992), closed ended questions shows more power in discourse as the options
of answers from the respondents gets limited and the respondent is left with no other option
than agreeing or disagreeing with the one asking question. The person can frame question in
his own way and can manipulate the answer easily. Example of such incidence from the data
can be given as, the very first few questions like, ‘You didn’t create it?’(p. 111) the expected
answer was in the form of either yes or no. Next, ‘Did you sign a plea agreement in
connection with your plea?’ (p. 112), the answer received was I did, Sir. All these statements
showed power of the lawyer in how the questions were framed to get answer what was
needed from the witness. Contradicting to this view point, Harris, Sandra (2003) stated that at
times, depending on the respondent, it happens that the person keeps on stating his view point
and elaborate the answer and did not limit the answer in just yes or no. For example, ‘ When
you say returned, do you mean to the US government?’, this is indeed a closed ended
question and the expected answer was in the form of yes or no, but the witness stated what he
wanted to state and answered, Yes Sir. From the fuel theft …… with the US government. (p.
112).
Direct-examination
Closed questions 85/170
Table 2: Data of the number of closed questions in direct-examination
The other 50% as closed ended; in the cross examination questions, there were more
closed questions.
4.2.3 Analysis of the leading questions:
Leading questions are the interrogative questions asked by the lawyers of both the
parties in a courtroom discourse. These questions are asked to interrogate and suggest a
particular answer from the examiner. It is a unique way of reducing the ability of the

DISSERTATION 23
examiner to reduce the influence of the respondent on the question asked (Gibbons:
2003:117). Moving forward, it has been clearly identified that the one who was guilty
accepted that they took contracts which were legitimate and in that they added the memos for
the record that resulted in the theft and stealing of the fuel. The direct question like “What
happens if you don’t tell the truth?” (p. 112) were also asked to know the expectation or
whether the person knew what would happen. This created a fear among the witness that he
would have to go through severe punishment in case he does not clearly state the truth what
the court was expecting.
Direct-examination
Leading questions 9/170
Table 3: Data of the number of leading questions in direct-examination
From the above data of leading questions, it is clearly evident that there were just a
few numbers of leading questions asked during the direct examination. There is a clarity of
the fact that the first lawyer is the one conducting the direct-examination question and so
there is not enough opportunity for the person to start with a lot of leading questions. It has
been found that there are just 9 out of 170 questions were leading questions during the direct
examination questions. This shows power in a way that the lawyer wanted to stay with the
open ended questions and to get things known clearly. If there were more number of leading
questions, this could have been an issue in turning the witness in the way the lawyer wanted
the court to listen.
4.2.4 Analysis of Turn-taking/asymmetry:
Asymmetry words in a sentence are the ones that fail to correspond in terms of its
size, shape or the arrangement and thus, there is a lack of symmetry in the sentence
formation. There are many instances when the direct questions are not answered clearly and

DISSERTATION 24
are at times depending on the respondent, the answers are twisted and turned in different
ways. This is indeed a way of showing power by the lawyers or the ones asking the questions
as it is a unique of turning the situation in a way, the questioning person wants to change the
conversation and this definitely shows power. If the situation of the courtroom discourse is
taken into account, asymmetry, turn taking and third turn questions have its different course
of power. For example, the question, ‘Right around this time, which is October, did you meet
a man named Robert Young?’ (p. 117) This is a very significant and powerful question that
could have turned the direction of the court and the analysis in a way and could give a new
turn in the entire case. Another similar question meant to know the scenario in the later time
like the December, was asked by the direct examination lawyer and he asked, ‘Around this
time in early December, did Mr. Maalouf indicate he had a new contract?’ This was another
turn taking question when the lawyer emphasised on both the time of the incident as well as
on the contract thing to get things clear in his own way. This way the lawyer showed power
in the discourse and was able to establish his own points through questioning and arguments.
4.3 Cross-examination
4.3.1 Analysis of the open-ended questions:
It has been noticed that there are lesser number of opened ended questions in the
cross-examination. Thus, it can be said that while in the cross examination, it was almost
evident that what questions need to be asked and how the answers of those questions will be
interpreted. This shows greater power as the cross examination lawyer was aware of the
questions and the conversation already been taken and it now completely depends on the way
the question is presented and power is shown.
Cross-examination
Open-ended questions 36/170

DISSERTATION 25
Table 4: Data of the number of open-ended questions in cross-examination
Examples of such open-ended questions are, “Okay. What work were you doing for
that?” (p. 162). This gave a lot of scope for the witness to talk and it was a way the lawyer
could get information about the witness in detailed.
4.3.2 Analysis of the closed-ended questions:
The cross examination lawyer chose to give lesser option to the witness and focus
more on the closed ended question where the witness will either agree to the options given or
would simply say yes or no.
Cross-examination
Closed questions 134/170
Table 5: Data of the number of closed questions in cross-examination
Examples of such closed-ended questions are, “This Booban is a company. That’s run
by Laith, right?”. (p. 164) Answer to this question was trying to be a bit elaborative but the
power shown while stating the question made the answer very limited and the witness was
not able to finish what he was trying to say. Again, in order to know about the type of
Company, the cross examination lawyer said, “Did he run something called the Iraqi Trading
Company?” The answer was direct and it was “I don’t know”. Thus, whatever the lawyer
wanted to say, the witness had to agree with that or the scope of answering was limited.
4.3.3 Analysis of the leading questions:
If the same scenario in the cross examination questions is taken into consideration in
the cross examination questions, it has been noticed that there are more numbers of leading
questions asked in the cross examination question. The data showed to be 64 out of 170. This

DISSERTATION 26
is clearly showing the fact that there always remain more scope of carrying out the
interrogating with leading questions by the cross examination lawyer.
Cross-examination
Leading questions 64/170
Table 6: Data of the number of leading questions in direct-examination
Regarding the usage of the leading questions, from the literature review, it has been
evident that power control by using questions and words to investigate the victim or the
guilty at the time of trial is an effective way of coming down to a conclusion. The questions
of the power discourse completely depend on the one who is asking and at times can lead to a
controversial discourse as well. If we relate this fact with that of the dialogue, ‘When you say
vendor, you mean private contractor doing business with the U.S. Army?’, the question was
raised to know if the guilty has been doing such frauds with other people as well during his
stay with US Army. This was definitely a controversial question but at the same time, it
showed the power of the lawyer as well where he directly questioned the witness and wanted
to know about his past experience and his personal traits as a person. In the view point of
Henrichs, Lotte and Leseman, Paul (2014), the direct questions raised by the lawyers to the
witness shows a power asymmetry between the lawyers and that of the social issues as well.
When there is an involvement of the crimes from different societies and regions, it happens
that the direct questions are more inclined towards the fact that the crime can be influenced
due to certain societal pressure.
As stated by Zimmermann, Camilla (2012), that there is no doubt that the response to
a question or the probable answer of a query raised entirely depends on the discourse. This
discourse is accompanied by the usage of different parts of speech, asymmetrical usage of
words along with the body language. In the cross examination questions, it has been noticed

DISSERTATION 27
that the lawyer kept on asking a series of questions one after another but the questions were
related to each other but one question followed another. For example, ‘One party of the
contract is Future Services and another party to the contract is and Maalouf?’ (p. 153). This
was a closed ended question and the cross examination lawyer, clearly gave the options to be
selected. Moreover, the lawyer showed power in a way by letting the witness utter what the
court has to hear. The following question was, ‘So you have a contract with them and
separately you’re an employee of the company?’ (p. 153). These questions gave the power to
the lawyer to make his points clear and at the same time successfully establish the point that
the witness is guilty of the fraud that he had done.
4.3.4 Analysis of Turn-taking/asymmetry:
Cross-examiners are able to violate the length of pauses between the turns whilst also
putting to use the cat of overlapping in order to dramatically stress the facts. (Gibbons:
2003:117). The use of ‘third turns’ within the questioning process allows the cross-examiner
to control the way the jury should interpret responses. For example, the cross-examiner could
challenge or support their answers and responses by evaluating them in third turns. Like from
the data, it has been found questioning that ‘Where is that place?’ (p. 178) This is question
that leaves a number of options to the witness when he can explain briefly about the location
of the place and where he actually belongs. Moreover, it might also happen that the witness is
left with option of elaborating his own points as well. This is how the entire case situation is
turned over by the respective lawyer and it gives a clear chit on the fact that the case can be
directed in a way they wanted and the same can be own easily. Another turn taking question
was found as, ‘Didn’t you tell them that the conversation with Bob happened two days before
Bob told you to give the raise?’ (p. 179) this was a very vital question at this point of time
because it talked about the truthfulness and the faith of the person and is thus very powerful
in the discourse setting. Several other such instances have been found in the discourse where

