1.2.1 Building versions: descriptions and descriptive terms
Let’s take the following extract. It comes from a court hearing.
Here, the attorney (A) for the defendent is cross-examining the witness (W) who he has been accused of raping. A’s questions concern incidents that may (or may not) have taken place prior to the night of the alleged rape.
Text 6: Drew 1992:501 (modified)
Both A and W are describing interactions that took place on a particular evening. They describe these in different ways. In other words, they produce different versions of those interactions. As a first step, let’s take a look at the terms of description.
In his version on lines 16-17, A uses the following terms:
‘you’ and ‘with the defendant’ (to describe who was having the interaction)
‘some’ (describing number or frequency of interactions)
‘conversations’ (describing the kind of interaction)
‘fairly lengthy’ (describing their duration)
after a pause, he also specifies when these interactions took place.
‘some’ (describing number or frequency of interactions)
‘conversations’ (describing the kind of interaction)
‘fairly lengthy’ (describing their duration)
after a pause, he also specifies when these interactions took place.
Compare this with W’s version of what happened that evening.
A first thing to note is that her description is minimal, and she starts it with ‘We:ll’. This signals a disjunction or an incompatibility between what’s just been said and her upcoming version. So we are already alerted to difference. By looking at the terms she uses, can we see how her version is designed to rebut his?
She uses the terms:
A first thing to note is that her description is minimal, and she starts it with ‘We:ll’. This signals a disjunction or an incompatibility between what’s just been said and her upcoming version. So we are already alerted to difference. By looking at the terms she uses, can we see how her version is designed to rebut his?
She uses the terms:
‘we’ and ‘all’ (to describe who was having the interaction)
she does not refer to the frequency or duraction of the interaction, but she uses the term ‘talkin’.
she does not refer to the frequency or duraction of the interaction, but she uses the term ‘talkin’.
So, whereas his version implies that the interactions took place between two people, hers implies a group interaction, and this is emphasised through her use of ‘all’ (‘we were all talking’).
Having long and lengthy conversations between two people implies some degree of interest or even intimacy. Talking on the other hand (especially when duration and frequency have been deleted) doesn’t imply involvement or interest in the way that having a conversation does (it is more of an ‘anybody’s’ activity).
What action is thereby accomplished? She indirectly rejects what is implied in his version (that there was some intimacy or interest between them).
At lines 23-25, A makes explicit the intimacy he hinted at in lines 16-18. He says ‘you kne:w. at the ti:me. that the defendant was. in:terested (.) in you (.) didn’t you?’
Q: What do you think her answer in lines 27 and 29 does?
Having long and lengthy conversations between two people implies some degree of interest or even intimacy. Talking on the other hand (especially when duration and frequency have been deleted) doesn’t imply involvement or interest in the way that having a conversation does (it is more of an ‘anybody’s’ activity).
What action is thereby accomplished? She indirectly rejects what is implied in his version (that there was some intimacy or interest between them).
At lines 23-25, A makes explicit the intimacy he hinted at in lines 16-18. He says ‘you kne:w. at the ti:me. that the defendant was. in:terested (.) in you (.) didn’t you?’
Q: What do you think her answer in lines 27 and 29 does?
Hint
Does it accept A’s version or rebut (deny the truth of) his version
Q: How does her answer achieve this action?
Hint
Look at the terms she uses. Why does she also refer to ‘just stuff like that’? On what kinds of occasions would you ask ‘how have you been’ or similar questions?
So, one way to address the analytic question of ‘how is this action done’ is to look at the pronouns used (who is doing the action) and the way the events, activities, people and so on are referred to (e.g. as just talking rather than having a conversation).
With this in mind, in the next section we will return to extract 3, where mother and daughter are working up and challenging a complaint.