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

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.