DISSERTATION 28
the lawyers showed power and it was clearly in favour of them where the witness had fewer
chances of getting his own point presented in front of the court.
4.4 Comparison of direct-examination and closed examination questions:
It has been clearly observed that there has been a difference in the approach and the
questioning of the direct examination and the cross examination questioning. In the direct
examination questioning, the lawyer is given with the opportunity of asking any kind of
question to the witness but the lawyer has keep this in mind that whatever question will be
asked by him will be directly questioned by the other lawyer. Therefore, the way the
questions are presented will have to be much determined and would have the ability to let the
witness put his own opinion less. The comparison gained from the transcript of the data under
consideration gives a unique set of data to understand the issue and the usage of the types of
questions and words while dealing with the witness.
The comparison showed in the above table gives clarity on the fact that in all the 170
+ 170 questions, there were more number of closed ended questions in the cross examination
rather than the direct examination questions. Thus it is clear that once the entire conversation
or the interrogation is done by the direct examination lawyer, the cross examination lawyer
prefers to keep more closed ended question to restrict any elaborated discussion that might
turn the case to another side and again the case would talk about another point. On the other
hand, the open ended questions were more asked by the direct examination to give the
Direct-examination Cross-examination
Closed questions 85/170 134/170
Open-ended questions 85/170 36/170
Leading questions 9/170 64/170

DISSERTATION 29
opportunity to the witness to talk and let the court room know whatever he wants to discuss.
This on the other hand let lesser opportunity to the cross examination question lawyer to
come up with a plan to overcome the issues raised by the other lawyer. Apart from this, the
analysis of the leading questions shows a different figure that where the direct examination
lawyer did not prefer to ask too many questions but as the cross examination lawyer has to
overtake the situation, the person has to come up with more sets of leading questions.
One of the ways a cross-examiner can limit the response of a witness is by asking
closed questions. The institutional power and rights of a cross-examiner allows them to
require type-conformity responses, thus badgering the witness into a minimal yes/no response
(Raymond 2003: 957). This particular point has been found in both direct examination and
the cross examination questions. The question to interrogate how Jeff transferred money, the
lawyer asked a series of closed ended questioned that bound the limit of answering the facts
in details and the witness was no longer left with any other choice. For instance, ‘As far as
you know, Jeff only used Western Union to send his money home?’ (p. 183), followed by it,
‘the thing about Western Union….. you can’t really hide anything…..’ (p. 183) both the
questions were answered in closed ended only and the witness just said, ‘That’s correct, Sir’
(p. 183).
Adding to the discussion and analysis, it can be concluded that due to the power and
privilege cross-examiners hold during the questioning process when being able to control the
topic discussed, witnesses are left without the right to suggest any new angles or connections
(Wang 2006: 541). Furthermore, another powerful tool used by cross-examiners, is the use of
leading questions. This was the main difference between the two types of examination
questions.

DISSERTATION 30
4.5 Usage of punctuations to show power in discourse:
The way something is asked to the witness and not only the usage of words but the
placement of the punctuations make sure that the actual message is reached out properly and
the ultimate response can be gained. There are numerous cross-examination tactics ranging
from lexical tactics such as a careful choice of words used within the questions (Cotterill
2004) to prosodic features and the management of turn-taking (Gibbons 2003: 117-126). Let
us support the analysis with an example of a cross-examination question. ‘He got the raise
May 18th, right?’ (p. 179). Here, the lawyer focused on the time and the date of the incident
to clarify the actual time of the incident. However, the date was mentioned and at the same
time the word ‘right’ made it more significant that the witness has to state yes. Just the next
line is ‘And you’re in charge of --’ (p. 179) this incomplete sentence with dashes gave the
opportunity to the lawyer to wait for a probable answer as the witness would specifically
complete the sentence and would step into the hurdles of queries raised by the lawyer. With
the usage of correct punctuations at the right order of the sentence, there remains the
opportunity to the one who interrogates to frame the question likewise and to give emphasis
on a particular point. At times, it gives the opportunity to leave the question unfinished and
let the witness say what he or she wants to say and at other times, the usage of a comma, full
stop or a question mark add to the kind of the analysis that the particular lawyer has been
asking. Thus, it can be considered that the usage of punctuations in a questioning process is
as important as the case itself; it gives the opportunity to the lawyer to frame the question in
his own way.
4.6 Usage of ‘so’ in interrogation showing power discourse:
Another important feature used within cross-examinations is the use of ‘so’
summarisers. ‘So summarisers are abundant in cross-examination.’ (Cotterill 2003: 150:151)

