On Power Relations Reflected In American Criminal Courtroom Examinations

Based on 46 pieces of direct examination transcripts and 28 pieces of cross-examination transcripts selected from two famous American criminal courtroom trials--the O. J. Simpson case and the Oklahoma City Bombing case, by analyzing linguistic details under the turn-taking model, this thesis sets out to examine the power relations reflected in American criminal courtroom examinations and uncover how lawyers or judges exercise power over witnesses or defendants through language. In this thesis, power relations in courtroom have been uncovered through the analysis of turns, interruptions, questions and answers in courtroom examinations.By analyzing the allocation of turns in American criminal courtroom examinations, it is found that transition of turns in courtroom interactions is constrained by both turn-taking rules and the law.Except the allocation of turns, interruption is another index of power. Interruptions in the data have been examined from two aspects: the number of interruptions each participant makes and how the interrupted responds to the interruption.Question-answer pair is the basic form in which courtroom trials proceed. In order to uncover the power relations in courtroom, questions and answers in the data have been analyzed from two aspects: the access to question and power; the cooperation degree reflected in answers and power.Through the analysis of trial participants' access to turns, turn transition, interruptions among participants, access to questions and answers with different cooperation degrees, we can get a general view about how power relations have been represented in courtroom interactions, how legal professionals exert and reinforce power over lay participants with the tool of language.