Article published in:
Certainty and Uncertainty in Dialogue
Edited by Andrzej Zuczkowski
[Language and Dialogue 4:1] 2014
► pp. 93–111

The risks of uncertainty

Hedging strategies in rape trial discourse

| University of Rome “Tor Vergata”, Italy
This paper presents an analysis of the forms and functions that a normal conversational strategy like hedging can assume in an institutionalized form of discourse — in this case, the courtroom, and particularly, in a specific juridical text-type: the cross-examination of the victim-witness in a rape trial. The study aims to show principally how the defence attorney of the accused exploits the hedging strategies of the female victim-witness in order to discredit her testimony and thereby win the case for the defence. By so doing, the argumentation will make two theoretical points. The first point is disciplinary, in that it will demonstrate the powerful contribution of the language sciences to the identification and unveiling of social injustice. The second point is ideological, in that it will show how some areas of Anglo-American institutions continue to reflect a social tendency towards leniency in the face of violence against women.
Keywords: hedging, judicial discourse, rape trials, gender, critical discourse analysis
Published online: 20 May 2014
https://doi.org/10.1075/ld.4.1.06pon
References
BBC News
2012 “Rape Survivors Open Up About Their Experiences.” http/​/:www​.BBCNews​-RapeSurvivorsOpenUpAboutTheirExperiences​.htm, last date of access 28 March 2012, 09:13 GMT.
2012 “Hidden Scale of Rape’ Highlighted by Mumset Campaign.” http/​/:www​.BBCNews​-HiddenScaleofRapeHighlightedbyMumsnetCampaign​.htm, last date of access 12 March 2012, 13:20 GMT.
Bilmes, Jack
1988 “The Concept of Preference in Conversation Analysis.” Language in Society 17 (2): 161-181. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Brown, Penelope, and Steven Levinson
1978 “Universals in Language Usage: Politeness Phenomena.” In Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction, ed. by Esther N. Goody, 56-311. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1987 Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Caffi, Claudia
1999 “On Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 311: 881-909. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Mitigation. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Clemen, Gudrun
1997 “The Concept of Hedging: Origins, Approaches and Definitions.” In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Hartmut Schröder, 235-248. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Conley, John M., and William M. O’Barr
1998 Just Words: Language and Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cotterill, Janet
2003 Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O. J. Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
(ed.) 2007 The Language of Sexual Crime. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Drew, Paul
1990 “Strategies in the Contest between Lawyer and Witness in Cross-examination.” In Language in the Judicial Process, ed. by Judith N. Levi, and Anne Graffam Walder, 39-64. New York: Plenum Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1992 “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-examination: The Case of a Trial for Rape.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 470-520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan
2001 Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fairclough, Norman
2003 Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Finch, Emily, and Vanessa Munro
2008 “Lifting the Veil: The Use of Focus Groups and Simulated Trial in Legal Research.” Journal of Law and Society 351: 30-51. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce
1975 “Hedged Performatives.” In Syntax and Semantics, vol. 31, ed. by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan, 187-201. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
1980 “Conversational Mitigation.” Journal of Pragmatics 41: 341-350. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010a “Pragmatic Competence: The Case of Hedging.” In New Approaches to Hedging, ed. by Gunther Kaltenböck, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider, 15-34. Bingley, UK.: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2010b “Hedging in Political Discourse: The Bush 2007 Press Conferences.” In Perspectives in Politics and Discourse, ed. by Urszula Okulska, and Piotr Cap, 201-214. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heydon, Georgina
2011 “Silence: Civil Right or Privilege? A Discourse Analytic Response to a Legal Problem.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (9): 2308-2316. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hübler, Axel
1983 Understatements and Hedges in English. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hyland, Ken
1994 “Hedging in Academic Writing and EAP Textbooks.” English for Specific Purposes 13 (3): 239-256. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1998 Hedging in Scientific Research Articles. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Wiltrud Mihatsch, and Stefan Schneider
2010 New Approaches to Hedging. Bingley, UK.: Emerald. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Konradi, Amanda
1999 “I Don’t have to be Afraid of You. Rape Survivors’ Emotion Management in Court.” Symbolic Interaction 22 (3): 45-77. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2007 Taking the Stand: Rape Survivors and the Prosecution of Rapists. Westport, Connecticut and London: Praeger.Google Scholar
Konradi, Amanda, and Tina Burger
2000 “Having the Last Word: An Examination of Rape Survivors’ Participation in Sentencing.” Violence Against Women 6 (49): 353-397. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lakoff, George
1972 “Hedges: A Study in Meaning Criteria and the Logic of Fuzzy Concepts.” Papers from the Eighth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society 183-228. Reprinted in Journal of Philosophical Logic 1973, 2 (4): 458-508, and in Contemporary Research in Philosophical Logic and Linguistic Semantics, ed. by Donald Hockney, et al., 221-271. Dodrecht: Kluwer.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach
1973a “Language and Woman’s Place.” Language in Society 2 (1): 45-79. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1973b “The Logic of Politeness: Or Minding Your P’s & Q’s.” Papers from the Ninth Regional Meeting of the Chicago Linguistic Society , 292-305.
1975 Language and Women’s Place. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Markkanen, Raija, and Hartmut Schröder
1997 Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts. Berlin, New York: de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M
1993 Reproducing Rape: Domination through Talk in the Courtroom. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
2001 Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
O’Barr, William M
1995 Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ponterotto, Diane
2007 “The Repertoire of Complicity vs. Coercion: The Discursive Trap of the Rape Trial Protocol.” In The Language of Sexual Crime, ed. by Janet Cotterill, 104-125. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and New York: Palgrave Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen, Joel Frader, and Charles Bosk
1982 “On Hedging in Physician-Physician Discourse.” In Linguistics and the Professions: Proceedings of the Second Annual Delaware Symposium on Language Studies , ed. by Robert J. Di Pietro, 83-97. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Sanday, Peggy Reeves
1996 A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial. Berkeley, Los Angeles, London: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, Stefan
2007 Reduced Parenthetical Clauses as Mitigators: A Corpus Study of Spoken French, Italian and Spanish (Studies in Corpus Linguistics 27). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Schröder, Harmut, and Dagmar Zimmer
1997 “Hedging Research in Pragmatics; A Bibliographical Research Guide to Hedging.” In Hedging and Discourse: Approaches to the Analysis of a Pragmatic Phenomenon in Academic Texts, ed. by Raija Markkanen, and Harmut Schröder, 249-271. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Shuy, Roger W
1996 Language Crimes: Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah
2001 [1990] You Just Don’t Understand: Women and Men in Conversation. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
Temkin, Jennifer, and Barbara Krahé
2008 Sexual Assault and the Justice Gap: A Question of Attitude. Portland, Ore.: Hart.Google Scholar
The Trial of Job Wells of Redburn in the Country of Hertford for a Rape Committed on the Body of his Own Daughter, Maria Wells
1753 London: C. Corbett, at Addsion Head, Fleet Street.Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A
2008 Discourse and Power. Houndsmills: Palgrave. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Walker, Garthine
1998 “Rereading Rape and Sexual Violence in Early Modern England.” Gender & History 10 (1): 1-25. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wodak, Ruth
(ed.) 1997 Gender and Discourse. London: Sage.Google Scholar
(ed.) 2013 Critical Discourse Analysis: Four Volumes. London: Sage. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Batt, Martine, Christine Bocerean, Marianne Coutelour, Thomas Beckert, Ophélie Theiller & Alain Trognon
2015. Enunciative identity and individual representation of rape. Language and Dialogue 5:1 ► pp. 152 ff. Crossref logo
Ponterotto, Diane
2018. Hedging in political interviewing. Pragmatics and Society 9:2 ► pp. 175 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 03 april 2022. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.