DISSERTATION 31
and are used to evaluate and assess previous responses. Johnson (2002: 108) states
“recapitulate, summarise and evaluate the interviewee’s previous responses in a way that
expects and assumes agreement”. For instance, in the court discourse, it was found to ask a
question like, “So you would try to get contracts for future services from the U.S. Army?”
This way, the witness is no longer left with the choice of coming up with any other point but
to answer in the form of either Yes or No and thus, making an important interrogative
question into a closed ended question. This way, the discourse left very limited option for the
witness to state his own point or to describe the situation in detail but he had to end his
explanation in just a yes or a no. With the various instances in the conversation and evident
from the transcript, it has been notices that the lawyers were not using the word ‘so’ more
often. The word can be used only when the questioning person wants to know something
concluding from the one who is being interrogated. The usage of ‘so’ is to imply the fact that
the person is either agreeing or disagreeing. This is another tactical way of bringing the
conversation into a concluding statement where both the lawyer and the witness would agree
to the same point. However, the win-win situation still remain with the lawyer as he is the
one who is questioning and that he is the one who will be proposing the statement with a ‘so’
and the way the discourse will be asked, the witness would have to agree to the point. This is
a unique feature for both cross examining and direct examining questions but this term gives
no opportunity to the witness to place his own point of view and leave him with just to accept
the fact what has been placed in front of him.
4.7 Other linguistic tools used in power discourse:
If the view point of Zorčič, Sabina (2012) is considered, it has been well noticed that
alongside syntactic and pragmatic strategies cross-examiners also have discursive tools
available to them. The primary and most obvious tool available is the right to ask questions,

DISSERTATION 32
giving the cross-examiner the power to control the replies of the witness and limiting their
responses (Heydon 2005: 115). Syntactically, the lawyer raised the question, ‘Did you e-mail
him and tell him the details of the scheme ever?’ (p. 181) just when the answer to the
question was diplomatic, like, ‘I don’t know if I did, sir.’ (p. 181). There came the final
question that would turn the entire case towards a final conclusion, ‘But there are a lot of e-
mails going back and forth here. You never sent him an email about it, right?’ It can be easily
seen that the lawyer is focusing on the fact that there were definitely certain instances when it
was sure that the witness had talked with his client. This response of the witness would add
much value to the entire case and the lawyer would come down to a win-win situation. This is
how the power is shown through discourse in the institutional setting like a court room. There
is no doubt of the fact that the lawyers come up with certain manipulative techniques that
creates the illusion that the lawyer might be having a general discussion or an interrogation
but there is no doubt that there are various ways by which these professionals make sure to
trap the witness by using various tools and techniques. In this particular example as well, it
has been seen that there have been various instances when the lawyer used a combination of
different sets of questioning along with the correct usage of open ended and close ended
questions in order to make sure that he is going on the right track and that the case can be
won or can be turned into success.
4.8. Summary:
This chapter elaborated the findings from the detailed research on the literature review
as well as from the transcript used for the data analysis. In this part of the discussion and
analysis, the questions has been analysed in terms of qualitatively as well as quantitatively. It
has been observed that Question-answer is a great tool for evaluating the truth and it depends
on the tactics of the person as how to present the questions in a way that would be an
effective discourse. In the data used for evaluation, mostly there were open ended questions

DISSERTATION 33
only in order to understand the situation in detail. With the help of examples from the data
given in the transcript, the different types of questions will be analysed and the same has been
supported by quantitative numbers as well.

