Book contents
- Multimodal Conduct in the Law
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Multimodal Conduct in the Law
- Copyright page
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Transcription Conventions
- Introduction
- 1 Multimodal Conduct
- Part I Negotiating Legal Identity in Multimodal Conduct
- Part II Trial Practice in Multimodal Conduct
- Part III Integrating Gestures and Material Objects in Closing Argument
- References
- Index
- References
References
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 December 2018
Book contents
- Multimodal Conduct in the Law
- Studies in Interactional Sociolinguistics
- Multimodal Conduct in the Law
- Copyright page
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Transcription Conventions
- Introduction
- 1 Multimodal Conduct
- Part I Negotiating Legal Identity in Multimodal Conduct
- Part II Trial Practice in Multimodal Conduct
- Part III Integrating Gestures and Material Objects in Closing Argument
- References
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Multimodal Conduct in the LawLanguage, Gesture and Materiality in Legal Interaction, pp. 235 - 243Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Alibali, M., Heath, D., and Myers, H. (2001). Effects of visibility between speaker and listener on gesture production: Some gestures are meant to be seen. Journal of Memory and Language, 44 (2), 169–188.Google Scholar
Aoki, H. (2011). Some Functions of Speaker Head Nods. In Streeck, J., Goodwin, C., and LeBaron, C. (eds.) Embodied Interaction: Language and the Body in the Material World. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 93–105.Google Scholar
Archer, D. (2005). Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640–1760). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Bakhtin, M. (1981). The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, R. (1986). Story, Performance and Event. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J. (1994). Gestures as part of speech: Methodological implications. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 27 (3), 201–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, J., Chovil, N., Coates, L., and Roe, L. (1995). Gestures specialized for dialogue. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (4), 394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bavelas, J., Gerwing, J., and Healing, S. (2014a). Hand and Facial Gestures in Conversational Interaction. In Holtgraves, T. (ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Social Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 111–130.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J., Gerwing, J., and Healing, S. (2014b). Including Facial Gestures in Gesture-Speech Ensembles. In Seyfeddinipur, M. and Gullberg, M. (eds.) From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 15–34.Google Scholar
Bavelas, J., Nicole, C., Douglas, L., and Allan, W. (1992). Interactive gestures. Discourse Processes, 15 (4), 469–489.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, S., and Finegan, E. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2010). The Sociolinguistics of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broaders, S. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2010). Truth is at hand: How gesture adds information during investigative interviews. Psychology Science, 21 (5), 623–628.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bucholtz, M. and Hall, K. (2005). Identity and interaction: A sociocultural linguistic approach. Discourse Studies, 7 (4–5), 585–614.Google Scholar
Bulwer, J. (2003 [1644]). Chirologia or the Natural Language of the Hand. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing.Google Scholar
Cameron, D. (2003). Globalizing “Communication.” In Aitchison, J. and Lewis, D. (eds.) New Media Language. London: Routledge. pp. 27–35.Google Scholar
Carter, R. and McCarthy, M. (2006). Cambridge Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Cassanto, D. and Jasmin, K. (2012). The hands of time: Temporal gestures in English speakers. Cognitive Linguistics, 23 (4), 643–674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cienki, A. (2008). Why Study Metaphor and Gesture? In Cienki, A. and Muller, C. (eds.) Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 5–26.Google Scholar
Cienki, A. and Müller, C. (2008). Metaphor, Gesture and Thought. In Gibbs, R. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 483–501.Google Scholar
Conley, J. and O’Barr, W. (1990). Rules versus Relationships. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O. J. Simpson Trial. New York: Palgrave.Google Scholar
de Jorio, A. (2000). Gesture in Naples and Gesture in Classical Antiquity. A translation of La Mimica Degli Antichi Investigata Nel Gestire Napoletano (1832). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. (2015). Positioning. In de Fina, A. and Georgakopoulou, A. (eds.) The Handbook of Narrative Analysis. New York: John Wiley & Sons. pp. 369–387.Google Scholar
Deppermann, A. and Streeck, J. (forthcoming). Modalities and Temporalities. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1985). Analyzing the Use of Language in Courtroom Interaction. In van Dijk, T. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, vol. 3. New York: Academic Press. pp. 133–47.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1992). Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-Examination. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at Work. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 470–520.Google Scholar
Enfield, N. J. (2001). Lip-Pointing: A discussion of form and function with reference to data from Laos. Gesture, 1, 185–212.Google Scholar
Ferré, G. (2011). Functions of three open-palm gestures. Multimodal Communication, 1 (1), 5–20.Google Scholar
Fleming, L. and Lempert, M. (2014). Poetics and Performativity. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P., and Sidnell, J. (eds.) The Cambridge Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 485–515.Google Scholar
