Intertextual authority in reported speech

ELSEVIERJournalofPragmatics32(2000)879-914~ltrald~*DepartmentofCriminalJustice(m/c141),UniversityoflllinoisatChicago,1007WestHarrisonStreet,Chicago,IL60607-7140,USAReceived27November1998;revisedversion8July1999AbstractThisstudyexamineshowintertextualitygeneratesinconsistencythroughaspecialtypeoftrialdiscourse.Ianalyzehowdefenseattorneyandwitnessesco-contextualizeaudio-tapesofhistoricalspeechpriortoinsertingtheminthecurrentreportingcontext-asequentialandmetapragmaticnegotiationwhichflamesnotonlytheauthoritybutthereceptionofreportedspeechduringtheperformanceoflegalknowledge.Mygoalistoshowhowthiscommu-nicativepracticeinteractswithfooting,affect,andlinguisticideologyinthenaturalizationofdiscursivepowerandtheproductionofintertextualtransparency.©2000ElsevierScienceB.V.Allrightsreserved.Keywords:Intertextuality;Reportedspeech;Metapragmatics;Footing;Legaldiscourse;AffectI.IntroductionTrialdiscourserestsonatheoryofintertextuality,decontextualizingspeechfromonespeecheventandrecontextualizingitinanewone,toconstituteitsevidentiaryandepistemologicalfield.Infact,themajortypeoftrialdiscourse,impeachingawitness'scredibilitythroughpriorinconsistentstatements,reliesonintertextualityasanepistemologicalmethodthroughwhichthetruthoftestimonycanbetested.Butwhiletrialdiscourseindeedreliesonintertextualitytoshapeitsevidentialandepis-temologicalfield,theculturalpresuppositionsorlinguisticideologiesunderpinningintertextualpracticeremaintaken-for-granted.Asaresult,howthelaw-in-actiontac-*Phone:[phone];E-mail:[e-mail]0378-2166/00/$-seefrontmatter©2000ElsevierScienceB.V.Allrightsreserved.PI:S0378-2166(99)00080-6880G.Matoesian/JournalofPragmatics32(2000)879-914itlyincorporatesformsofsocialpowerandhowitconstructsclaimstoknowledge,truth,andauthorityinthesituateddetailsofintertextualpracticeareleftunexpli-catedasacriticaltopicofsociolegalinquiry.Inthisstudy,Iexamineintertextualityandlinguisticideologyinaspecialtypeoftrialdiscourse:thedynamicyetcovertrelationshipbetweenreportingcontextandelectronicallymediatedreportedspeech.Ianalyzehowaudiotapesofpriorpolicestatementsarefirstcontextualizedandtheninsertedintothecurrentstreamofcross-examinationtocreateinconsistencyinthewitness'sspeech.UsingdatafromtheKennedySmithrapetrial,Iexplorehowthisintertextualpracticemobilizesaneval-uative,hierarchicalorderingofrecipientfootingstoaccomplishstrategicinterac-tionaltasksinthetrialandhowthesepracticesareimplicatedintheculturalanddis-cursiveconstructionofaffect-theverbalandnonverbaldisplayofemotion.FollowingGoffman(1981),Ihopetoshowthatwhencourtroomparticipantscon-textualizethetape,theyaligntherecipientsandgenresofreportedspeechwithinapowerfulconfigurationoflinguisticideologies.GoingbeyondGoffman,Inotonlydescribethecomplexparticipationframesembeddedinintertextualdiscourse,Ialsorevealthewaysinwhichsocialpowerisnaturalizedoverthecourseofthoseframes.WhileGoffmandelineatesthevariousrecipientfootingsfoundintalk,heneverdevelopsanaccountofhowthesemayberelatedtoformsofdiscursivepower.Moreover,therecipientsofreportedspeechandtheirrespectivespeechgenresarenotjustonanunequalfooting.Mygoalistoshowthattheproductionmedia(orcommunicativemodality)ofreportedspeechmayalsopossessahegemonicfootingandmayinteractwithrecipientidentityinrelativelytacityetpowerfulwaystocre-ateintertextualtransparency(seeBriggs,1993,1997).Myuseoftheterm'produc-tionmedia'buildsonGoffman'snotionof'productionformat'and'participationframework'todrawattentiontotheevidentialsourceofthereportedspeech:whethertheintertextualconnectionisfromaverbal,written,orrecordedsource(orsomecombinationofthese)andhowmultiplexrelationshipsamongthesefootingsarehierarchicallyorderedandideologicallyshaped.Aswewillsee,thedefenseattorneymobilizesthistypeoffootingshifttolegitimatediscursiveauthorityandshapeaffectivemeaningintheperformanceoflegalknowledge.Insection2below,IdescribeGoffman's(1981)conceptoffooting,Voloshinov's(1986)ideasontherelationshipbetweenreportingandreportedspeechevents,andrelatedworkbylinguisticanthropologistsonintertextualityandlinguisticideology.Intheensuingsections,Ianalyzehowpreviouslyrecordedstatementsofwitnessesaredecontextualizedfromtheiroriginalspeechcontextandstrategicallyrecontextu-alizedbythedefenseattorneytoimpeachtestimonythroughaniconicreplicationofthereportedspeechevent.Section3examineshowthedefenseattorneysetsupandnegotiatestheforthcomingaudiospeechwithinaco-constructedsequenceofconflicttalk.Theaudio-tapedspeechandthedirectspeechembeddedwithinitonlyachievetheirpersuasiveimpactandintertextualtransparencythroughjuxtapositionandcon-Mertz'(1996)workonlawschoolsocializationandPhilips'(1998)analysisofintertextualrelationsbetweenwrittenandspokengenresinjudicialpleadeliberationsrepresenttwoimportantexceptionstothis.G.Matoesian/JournalofPragmatics32(2000)879-914881trastwiththiscurrentcontextualizationwork.Section4considershowthedefenseattorneynaturalizesahierarchicalfootin