DISSERTATION 34
Chapter 5: Conclusion:
5.1 Conclusion:
This chapter of the dissertation concludes the findings gained from the literature
review and the data analysis of both the qualitative and the quantitative analysis of the data or
the law case under consideration. The aim of the dissertation was to understand how the use
of different words, sentences and phrases in a discourse actually shows power in an
institution. At the same time, how power can be shown by a person by the use of discourse. It
has been clearly found that power through discourse completely depends on the acceptability
of the state of mind of the person. There is possibility that the power discourse is altered once
the other person starts talking over something more powerful. Fulfilling the first objective set
for the study, it has been observed that power through discourse can be achieved by the
means of multi-dimensional linguistic approach along with the significant usage of words
with proper punctuation. A person with the better knowledge and understanding of the usage
of words and framing question would be able to manipulate the conversation in a better way
rather than the one who lacks the proper approach to the subject. The power discourse in the
direct examination question and the cross questions by the lawyers in a court requires an
intense work on the conversation as well as the right timing of putting up the particular
statement where the person would not have much choice but to go with the flow of the
conversation that the lawyer has initiated. This is definitely an interesting and a successful
way of knowing the truth and turn the case in the way the lawyer wanted. Apart from this, the
truth can be revealed and the case can be solved as well.
5.2 Linking with the other research objectives:
The second objective was to find out the variance in the sentence construction in an
institutional setting like a court and how an argument can be won by the means of correct

DISSERTATION 35
usage of words and phrases. It has been found that during the entire discourse, the aim of the
lawyers in terms of both direct examination and in the cross examination, was to manipulate
the witness in order to answer the queries in a way the lawyers wanted the witness to answer.
There have been several ways by which the questions were framed so that there remain very
less option to the witness to come up with his point of view. It can be easily derived from the
conversation that the framing of the open ended and the closed ended questions were much
intentional and the expectation was to get answer to the questions in a way the lawyer
wanted. Therefore, these questions were in fact acting as a trap and the witness was falling in
it in every step of action.
The third objective set was to evaluate the way by which the response of the witness
can be countered by the lawyer if the witness had showed another way of answering the
questions. The power discourse could have been changed entirely if the respondent had
another set of answer to give in front of the entire court, the ultimate result of the case would
have turned in another way. In this respect, it can be mentioned that it is one of the vital
characteristics of the lawyers to carry out the case in a way to show the power discourse in
their conversation with the witness. The aim is to get the truth come out of the witness that
would add value to the case and either of the lawyers would win the case. This is one the
major reasons that the lawyers from both the parties are given the opportunity to question the
witness and come down to a conclusion.
5.3 Recommendations:
Power driven discourse is highly important and significant in the institutional settings,
especially in case of courtrooms or in case of negotiation when the entire win-win situation of
the case depends on the discourse of the parties involved in the case. In such cases, it is
always preferable to prepare for the case before hand and keep a note to self as what to be

DISSERTATION 36
asked and what to be excluded from the discourse. In case of other institutional settings like
an examination hall and a situation between a teacher and a student, or the conversation
between a salesman and that of a customer can be manipulated or can be powered by the
various discourses. In all these situations, the use of the particular words, phrases along with
the correct punctuations hold signification importance. Apart from this, it can be
recommended that the right timing of the use of open-ended and closed-ended questions also
adds values to the power discourse. Power can be shown if the respondent is not given much
opportunity to answer in different angles or in an elaborate way. If the respondent is not
given the opportunity to speak or to come up with his points, the power is automatically felt
and power discourse can be achieved easily. Therefore, there is no doubt of the fact that
power discourse can be successful by the means of using correct words and at the same time
in a proper conversation that creates that vibe where the respondent has to listen to the
speaker and in the course of the conversation, the speaker will automatically show the power
and would be successful in achieving the objective of the entire discourse.
5.4 Future scope of the study:
This study will help in future studies related to English Literature and linguistics. The
usage of the words, phrases and the correct punctuation along with the tine of saying a
sentence helps in creating power in an institutional set up. There is a lot of scope in gaining
more knowledge and teaching on the domination of words and this would bring better
outcome in the actual situation. This particular study would be of utter importance to the ones
studying discourse analysis or how to win conversation battle.

DISSERTATION 37
References:
Aldridge, M. and Luchjenbroers, J. (2007) ‘Linguistic manipulation in legal discourse:
Framing questions and “smuggling” information.’ International Journal of Speech, Language
and the Law 14/1, 85-107.
Bloomberg, L.D. and Volpe, M., (2018). Completing your qualitative dissertation: A road
map from beginning to end. Sage Publications.
Bülow-Møller, A. M. (1992) ‘The notion of coercion in courtroom questioning.’ (Eric
Document Reproduction Service No. ED 359752).
Burman, E. and Parker, I., (2016). Discourse analytic research: Repertoires and readings of
texts in action. Routledge.
Chang, Y. (2004) ‘Courtroom questioning as a culturally situated persuasive genre of talk.’
Discourse and Society 15/6, 705-722.
Cotterill, J. (2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson
Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cotterill, J. (2004) ‘Collocation, connotation, and courtroom semantics: Lawyers’ control of
witness testimony through lexical negotiation.’ Applied Linguistics 25/4, 513-537.
Daldal, A. (2014). Power and Ideology in Michel Foucault and Antonio Gramsci: A
Comparative. Review of History and Political Science, 2(2), pp.149-167.
Danet, B., Hoffman, K., Kermish, N., Rafn, J. and Stayman, D. (1980) ‘An ethnography of
questioning in the courtroom.’Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Discourse and
Society 17/6, 739-759

DISSERTATION 38
Disman, D., Ali, M. and Barliana, M.S., 2017. The use of quantitative research method and
statistical data analysis in dissertation: an evaluation study. International Journal of
Education, 10(1), pp.46-52.
Etchanchu, Helen and Djelic, Marie-Laure (2016) The Roles of Discourse, Legitimacy and
Power in Enabling and Hindering Institutional Change towards Sustainability. ProQuest
Dissertations Publishing. [online]. Available from:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/1868419298/
Fletcher, A.J., (2017). Applying critical realism in qualitative research: methodology meets
method. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(2), pp.181-194.
Gibbons, J. (2003) Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice
Griscti, Odette et al. (2017) Power and resistance within the hospital’s hierarchical system:
the experiences of chronically ill patients. Journal of Clinical Nursing. [Online] 26 (1-2),
238–247. [online]. Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1851018982/.
Harris, Sandra (2003) Politeness and power: Making and responding to requests in
institutional settings. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse. [Online] 23
(1), .
Hart, C., (2018). Doing a literature review: Releasing the research imagination. Sage.
Haworth, K. (2006) ‘The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse.’
Heffer, C., (2005). The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse.
Springer.
Henrichs, Lotte F. and Leseman, Paul P.M. (2014) Early Science Instruction and Academic
Language Development Can Go Hand in Hand. The Promising Effects of a Low-Intensity

DISSERTATION 39
Teacher-Focused Intervention. International Journal of Science Education. [Online] 36 (17),
2978–2995.
Heritage, J. (2002) ‘The limits of questioning: Negative interrogatives and hostile question
content.’ Journal of Pragmatics 34, 1427-1446.
Heritage, J. (eds) Talk at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 3-65. Fairclough,
N. (1989) Language and Power. London:
Heydon, G. (2005) The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Hobbs, P. (2002) ‘Tipping the scales of justice: Deconstructing an expert’s testimony on
cross-examination.’ International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 15, 411-424.
Hobbs, P. (2003) ‘“You must say it for him”: Reformulating a witness’ testimony on cross-
examination at Trial.’ Text 23/4, 477-511.
Holmes, J. and Stubbe, M., (2015). Power and politeness in the workplace: A sociolinguistic
analysis of talk at work. Routledge.
Hutchby, I. (1996) ‘Power in discourse: The case of arguments on a British talk radio show.’
Discourse and Society 7/4, 481-497.
Kang, Ji-Hae (2014) Institutions translated: discourse, identity and power in institutional
mediation. Perspectives. [Online] 22 (4), 1–10.
King, K.A. and Mackey, A., 2016. Research methodology in second language studies:
Trends, concerns, and new directions. The Modern Language Journal, 100(S1), pp.209-227.