Friedman, L. (1977). Law and Society: An Introduction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Fuller, J. (1993). Hearing between the lines: Style switching in a courtroom setting. Pragmatics, 3 (1), 29–43.Google Scholar
Gaines, P. (2016). From Truth to Technique at Trial: A Discursive History of Advocacy Advice Texts. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, E. (1963). Behavior in Public Places: Notes on the Social Organization of Gatherings. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (2015). Gesture in All Its Forms. In Seyfeddinipur, M. and Gullberg, M. (eds.) From Gesture in Conversation to Visible Action as Utterance: Essays in Honor of Adam Kendon. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 290–308.Google Scholar
Goode, W. (1960). A theory of role strain. American Sociological Review, 25, 483– 496.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1979). The Interactive Construction of a Sentence in Natural Conversation. In Psathas, G. (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology. New York: Irvington Publishers. pp. 97–121.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational Organization: Interaction between Speakers and Hearers, New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (1987). Forgetfulness as an interactive resource. Social Psychology Quarterly, 50, 115–131.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1489–1522.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2003). Pointing as Situated Practice. In Kita, S. (ed.) Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 217–241.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. (2007). Environmentally Coupled Gestures. In Duncan, S., Cassell, J., and Levy, E. (eds.) Gesture and the Dynamic Dimension of Language: Essays in Honor of David McNeill. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 195–212.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. (1987). Concurrent operations on talk: Notes on the interactive organization of assessments. IPrA Papers in Pragmatics, 1 (1) 1–52.Google Scholar
Goodwin, C. and Goodwin, M. (2004). Participation. In Duranti, A. (ed.) A Companion to Linguistic Anthropology, Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 222–244.Google Scholar
Hale, S. (1999). Interpreters’ treatment of discourse markers in courtroom questions. Forensic Linguistics, 6 (1), 57–82.Google Scholar
Handel, W. (1979). Normative expectations and the emergence of meaning as solutions to problems: Convergence of structural and interactionist views. American Journal of Sociology, 84, 855–881.Google Scholar
Harris, S. (1984). Questions as a mode of control in magistrate’s court.International Journal of Sociology of Language, 49, 5–27.Google Scholar
Haydock, R. and Sonsteng, J. (1990). Trial Theories, Tactics and Techniques. St. Paul, MN: West.Google Scholar
Heath, C. and Hindmarsh, J. (2002). Analyzing Interaction. In May, T. (ed.) Qualitative Research in Action. London: Sage. pp. 99–121.Google Scholar
Heath, C., Hindmarsh, J., and Luff, P. (2010). Video in Qualitative Research. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Heffer, C. (2010). Narrative in the Trial: Constructing Crime Stories in Court. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge. pp. 199–217.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. (2004). Conversational Analysis and Institutional Talk. In Silverman, D. (ed.) Qualitative Research: Theory, Method and Practice (2nd edn), London: Sage. pp. 222–245.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Greatbatch, D. (1986). Generating applause: A study of rhetoric and response at party political conferences. American Journal of Sociology, 92 (1), 110–157.Google Scholar
Hester, S. and Francis, D. (2001). Is Institutional Talk a Phenomenon?: Reflections on Ethnomethodology and Applied Conversation Analysis. In McHoul, A. and Rapley, M. (eds.) How to Analyze Talk in Institutional Settings. London: Continuum. pp. 206–217.Google Scholar
Hilbert, R. (1990). Merton’s Theory of Role-Sets and Status Sets. In Clark, J., Modgil, C., and Modgil, S. (eds.) Robert K. Merton. New York: Falmer Press. pp. 177–186.Google Scholar
Hindmarsh, J. and Heath, C. (2000). Embodied reference: A study of deixis in workplace interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 1855–1878.Google Scholar
Hobbs, P. (2003). You must say it for him: Reformulating a witness’ testimony on cross-examination at trial. Text, 23 (4), 477–511.Google Scholar
Hodges, A. (2016). Hunting for “racists”: Tape fetishism and the intertextual enactment and reproduction of the dominant understanding of racism in US Society. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 26 (1), 26–40.Google Scholar
Hyland, K. (2002). Directive: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23 (2), 215–239.Google Scholar
Innes, B. (2010). “Well that’s why I asked the question sir”: Well as a discourse marker in court. Language in Society, 39 (1), 95–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, J. (1996). Shadow Conversations: The Indeterminacy of Participant Roles. In Silverstein, M. and Urban, G. (eds.) Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 131–160Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing Statement. In Sebeok, T. (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. pp. 398–429.Google Scholar
Jaworski, A. (2000). Silence and Small Talk. In Coupland, J. (ed.) Small Talk. New York: Longman. pp. 110–132.Google Scholar
Johnson, A. (2002). So … ?: Pragmatic Implications of So-Prefaced Questions in Formal Police Interviews. In Cotterill, J. (ed.) Language in the Legal Process. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. pp. 91–110.Google Scholar
Jones, S. and LeBaron, C. (2002). Research on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication: Emerging integrations. Journal of Communication, 52 (3), 499–521.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2004). Gesture: Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (2017). Pragmatic functional gestures: Some observations on the history of their study and their nature. Gesture, 16, 157–177.Google Scholar
Kendon, A. (1990). Conducting Interaction: Patterns of Behavior in Focused Encounters. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kita, S. (2003). Pointing: A Foundational Building Block of Human Communication. In Kita, S. (ed.) Pointing: Where Language, Culture, and Cognition Meet. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 1–8.Google Scholar
Komter, M. (2000) The power of legal language: The significance of small activities for large problems. Semiotica, 131–3/4, 415–428.Google Scholar
Komter, M. (2006). From talk to text: The interactional construction of a police record. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 39, 201–228.Google Scholar
Krahmer, E. and Swerts, M. (2007). The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: Accoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language, 57, 396–414.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Language in the Inner City. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. and Johnson, M. (1999). Philosophy in the Flesh: The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Lempert, M. (2008). The poetics of stance: Text-metricality, epistemicity, interaction. Language in Society, 37, 569–592.Google Scholar
Lempert, M. (2011). Barack Obama, being sharp: Indexical order in the pragmatics of precision-grip gesture. Gesture, 11 (3), 241–270.Google Scholar
Lempert, M. (2012). Indirectness. In Paulston, C., Kiesling, S., and Rangel, E. (eds.) The Handbook of Intercultural Communication. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 180–204.Google Scholar
Lempert, M. (2017) Uncommon resemblance: Pragmatic affinity in political gesture. Forthcoming in Gesture.Google Scholar
Lempert, M. and Silverstein, M. (2012). Creatures of Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Luchjenbroers, J. and Aldridge, M. (2007). Conceptual manipulation by metaphors and frames: Dealing with rape victims in legal discourse. Text and Talk, 27 (3), 339–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maricchiolo, F., Gnisci, A., Bonaiuto, M., and Ficca, G. A. (2009). Effects of different types of hand gestures in persuasive speech on receivers’ evaluations. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24, 239–266.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. (1993). Reproducing Rape: Domination through Talk in the Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. (2000). Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics, 32 (7), 879–914.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. (2001) Law and the Language of Identity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. (2005) Struck by speech revisited: Embodied stance in jurisdictional discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 9 (2), 167–194.Google Scholar
McClave, E. (2000). Linguistic functions of head movements in the context of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 32, 855–878.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal about Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2006). Gesture and Communication. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Linguistics (2nd edn). New York: Elsevier. pp. 58–67.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2012). How Language Began: Gesture and Speech in Human Evolution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2013). Gesture as a Window onto Mind and Brain. In Muller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., and Bressem, J. (eds.) Body – Language – Communication, vol. 1. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 29–54.Google Scholar
Mendoza-Denton, N. (2002). Language and Identity. In Chambers, J., Trudgill, P., and Schilling-Estes, N. (eds.) The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell. pp. 475–499.Google Scholar
Mondada, L. (2016). Challenges of multimodality: Language and the body in social interaction. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 20 (3), 336–366.Google Scholar
Morris, D. (1977). Manwatching: A Field Guide to Human Behaviour. London: Jonathan Cape.Google Scholar
Müller, C. (2008). What Gestures Reveal about the Nature of Metaphor. In Cienki, A. and Muller, C. (eds.) Metaphor and Gesture. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 219–245.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., and Bressem, J. (eds.) (2013). Body – Language – Communication: Volume 1. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Müller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., and Bressem, J. (eds.) (2014). Body – Language – Communication: Volume 2. Berlin: DeGruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Nevile, M. (2015). The embodied turn in research on language and social interaction. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 48 (2),121–151.Google Scholar
Norris, S. (2004). Analyzing Multimodal Interaction: A Methodological Framework. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
O’Connor, P. E. (2000). Speaking of Crime: Narrative of Prisoners. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. (1996). Linguistic Resources for Socializing Humanity. In Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. (eds.) Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 407–437.Google Scholar
Ochs, E. and Capps, L. (1996). Narrating the self. Annual Review of Anthropology, 25, 19–43.Google Scholar
Pascal, E. (2006). Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial. Text and Talk, 26 (3), 383–402.Google Scholar
Perrin, T., Caldwell, M., and Chase, C. (2003). The Art and Science of Trial Advocacy. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.Google Scholar
Philips, S. (1972). Participant Structures and Communicative Competence: Warm Springs Children in Community and Classroom. In Cazden, C., John, V., and Hymes, D. (eds.) Functions of Language in the Classroom. New York: Columbia Teachers Press. pp. 370–394Google Scholar
Philips, S. (1987). On the Use of wh-Questions in American Courtroom Discourse: A Study on the Relation between Language Form and Language Function. In Kedar, L. (ed.) Power Through Language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp. 83–112.Google Scholar
