English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the adversarial legal system, talk-in-interaction is extremely fixed andregulated. Such rigidity motivates the emergence of what may be termed ‘fictiveinteraction’ (Pascual 2002). This constitutes a conceptual channel of communicationunderlying the observable interaction between participants. Regardless of its overtinteractional structure (monologue, dialogue), I assume that Western courtroomcommunication typically involves an implicit trialogue between (i) the prosecution,(ii) the defense, and (iii) the judge/jury. The focus is on questions in legalmonologues, which have barely been studied. Four complex instances of ‘fictive’questions (and question–answer pairs) from a prosecutor’s closing argument andrebuttal are discussed: (i) a set of expository questions and answers; (ii) asubsequently answered rhetorical question; (iii) a clausal question used as adefinition; and (iv) a word-level question characterizing the prosecutor’s ownargument. These questions are argued to set up an interactional structure that mapsthe fictive trialogue underlying the discourse and overall situation of communicationthey occur in. They also show that fictive interaction can serve as an e¤ectiveargumentative strategy manifested at the discourse as well as the sentential andintra-sentential levels. This paper is based on fieldwork on a high-profile murdertrial I observed in a California court in 2000.

Questions in legal monologues: Fictive interaction as argumentative strategy in a murder trial