DISSERTATION 40
Kumar, R., (2019). Research methodology: A step-by-step guide for beginners. Sage
Publications Limited.
Levinson, S. C. (1992) ‘Activity types and language.’ In: Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds) Talk
at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 66-
100.
Longman, J. and Frankel, R. (1990) ‘Talking in interviews: A dispreference for patient-
initiated questions
Luchjenbroers, J. (1997) ‘“In your own words ...” Questions and answers in a supreme court
trial.’ Journal of Pragmatics 27, 477-503.
Macgilchrist, Felicitas (2013) Mayr, A. (ed.) (2008). Language and Power: An Introduction
to Institutional Discourse. London Continuum. ISBN: 9780826487445 (pb), pp. 204,
24.99. Journal of Language and Politics. [Online] 12 (1), 147–151.
Matoesian, G. (2005) ‘Nailing down an answer: Participations of power in trial talk.’
Discourse Studies 7/6, 733-759.
Matoesian, G. (2008) ‘You might win the battle but lose the war: Multimodal, interactive,
and extralinguistic aspects of witness resistance.’ Journal of English Linguistics 36/3, 195-
219.
Merriam-webster.com. (2019). Definition of CROSS-EXAMINATION. [online] Available at:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cross-examination [Accessed 9 Apr. 2019].
Naoum, S.G., (2019). Dissertation Research and Writing for Built Environment Students.
Routledge.
Newbury, P. and Johnson, A. (2006) ‘Suspects’ resistance to constraining and coercive

DISSERTATION 41
questioning strategies in the police interview.’ The International Journal of Speech,
Language and the Law 13/2, 213-240.
Pitsoe, V. and Letseka, M. (2012). Foucault’s Discourse and Power: Implications for
Instructionist Classroom Management. Department of Educational Leadership and
Management,.
Pritchard, Madeleine et al. (2014) Language and iconic gesture use in procedural discourse
by speakers with aphasia. Aphasiology. [Online] 29 (7), 1–19.
Raymond, G. (2003) ‘Grammar and social organisation: Yes/no interrogatives and the
structure of responding.’ American Sociological Review 68, 939-967.
Sacks, H. (1974) ‘A simplest systematics for the organisation of the turn-taking for
conversation.’ Language 50/4, 696-735.
Shuy, R. W. and Shnukal, A. (eds) Language Use and the Uses of Language. Washington,
D.C.: Georgetown University Press. 171-179. Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992) ‘Analysing
talk at work: An introduction.’ In: Drew, P.
Singh, K.D., (2015). Creating your own qualitative research approach: Selecting, integrating
and operationalizing philosophy, methodology and methods. Vision, 19(2), pp.132-146.
Storey, V.A. and Hesbol, K.A. eds., (2016). Contemporary approaches to dissertation
development and research methods. IGI Global.
Sullivan, Jessica and Barner, David (2016) Discourse bootstrapping: preschoolers use
linguistic discourse to learn new words. Developmental Science. [Online] 19 (1), 63–75.
Thornborrow, J. (2001) ‘Questions, control and the organisation of talk in calls to a radio
phone-in.’ Discourse Studies 3/1, 119-143.

DISSERTATION 42
Thornborrow, J. (2002) Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse.
London: Longman.
Tkačuková, T. (2010) Lay People as Cross-Examiners: A Linguistic Analysis of the Libel
Case McDonald’s Corporation v. Helen Steel and David Morris. An unpublished Ph.D.
dissertation. Brno: Masaryk University.
Tkacukova, T. (2010). The power of questioning: a case study of courtroom
discourse. DISCOURSE and INTERACTION.
Tracy, K. and Robles, J. (2009) ‘Questions, questioning, and institutional practices: An
introduction.’ Discourse Studies 11/2, 131-152.
Wang, J. (2006) ‘Questions and the exercise of power.’ Discourse and Society 17/4, 529-548.
Washington, DC: University Press of America. 231-262.
Woodbury, H. (1984) ‘The strategic use of questions in court.’ Semiotica 48/3-4, 197-228.
Yates, S. (2002). Power and Subjectivity: A Foucauldian discourse analysis of experiences of
power in learning difficulties community care homes.
Zhang, Meifang (2015) Institutional power in and behind discourse: A case study of SARS
notices and their translations used in Macao. Target. [Online] 27 (3), 387–405.
Zorčič, Sabina (2012) Words of foreign origin in political discourse. Linguistica. [Online] 52
(1), 363–380. [online]. Available from: http://search.proquest.com/docview/1892107026/