Philips, S. (1998). Language in the Ideology of Judges. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Precht, K. (2003). Stance moods in spoken English: Evidentiality and affect in British and American conversation. Text, 23 (2), 239–257.Google Scholar
Quintilian. (2001). The Orator’s Education, trans. Russell, D. A.. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Raymond, G. (2006). Questions at Work: Yes/No Type Interrogatives in Institutional Contexts. In Drew, P., Raymond, G., and Weinberg, D. (eds.) Talk and Interaction in Social Research Methods. London: Sage. pp. 115–134.Google Scholar
Rosulek, L. (2008). Legitimation and the Heteroglossic Nature of Closing Argument. In Schiffrin, D., De Fina, A., and Nylund, A. (eds.) Telling Stories: Language, Narrative and Social Life. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. pp. 181–194.Google Scholar
Rosulek, L. (2010). Prosecution and Defense Closing Speeches: The Creation of Contrastive Closing Arguments. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge. pp. 218–230.Google Scholar
Rozin, P., Lowery, L., and Ebert, R. (1994). Varieties of disgust faces and the structure of disgust. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5), 870–881.Google Scholar
Saks, M. and Faigman, D. (2005). Expert evidence after Daubert. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 105–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasaki, Y. (1991). An analysis of sentences with nonreferential there in spoken American English. Word, 42 (2), 157–178.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (1988/9). From interview to confrontation: Observations on the Bush/Rather encounter. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 22, 215–240.Google Scholar
Schegloff, E. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1–63.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1979). Language Structure and Linguistic Ideology. In Cline, P., Hanks, W., and Hofbauer, C. (eds.) The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. pp. 193–247.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1985). On the Pragmatic “Poetry” of Prose: Parallelism, Repetition, and Cohesive Structure in the Time Course of Dyadic Conversation. In Schiffrin, D. (ed.) Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. pp. 181–198.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1993). Metapragmatic Discourse and the Metapragmatic Function. In Lucy, J. (ed.) Reflexive Language. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 33–58.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1998). The Improvisational Performance of Culture in Realtime Discursive Practice. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed.) Creativity in Performance. Greenwich, CT: Ablex. pp. 265–312.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2005). Axes of evils: Token versus type interdiscursivity. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology, 15 (1), 6–22.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2014). Denotation and the Pragmatics of Language. In Enfield, N. J., Kockelman, P., and Sidnell, J. (eds.) Handbook of Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 128–157.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs, 60, 275–299.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (1996). How to do things with things: Objets trouves and symbolization. Human Studies, 19, 365–384.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2008). Gesture in political communication: A case study of the democratic presidential candidates during the 2004 primary campaign. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 41 (2), 154–186.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2009). Gesturecraft: The Manu-facture of Meaning. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Streeck, J. and Hartege, U. (1992). Previews: Gestures at the Transition Place. In Auer, P. and Di Luzio, A. (eds.) The Contextualization of Language Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 35–57.Google Scholar
Tanford, J. (1983). The Trial Process: Law, Tactics and Ethics. Charlottesville, VA: Michie.Google Scholar
Tannen, D. (1987). Repetition in conversation: Toward a poetics of talk. Language, 63, 574–605.Google Scholar
Taslitz, A. (1999). Rape and the Culture of the Courtroom. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Tebendorf, S. (2014). Pragmatic and Metaphoric – Combining Functional with Cognitive Approaches in the Analysis of the “Brushing Aside Gesture.” In Muller, C., Cienki, A., Fricke, E., Ladewig, S., McNeill, D., and Bressem, J. (eds.). Body – Language – Communication, Volume 2. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. pp. 1540–1558.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. and Hunston, S. (2000). Evaluation: An Introduction. In Hunston, S. and Thompson, G. (eds.) Evaluation in Text. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
van der Houwen, F. (2013). Reported writing in court: Putting evidence “on record.” Text and Talk, 33 (6), 747–769.Google Scholar
van der Houwen, F. and Sneijder, P. (2014). From text to talk in criminal court: Prosecuting, defending, and examining the evidence. Language & Communication, 33 (2), 37–52.Google Scholar
Volosinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, A. (1987). Linguistic Manipulation, Power, and the Legal Setting. In Kedar, L. (ed.) Power through Language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp. 55–76.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1976). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society, Volume 2. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical Investigations (3rd edn). New York: MacMillian Publishing.Google Scholar
Wollock, J. (2002). John Bulwer (1606–1656) and the significance of gesture in the 17th century. Gesture, 2 (2), 227–258.Google Scholar
Woolard, K. (1998). Introduction: Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry. In Schieffelin, B., Woolard, K., and Kroskrity, P. (eds.) Language Ideologies. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 3–47.Google Scholar