Atjaunināt sīkdatņu piekrišanu

E-grāmata: I'm Sorry for What I've Done: The Language of Courtroom Apologies [Oxford Scholarship Online E-books]

(PhD in Linguistics, University of Chicago)
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
  • Oxford Scholarship Online E-books
  • Cena pašlaik nav zināma
I'm Sorry for What I've Done: The Language of Courtroom ApologiesPalielināt
Citas grāmatas par šo tēmu:
Wiley OnlineMore info about Oxford Scholarship Online e-books
Rokasgrāmatas mājas lapa: http://www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199325665.001.0001/acprof-9780199325665
This book examines 52 apologetic allocutions produced during federal sentencing hearings. The practice of inviting defendants to make a statement in their own behalf is a long-standing one and it is understood as offering defendants the opportunity to impress a judge or jury with their remorse, which could be a factor in the sentence that is imposed. Defendants raised the topics of the offense, mitigation, future behaviour and the sentence in different ways and this book explores the pros and cons associated with the different strategies that they used. Because there is no way of ascertaining exactly how effective (or ineffective) an individual allocution is, case law, sociolinguistic and historical resources, and judges' final remarks are used to develop hypotheses about defendants' communicative goals as well as what might constitute an ideal defendant stance from a judge's point of view. The corpus is unique because, unlike official transcripts, the transcripts used for this study include paralinguistic features such as hesitations, wavering voice, and crying-while-talking. Among its highlights, the book proposes that although a ritualized apology formula (e.g., "I'm sorry" or "I apologize") would appear to be a good fit for the context of allocution and even appears to be expected, the use of these formulas carries implications in this context that do not serve defendants' communicative goals. I argue that the application of Austin's (1962) performative-constative continuum reveals that offense-related utterances that fall closer to the constative end are more consistent with the discursive constraints on the speech event of allocution. Further, I propose that the ideologies associated with allocution, in particular the belief that allocution functions as a protection for defendants, obscures the ways in which the context constrains what defendants can say and how effectively they can say it.
Acknowledgments xi
1 Introduction
1(10)
1.0 Framing the Project
1(6)
1.1 Analyzing the Data
7(1)
1.2 The Structure of This Book
8(3)
2 Apologies and Courtroom Apologies
11(15)
2.0 Introduction
11(1)
2.1 Apologies as Speech Acts
11(1)
2.2 Definitions and Assumptions
12(3)
2.3 Apologies and the Display of Emotion
15(4)
2.4 Patterns of Forms and Contexts: Other Studies and This One
19(3)
2.5 Apologies and the Context of Sentencing Hearings
22(4)
3 The Context of Federal Sentencing Hearings
26(20)
3.0 Introduction
26(1)
3.1 The Structure and Functions of Sentencing Hearings
26(6)
3.2 Allocution in Practice over the Years
32(5)
3.3 Language Ideologies surrounding the Speech of Defendants
37(2)
3.4 Sentencing Hearings in Three U.S. District Courtrooms
39(4)
3.5 Summing Up
43(3)
4 What Defendants Say in Response to Their Offenses
46(39)
4.0 Introduction
46(1)
4.1 Responding to the Offense by Focusing on It
47(20)
4.1.1 Assessments
48(3)
4.1.2 Responsibility
51(8)
4.1.3 Harm
59(8)
4.2 Responding to the Offense by Giving a Personal Response
67(8)
4.2.1 Sorry
67(3)
4.2.2 Apologize
70(4)
4.2.3 Other Feelings
74(1)
4.3 Defendants' References to Their Offenses
75(7)
4.3.1 Relatively Specific References
75(1)
4.3.2 Relatively Vague References
76(6)
4.4 Summing Up
82(3)
5 Defendants Talk about the Past, the Future, and the Present: Mitigations, Future Behavior, and the Sentence
85(37)
5.0 Introduction
85(1)
5.1 Mitigation
85(19)
5.1.1 Explanations
86(3)
5.1.2 Person-Based Mitigations
89(8)
5.1.3 Mitigating the Offense
97(2)
5.1.4 Mitigation for Family
99(4)
5.1.5 Summing Up
103(1)
5.2 Future Behavior
104(9)
5.2.1 Positive Future
104(1)
5.2.2 Redress
105(1)
5.2.3 Abstain
106(1)
5.2.4 "I Have Changed"
107(5)
5.2.5 Summing Up
112(1)
5.3 The Sentence
113(9)
5.3.1 Sentence Requests
113(5)
5.3.2 Sentence Acceptance
118(1)
5.3.3 Sentence Criticism
119(1)
5.3.4 Summing Up
120(2)
6 Broad Features of Defendants' Allocutions
122(24)
6.0 Introduction
122(1)
6.1 Conversational Styles of Defendants
122(6)
6.1.1 Nonstandard and Informal Elements
123(3)
6.1.2 Politeness Markers
126(2)
6.2 "Just"
128(5)
6.3 Paralinguistic Indexes
133(5)
6.4 Allocution Patterns
138(6)
6.4.1 Frequencies of Code Use
138(1)
6.4.2 The Morphology of an Allocution
138(4)
6.4.3 Patterns of Use Characteristic of Groups of Defendants
142(1)
6.4.4 Allocution Patterns by Courtroom
142(2)
6.4.5 Distinctive Patterns of Written Allocutions
144(1)
6.5 Summing Up
144(2)
7 Conclusions
146(15)
7.0 Findings
146(10)
7.1 What Apologetic Allocutions Can Tell Us about Apologies More Generally
156(3)
7.2 Final Thoughts
159(2)
Appendix 1 Data Collection and the Defendants 161(3)
Appendix 2 Coding System 164(5)
Appendix 3 Transcription Practices and the Corpus of Allocutions 169(38)
Appendix 4 Display of Allocutions by Coded Categories 207(3)
Appendix 5 Sentencing Table 210(1)
Notes 211(17)
Works Cited 228(9)
Index 237
After completing the Program of Liberal Studies at the University of Notre Dame with a second major in German in 1990, Mary Catherine (Katie) Gruber studied Slavic languages and literatures at Ohio State University, completing two masters degrees in 1994. After a brief stint working in Washington DC, she entered the linguistics program at the University of Chicago and completed her Ph.D. in 2007.
Permanent link: https://www.kriso.lv/db/9780199325665_pe.html
Keywords: