![Sample our Language & Literature journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5941/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Language-Literature.jpg"})
Abstract
Analysis of the rhetoric of attorney questioning has typically focused on the manipulative nature of questions and on the various mechanisms used by attorneys to influence the answers of witnesses. The analysis undertaken here investigates the notion that attorneys’ questions themselves create a representation of reality that constitutes a soty of meta‐testimony: a case within a case. This representation, operating independently of the answers given by witnesses, functions as a type of commentary on the credibility of the witness and the accuracy of prtrayals of events. The analysis suggests implications with regard to the role of attorneys and the process of a jury's assessment of evidence. The data under analysis is the examination questions asked during the sworn testimony of Andrea Wright, a witness in the Anita Hill/ Clarence Thomas hearings. A comparative analysis of questioning styles is undertaken with respect to process association, speech representation, and discourse label modification.