‘Tough questioning’ as enactment of ideology in judicial conduct: marriage law appeals in seven US courts
Issue: Vol 19 No. 1 (2012)
Journal: International Journal of Speech Language and the Law
Subject Areas: Linguistics
Abstract:
This study analyses the question-asking practices during oral argument of 50 judges in seven US state Supreme Courts as each court decided if its state marriage law was legal or if it violated its gay citizens’ rights to marry a partner of their choice. Background on appellate court, oral argument and the seven cases is provided. The analysis provides a discursive portrait of questioning during oral argument and identifies two stance-cuing but rare discourse moves that enacted a judge’s ideology. Then, ‘tough questioning’ and its connection to judges’ political ideologies, as well as the six features of questioning that comprise it are described. The analysis evidences that judges who voted against extending the right of marriage to gay litigants questioned the attorneys representing those litigants in a ‘tougher’, less sympathetic manner. Similarly, judges who voted for extending marriage rights to gay litigants questioned attorneys representing the defending state agencies in a tougher manner. In the conclusion we discuss the relationship among questioning features, stance and ideology and reflect on our usage of the native term ‘tough questioning’.
Author: Karen Tracy, Russell M. Parks
References :
Aldridge, M. and Luchjenbroers, J. (2007) Linguistic manipulations in legal discourse: Framing questions and ‘smuggling’ information. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14: 85–107.
Amsterdam, A. G. and Bruner, J. (2000) Minding the Law. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Antaki, C. and Leudar, I. (2001) Recruiting the record: Using opponents’ exact words in parliamentary argumentation. Text 21: 467–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/text.2001.008
Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (1999) Jefferson’s transcript notation. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (eds.) The Discourse Reader 158-166. London: Routledge.
Benoit, W. (1989) Attorney argumentation and Supreme Court opinions. Argumentation and Advocacy 26: 22–38.
Billig, M., Condor, S., Edwards, D., Gane, M., Middleton, D. and Radley, A.R. (1998) Ideological Dilemmas. London: Sage.
Clayman, S. (1988) Displaying neutrality in television news interviews. Social Problems 35: 474–492. http://dx.doi.org/10.1525/sp.1988.35.4.03a00100
Clayman, S. E. (1992) Footing in the achievement of neutrality: the case of news interview discourse. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings 163–198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. E. and Heritage, J. (2002) Questioning presidents: journalistic deference and adversarialness in the press conferences of Eisenhower and Reagan. Journal of Communication 52: 749–775. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02572.x
Collins, P. M. (2004) Friends of the court: examining the influence of amicus curiae participation in U.S. Supreme Court litigation. Law & Society Review 38(4): 807–832. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-9216.2004.00067.x
Comparato, S. A. (2003) Amici Curiae and Strategic Behavior in State Supreme Courts. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Conley, J. M. and O’Barr, W. M. (1990) Rules versus Relationships. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Conley, J. M. and O’Barr, W. M. (2005) Just Words: Law, Language, and Power (2nd edn). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Curtis, M. K. (2008) The fourteenth amendment: recalling what the court forgot. Drake Law Review 56: 911–972.
Danet, B. and Bogoch, B. (1980) Fixed fight or free-for-all? An empirical study of combativeness in the adversary system of justice. British Journal of Law and Society 7: 36–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1409753
Dickens, M. and Schwartz, R. E. (1971) Oral argument before the Supreme Court: Marshall v. Davis in the school segregation cases. Quarterly Journal of Speech 57: 32–42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637109383039
Dickson, D. (2001) The Supreme Court Conferences (1940–1985). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Drew, P. (1992) Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.) Talk at Work 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eades, D. (2000) I don’t think it’s an answer to the question: silencing Aboriginal witnesses in court. Language in Society 29: 161–195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500002013
Ehrlich, S. (2001) Representing rape: language and sexual consent. London: Routledge. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203459034
Ehrlich, S. (2002) (Re)contextualizing complainants’ accounts of sexual assault. Forensic Linguistics 9: 193–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/sll.2002.9.2.193
Eskridge, W. N., Jr (2008) Dishonorable Passions. New York: Viking.
Frey, A. L. (1999) Preparing and delivering oral argument. Mayer Brown’s Appellate.net, 8. doi:www.appellate.net/includes/print.asp?dir=articles&file-prepdel1799.asp&contentarea
Grisci, A. and Pontecorvo, C. (2004) The organization of questions and answers in the thematic phases of hostile examination: turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 36: 965–995. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.005
Hansford, T. G. and Spriggs, J. F. (2006) The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Heffer, C. (2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Bakingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jaffe, A. (2009) The sociolinguistics of stance. In A. Jaffe (ed.), Stance: Sociolinguistics Perspectives 3–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Johnson, T. R. (2004) Oral Arguments and Decision Making on the United States Supreme Court. Albany, NY: State University of New York.
Landis, J. R. and Koch, G. G. (1977) The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 33: 159–174. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310
Langer, L. (2002) Judicial Review in State Supreme Courts: A Comparative Study. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Matoesian, G. M. (2001) Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ng, K. H. (2009) ‘If I lie, I tell you, may heaven and earth destroy me.’ Language and legal consciousness in Hong Kong bilingual common law. Law & Society Review 43(2): 369–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5893.2009.00376.x
Pascual, E. (2006) Questions in legal monologues: fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text & Talk 26: 382–402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/TEXT.2006.014a
Philips, S. U. (1998) Ideology in the Language of Judges: How Judges Practice Law, Politics, and Courtroom Control. New York: Oxford University Press.
Pomerantz, A. (1986) Extreme case formulations: a way of legitimizing claims. Human Studies 9: 219–229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00148128
Rosen, J. (2007) The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries that Defined America. New York: Holt.
Sacks, H. (1992) Lectures on Conversation (Vol. 1). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
Schiffrin, D. (1987) Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Segal, J. A. and Spaeth, H. J. (2002) The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Shullman, S. L. (2004) The illusion of devil’s advocacy: how the justices of the Supreme Court foreshadow their decisions during oral argument. The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process 6: 271–293.
Tracy, K. (2005) Reconstructing communicative practices: action-implicative discourse analysis. In K. Fitch and R. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction 301–319. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Tracy, K. (2009) How questioning constructs appellate judge identities: the case of a hearing about same-sex marriage. Discourse Studies 11: 199-221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445608100944
Tracy, K. (2011a) A facework system of minimal politeness: oral argument in appellate court. Journal of Politeness Research: Language, Behaviour, Culture 7: 123–145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/jplr.2011.006
Tracy, K. (2011b) What’s in a name? Stance markers in oral argument about marriage laws. Discourse & Communication 5(1): 1–23.
Tracy, K. (2011c) Identity-work in appellate oral argument: ideological identities within a professional one. In J. Angouri and M. Marra (eds.), Constructing Identities at Work 179–203. Brunel: Palgrave.
Tracy, K. and Robles, J. (2009) Question, questioning, and institutional practices. Discourse Studies 11: 131–152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1461445608100941
Wasby, S. L., D’Amato, A. A. and Metrailer, R. (1976) The functions of oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court. Quarterly Journal of Speech 62(4): 410–424. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00335637609383355
Woodbury, H. (1984) The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica 48: 197–228. http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/semi.1984.48.3-4.197
Wrightsman, L. S. (2008) Oral Arguments before the Supreme Court: An Empirical Approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.