Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T15:02:53.658Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language ideology, fractal recursivity, and discursive agency in the legal construction of linguistic evidence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 November 2012

Jennifer Andrus
Jennifer Andrus*
Affiliation:
University Writing Program, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112, USAj.andrus@utah.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyzes the language ideology (Silverstein 1979; Woolard & Schieffelin 1994) circulated in Section 8 of the United States Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE), focusing on the consequences to discursive agency when this language ideology is used to appropriate an utterance for use as evidence. Section 8 of the FRE, or the hearsay rule, bars the testimonial, in-court repetition of second-hand statements. The excited utterance exception to hearsay admits an utterance as long as it was made by an excited speaker, while s/he was under the sway of an exciting event, which the excited utterance must also report. This rule explicitly trusts spontaneous speech, entextualizing it as a trustworthy account of an event, using the reasoning that such an utterance is not made by a speaker capable of self-reflection. I show that this language ideology problematically links discursive agency (Butler 1997; Medina 2006) with an untruthful speaker-role. Using the concept of fractal recursivity (Irvine & Gal 2000), I argue that the presuppositions embedded and circulated metadiscursively in this rule of evidence effectively constitute a speaker without legally “recognizable” discursive agency. This effect is the most noticeable and the most consequential when the excited utterance exception is used to appropriate the speech of women who have been the victims of domestic violence. Ultimately I argue that discursive agency is a feature of language ideology. (Discursive agency, legal discourse, language ideology, evidence, metadiscourse, domestic violence)*

Type
Articles
Information
Language in Society , Volume 41 , Issue 5 , November 2012 , pp. 589 - 614
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andrus, Jennifer (2009). The development of an artefactual language ideology: Utterance, event, and agency in the metadiscourse of the excited utterance exception to hearsay. Language and Communication 29:312–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, Paul (1979). Order in the court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Bauman, Richard, & Briggs, Charles (2000). Language philosophy as language ideology. In Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities, 139–204. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Besnier, Niko (2004). The social production of abjection: Desire and silencing among transgender Tongans. Social Anthropology 12:301–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blass, Regina (1990). Relevance relations in discourse: A study with special reference to Sissala. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Judith (1997). Excitable speech. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., & O'Barr, William M. (2005). Just words: Law, language, and power. 2nd edn.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., O'Barr, William M., & Lind, E. Allan (1978). The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal 6:1375–99.Google Scholar
Eades, Diana (2008). Courtroom talk and neocolonial control. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan (2001). Representing rape: Language and sexual consent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan, & Sidnell, Jack (2006). “I think that's not an assumption you ought to make”: Challenging presuppositions in inquiry testimony. Language in Society 35:655–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gal, Susan (2002). A semiotics of the public/private distinction. Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies 13:77–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SirGilbert, Geoffrey (1754/1979). The law of evidence. New York: Garland.Google Scholar
Grice, Paul (1957). Meaning. Philosophical Review July:377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Infantidou, Elly (2001). Evidentials and relevance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, Judith T. (1989). When talk isn't cheap: Language and political economy. American Ethnologist 16:248–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irvine, Judith T., & Gal, Susan (2000). Language ideology and linguistic differentiation. In Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities and identities, 35–83. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Kroskrity, Paul V. (2000). Regimenting languages: Language ideological perspectives. In Kroskrity, Paul V. (ed.), Regimes of language: Ideologies, polities, and identities, 1–34. School of American Research Advanced Seminar Series. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press.Google Scholar
Landsman, Stephan (1990). The rise of the contentious spirit: Adversary procedure in eighteenth century England. Cornell Law Review 75:497–609.Google Scholar
Lewis, David (1993). The urban criminal justice system and the juror's perception. Fordham Urban Law Journal 20:561–69.Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory (1993). Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Medina, Jose (2006). Speaking from elsewhere: A new contextualist perspective on meaning, identity, and discursive agency. Albany: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Mellinkoff, David (1963). The language of the law. Boston: Little Brown & Co.Google Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth (1998). Linguistic ideology and praxis in U.S. law school classrooms. In Schieffelin, Bambi B., Woolard, Kathryn A., & Kroskrity, Paul V. (eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory, 149–62. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth (2007). The language of law school: Learning to think like a lawyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palmer, Frank (1986). Mood and modality. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Philips, Susan U. (1993). Evidentiary standards for American trials: Just the facts. In Hill, Jane H. & Irvine, Judith T. (eds.), Responsibility and evidence in oral discourse, 248–59. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Philips, Susan U. (1998). Ideology in the language of judges. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarat, Austin, & Kearns, Thomas R. (1996). Editorial introduction. In Sarat, Austin & Kearns, Thomas R. (eds.), The rhetoric of law. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford (2006). Language and the law. New York: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
Scheppelle, Kim Lane (1990). Facing facts in legal interpretation. Representations 30:42–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, Elizabeth (2000). Battered women and feminist lawmaking. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R. (1970). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger (1998). Language, confession, interrogation, and deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1979). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, Paul R., Hanks, William F., & Hofbauer, Carol L. (eds.), The elements: A parasession on linguistic units and levels, 193–247. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael (1993). Metapragmatic discourse and metapragmatic function. In Lucy, John (ed.), Reflexive language, 33–58. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smart, Carol (1989). Feminism and the power of law. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Suk, Jeannie (2006). Criminal law comes home. The Yale Law Journal 116:2–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter Meijes (1999). Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Trinch, Shonna (2003). Latina's narratives of domestic abuse: Discrepant versions of violence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A. (1998). Introduction: Language ideology as a field of inquiry. In Schieffelin, Bambi N., Woolard, Kathryn A., & Kroskrity, Paul V. (eds.), Language ideologies: Practice and theory, 103–22. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A., & Schieffelin, Bambi B. (1994). Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23:55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar