Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony

Narrative expansions as defensive practicesin courtroom testimony

RENATA GALATOLO and PAUL DREW

Abstract

This article analyses witnesses’ expanded answers to yes/no questions dur-

ing direct and cross examination. Among possible types of expansions, the

analysis focuses on ‘narrative expansions’, i.e., on expansions that go be-

yond the framework of the question. In the trial context, witnesses’ expan-

sions serve as a defensive resource, by allowing the witness to create an ad-

ditional interactional space that counterbalances the asymmetry in favor of

legal professionals typical of trial interaction. The general aim of the arti-

cle, which utilizes data taken from an Italian murder trial that took place in

1998, is to show how expansions accomplish this defensive task. The analy-

sis focuses on the discursive devices witnesses adopt in order to accomplish

their expansions after having produced the requested minimal answer: pro-

sodic or verbal devices that can appear as associated or isolated. The anal-

ysis identifies two specific interactional functions of these expansions, that

of further substantiating information provided in the first part of the an-

swer, and that of contextualizing the information conveyed in the initial an-

swer. Witnesses seem to make recourse to this tactic out of a desire to

change or mitigate the version of facts conveyed by the questions.

Keywords: expanded answers; narrative expansions; defensive devices; al-

location of blame; accounts; trial interaction.

1. Introduction

This article is an exploratory study of witnesses’ production of narrative

expansions in answering yes/no questions. The paper focuses on the waysin which witnesses accomplish narrative expansions, going beyond the di-

rect answer to the question, and on what they do in it. The data discussed

in this paper are drawn from examination and cross-examination during

1860–7330/06/0026–0661 Text & Talk 26–6 (2006), pp. 661–698

Online 1860–7349 DOI 10.1515/TEXT.2006.028

6 Walter de Gruyter Brought to you by | Loughborough UniversityAuthenticated

Download Date | 9/27/14 7:51 AM

which witnesses are mainly interrogated by the defense lawyers or by

the prosecutors. Both the examination and the cross-examination are

characterized by the alternation of questions and answers, so that what-

ever action the participants want to accomplish must always be done

through the format of questions and answers (Atkinson and Drew 1979).

In the courtroom, restrictions as to what constitutes a response to a

question are very strict (Penman 1987) and vary during direct and cross-examination because of the di¤erent scope of these two phases of the tri-

al. If direct examination is usually conducted in a relatively friendly man-

ner, a lawyer or prosecutor conducting a cross-examination tends to oper-

ate with the objective of challenging the witness and is therefore more

interested in censoring the witness’s answers and in demonstrating to the

jury that the witness is being nonresponsive or behaving inappropriately.

Consequently, questioners’ sanction of witnesses’ answers occurs more

frequently during cross-examination than during direct examination.This is why, during cross-examination, witnesses must be careful to hide

any intended noncollaborative behavior by making it seem as if they

are giving the expected answer (Komter 1994, 1998). Reluctance and eva-

siveness are, in fact, strongly sanctioned, and both types of behavior are

often treated as indirect proof of a witness’s guilt.

During the trial, the interrogators can use di¤erent types of questions,

from open to closed questions, exercising varying degrees of coercion on

the answers (Danet 1980; Woodbury 1984; Adelsward et al. 1987).Open questions often invite narratives:

(1)1 (Maria Chiara Lipari examination; Tape 3: 0.36.03)

public prosecutor (P); witness (W)

1 ! P: hm what else

2 happened if you

3 remember"4 (1.0)5 W: pt .h e::hm (0.8) it happens

6 that behind I didn’t >I didn’t<

7 (.) in short I didn’t hear

8 loud talking (0.7)

9 but th- there were a:

10 (1.2) .h

In this example, the form of the question allows the witness to choose thestructure and length of the answer, and she can organize it as a very long

narrative (in the example, the answer is in fact very long and continues

until line 33).

662 Renata Galatolo and Paul Drew

Brought to you by | Loughborough UniversityAuthenticated


Among closed questions, yes/no questions restrict the witness’s choice:

(2) (Gabriella Alletto examination; Tape 2: 0.04.15)

1 ! P: weren’t you given2 a preconceived version

3 W: no,

4 (0.8)

5 ! P: weren’t you told

6 what you had to say"7 W: no.

In Example (2), both questions (lines 1 and 2, 5 and 6) ask for a yes/no

answer; and, specifically, the negative form of the question indicates the

preference for a negative answer expressing agreement with the question

(Raymond 2003).2 In both cases, the witness gives the preferred answer

by producing the minimal answer ‘no’ as a complete response to the ques-tion. Because it restricts the witness’s choice, this type of question can be

more insidious than open questions, compelling the witness to answer in a

certain way about a specific event or aspect of an event.

What we often find in testimony, however, is that, even in their answers

to yes/no questions, witnesses do not restrict themselves to answering just

the question:

(3) (Gabriella Alletto cross-examination; Tape 2: 0.38.30)

lawyer (L); witness (W)

1 L: and did they tell you

2 also that (0.5)

3 in case of murder (0.5)

4 you could be (0.5)5 sentenced to twenty four years’

6 of imprison[ment"7 ! W: [yes,¼ but

8 I didn’t do it

In Example (3), the witness, having selected between the yes/no alterna-

tive as ‘instructed’ by the form of the question, and producing the a‰r-

mative answer ‘yes’ (line 7), proceeds to expand the answer, introducing

further information that was not requested, ‘but I didn’t do it’ (lines 7

and 8). This type of expansion goes beyond what is minimally and explic-

itly requested by the question. We define it as ‘narrative expansion’, dis-

tinguishing it from the expansion of the minimal answer, such as ‘yes,they did’, or ‘yes, they told me’, which remains within the framework of

the question.3 The turn-taking system of interaction in court constrains

witnesses to answer so that they have no topical control over the interac-

Expansions as defensive practices in the courtroom 663



tion, over its agenda, or over the way in which information is introduced.

However, witnesses do have a variety of (defensive) techniques and re-

sources for attempting to counter this lack of control, one of which is ex-

pansion. In the expansions of answers witnesses go beyond what is strictly

asked by the question while orienting to the specific interactional con-

straints linked to the form and content of the questions, and they can

use this conversational space for structuring or restructuring events ad-dressed by the questions.

Expansions have been observed in interactions where participants face

similar contingencies, for instance in medical interaction (Drew 2006;

Stivers and Heritage 2001), and in news interviews (Clayman and Heri-

tage 2002), in which patients and interviewees similarly use expansions

as a resource for gaining some measures of control over what information

may be elicited during the interaction.

Those who have studied trial interaction (Atkinson and Drew 1979;Danet 1980; Adelsward et al. 1987; Luchjenbroers 1997) generally agree

in considering expansions as a resource for witnesses. The interactional

balance of the trial situation is strongly weighted in favor of legal pro-

fessionals. Expansions represent additional interactional spaces witnesses

may use to counterbalance that asymmetry.

Previous analyses of expanded answers in court are mainly character-

ized by a quantitative approach (Adelsward et al. 1987). A recent Italian

study (Gnisci and Pontecorvo 2004), in addition to proposing a quantita-tive analysis of expanded answers versus minimal answers, focuses on the

argumentative function of expanded answers, and demonstrates how wit-

nesses, in producing expansions, a¤ect the meaning that emerges from the

question–answer sequences.

In this paper, we propose a qualitative study of witnesses’ expanded an-

swers using the conversation analysis approach. The analyses will investi-

gate the rules constraining the production of witnesses’ expanded answers

to yes/no questions, the detailed conversational devices witnesses use tocarry out expansions, and will discuss the interactional functions that wit-

nesses’ expanded answers fulfill in trial interaction.

2. The trial

The data we analyze in this paper come from a single Italian trial. Within

that trial, in the examination and cross-examination, by a number of dif-ferent lawyers (both prosecution and defense) of a range of witnesses, we

found examples of expanded answers, so that we have many instances of

expansions from di¤erent speakers and interactional episodes.




The trial was held for a murder committed in 1997 at the University La

Sapienza of Rome. The victim was a 22-year-old university student killed

by gunshot as she walked through the campus. The trial began in 1998.

The first verdict confirmed the public prosecutor’s reconstruction of the

events, which established that the shot was fired from a classroom win-

dow by two researchers in the Department of Philosophy of Law, the de-

fendants Giovanni Scattone and Salvatore Ferraro. Professor Bruno Ro-mano, the Director of the Department, was acquitted of charges of aiding

and abetting the murderers. The 1998 verdict was confirmed in an appeal

to the Court of Cassation in November 2002.

Most of the examples in this paper come from the testimony of three

prosecution witnesses: Professor Lipari, Professor at the university where

the murder was committed and a colleague of one of the defendants (Pro-

fessor Romano); Maria Chiara Lipari, Professor Lipari’s daughter and

Professor Romano’s student at the Department of Philosophy of Law;and Gabriella Alletto, secretary at the same department. Maria Chiara

Lipari and Gabriella Alletto are the prosecutor’s key witnesses. Maria

Chiara Lipari claims to have entered the classroom from which the shot

was fired immediately after the shooting and that there she saw the two

defendants, Liparota, another member of the department sta¤, and Ga-

briella Alletto. Gabriella Alletto was forced to testify about this circum-

stance because of Maria Chiara Lipari’s testimony. At the beginning of

the investigations, in fact, when interrogated by the prosecutor, GabriellaAlletto did not mention her presence in the room at the moment of the

shot, nor did she mention having seen one of the defendants turning back

into the room from the window with a pistol in his hand. This is why she

is a weak witness and her credibility is continuously questioned by the de-

fense during the interrogations. Maria Chiara Lipari’s testimony is also

problematic because she reconstructed the identities of the persons she

saw entering the room long after the murder. For all these reasons, the

thesis that the defense tries to demonstrate during the trial is that the tes-timonies of both witnesses were solicited by and agreed upon in advance

with the prosecutors. Niccolo Lipari has also been called to testify as a lay

witness, but only in relation to the charge against Professor Romano that

he tried to interfere in the investigations. Having witnessed some of the

telephone calls between Chiara and Professor Romano and having par-

ticipated in the encounter between Chiara and Romano at the University,

Professor Lipari is called to testify as to whether or not Professor Ro-

mano tried to convince Chiara not to collaborate with the investigators.The trial was partially transmitted by the Italian television program Un

giorno in pretura. The data come from the recording of that program, for

a total amount of speech of 7 hours and 13 minutes.




3. Narrative expanded answers

3.1. The structure

The structure of expanded answers is composed of the minimal answer

requested by the form of the question (the type-conforming token; Ray-

mond 2003), plus further and not directly requested information thatconstitutes the expansion (Adelsward et al. 1987; Stivers and Heritage

2001; Clayman and Heritage 2002), as in Example (3) and in the follow-

ing examples:

(4) (Niccolo Lipari cross-examination; Tape 5: 1.27.10)

1 L: do you remember (0.7)

2 having said to your wife

3 that you had privately4 spoken with

5 Doctor (.)Ormanni"6 (0.5)

7 ! W: yes" I reassured my wife (.)

8 that I had spoken

9 with Ormanni

10 about my daughter’s

11 shadowing

(5) (Maria Chiara Lipari examination; Tape 3: 0.31.10)

1 P: so you basically

2 arrived"3 and went to the

4 secretary’s o‰ce

5 of the- of the institute

6 to write7 this letter >or anyway

8 to organize the posting

9 of this fax< if I haven’t

10 misunderstood.

11 (0.7)

12 ! W: no"¼the first thing upon

13 arri:ving: (.)

14 at the university (0.5)15 .hh I went (in-) to the room:

16 to knock at Professor

17 Romano’s door




In Example (3), the answer to the question is composed of the minimal

answer ‘yes’ (line 7), followed by the expansion (‘but I didn’t do it’). In

the expansion, the witness denies the assumption, conveyed by the ques-

tion, that she could have committed the homicide, for which, somebody

has told her, she could be sentenced to 24 years of imprisonment.

In Example (4), the witness produces the minimal answer ‘yes’ (line 7),

followed by an expansion in which he informs the jury that he specificallytold his wife that he had spoken with Doctor Ormanni about his daugh-

ter’s having been shadowed.

In Example (5), after the initial ‘no’ (line 12), the witness expands her

answer to describe what she did upon arriving at the university the day of

the murder (‘the first thing upon arriving . . .’, lines 12–17).

In other cases, the first part of the answer, which precedes the narrative

expansion, can be composed of the minimal answer, plus a partial repeti-

tion of the question:


1 L: did you on that occasion (.)

2 did you anyway ask Professor

3 Romano to continue (.) e:h

4 to supervise Chiara: eh

5 in her studies6 eventually rece[iving her

7 ! W: [no, I

8 L: meeting her

9 ! W: didn’t ask him"10 but e::h personally

11 >I thought that it should be

12 like that<(.)


1 P: with Urilli and with Ba"�sciu�

2 did you speak" (.)

3 [somehow

4 W: [yes, (0.5)5 ! yes I spoke with them

6 pt .hhh I d- (1)*I had this¼eh

7 this thing inside

((*In correspondence with the pause it is possible to hear a perturbation,

which seems to be a fricative.))

In Example (6), the minimal answer ‘no’ (line 7) is followed by a partial

repetition of the question, ‘I didn’t ask him’ at lines 7 and 9, (a position-

ally adjusted transposed repeat; Raymond 2000: 259), which is already an




expansion of the minimal negative response ‘no’. This first part consti-

tutes a direct answer to the question, remaining within the framework of

the question. The narrative expansion is the part of the answer that fol-

lows this first part, ‘but personally I thought that it should be like that’,

which goes beyond the frame of the question, developing independently

from it and conveying new information that was not requested.

In Example (7), the first part of the answer is composed by the repeti-tion of the minimal answer ‘yes’ (lines 4 and 5), followed by a partial rep-

etition of the question ‘I spoke with them’ (line 5). As in Example (6), the

repetition makes clear which element of the question the previous mini-

mal answer ‘yes’ refers to. It does not add any new information and re-

mains in the frame of the question. This first part is followed by the nar-

rative expansion (lines 6 and 7).

3.2. The expansion: A matter of degree

In the previous section we defined the expansion of an answer as that part

which, following a direct answer to the question, expands on it by intro-

ducing information that was not requested, and that goes beyond the

frame of the question. It is now important to add that the expanded char-

acter of an answer, or of a part of an answer, is a matter of degree that

can be evaluated di¤erently depending on whether or not the expansion

has or has not been implicitly solicited by the question.


1 P: did Mrs. Alletto e:h did she

2 W: hm

3 P: have the opportunity"(.)4 to speak with you (.) to make

5 any comments about

6 that day or rather about

7 [that¼8 W: [y:es

9 P: ¼Friday morning"10 W: yes

11 (1.0)12 W: she sa:id (.).hh

13 you remember don’t you

14 Doctor Lipari eh"

In Example (8), the question explicitly seeks the incidental comments

Mrs. Alletto could have produced. The question proceeds by specifying

the requested information step by step. The initial ‘to speak with you’




(line 4) is self-repaired and becomes ‘to make any comments’ (lines 4

and 5), and the eventual topic of those comments ‘about that day’ (lines

5 and 6) is repaired with ‘about that Friday morning’ (lines 6, 7, and 9).

The two repairs serve to specify the question. The gradual specification

suggests that more information than a simple yes/no answer is requested.

The explicit reference in the question to Alletto’s potential comments, and

to the topic of her comments, seems to function as an implicit request thatthe witness report those comments. If the form of the question requests

a minimal yes/no answer, the content of the question suggests that more

information is sought. The witness takes it that the answer to the question

‘did you make any comments about . . .’, i.e., ‘Yes’, will then be followed

by another question, ‘what did she say?’. So the witness elides the two

separate questions, and handles both in one expanded answer (Drew

1979). In the expansion, which follows the one-second pause, the witness

reports Mrs. Alletto’s comments using the form of direct reported speech,‘she said (.) .hh you remember don’t you Doctor Lipari eh’ (lines 13 and

14). This expansion has a weaker initiative function (Adelsward et al.

1987) compared with the expansions analyzed in Examples (3)–(5), which

were not solicited at all by the form and content of the question.

The evaluation of whether, and the degree to which, a yes/no question

implicitly solicits an expanded answer is a problem witnesses routinely

face when deciding how they should answer. The more important interac-

tional consequence of the degree to which an expansion is solicited by thequestion resides in the fact that unsolicited expanded answers expose the

witness to sanction by the interrogator. Unsolicited expanded answers can

more easily be treated by the interrogators as irrelevant or as sanctionable

strategies for the avoidance of providing a direct answer to the question.

3.3. Constraints on the expansion

If a witness is going to do some defensive work in answering (this defen-sive work is analyzed below), in expansions, thereby providing informa-

tion that was not asked for, he/she should at least answer the question,

normally in first position. If the witnesses go straight to the expansion,

without producing a minimal response, interrogators can sanction the an-

swer as nonresponsive:


1 L: is this the only such2 occasion on which you

3 committed perjury on the heads

4 of your children is it all right"




5 (0.7)

6 ! W: lawyer I am myself::hm:::

7 I did it in this

8 circumstance and it was

9 a very serious:s thing

10 for me (0.7) e:hm (0.5)11 a:nd I tried

12 defendi:ng defending myself

13 I defended them also

14 it seems to [me not"15 ! L: [Madam

16 excuse me (.)

17 be patient I appreciate

18 what you tell me19 but you haven’t answered me"

(10) (Maria Chiara Lipari cross-examination; Tape 5: 0.31.32)

1 L: you began to say I didn’t cry my

2 eyes out did you cry"3 ! W: as I read in the newspa[pers4 ! L: [forget

5 the newspapers

6 W: no. I didn’t cry


1 L: were there raised voices in this2 conversation"3 ! W: but I asked my father to come

4 with me but I would also want

5 to [see that in front of my father

6 ! L: [but (.) answer to this

7 question " (.) raised voices or not

8 in this three-way conversation"9 W: no

In Example (9), the witness is asked if it was the first time that she had

committed perjury ‘on the heads of her children’.4 The witness answers

directly, producing an extended answer (lines 6–14) and omitting the af-

firmative or negative response requested by the form of the question. In

this case, there is no explicit or implicit answer to the question. The wit-

ness admits in her response to having committed perjury on the heads ofher children (‘I did it in this circumstance’), but does not say whether or

not this was the only occasion she did so, which is the focus of the ques-




tion. At lines 17–19, the lawyer sanctions the answer for being nonres-

ponsive: ‘I appreciate what you tell me but you haven’t answered me’.

In Example (10), the lawyer asks the witness if she cried her eyes out

during a telephone conversation she had with the director of the depart-

ment, Professor Romano. The witness begins her answer by referring to

the fact that the newspapers had reported that she cried her eyes out (‘as

I read in the newspapers’, line 3) and omitting an answer of either yes orno. At lines 4 and 5, the lawyer interrupts the witness sanctioning the ref-

erence to the newspapers (‘forget the newspapers’), and the witness pro-

duces a direct answer to the question (‘no’, at line 6).

In Example (11), the witness does not produce the minimal answers

‘yes’ or ‘no’ and begins her answer by giving some contextual information

about the encounter she had with Professor Romano at the university,

particularly the fact that she had asked her father to come with her on

that occasion (lines 3 and 4). This information is introduced as an at-tempt to establish whether or not Romano (the director of the depart-

ment) raised his voice during his conversation with Chiara (the witness)

and her father at the university. The witness begins to express the opinion

that Romano could not have raised his voice because her father’s pres-

ence functioned as a censorship on Romano’s behavior (‘But I would also

want to see that in front of my father’, lines 4 and 5), but she is inter-

rupted by the lawyer. This opinion, if clearly and completely expressed,

would have implied a negative answer to the question. The lawyer ignoresthe potential implication and sanctions the witness’s turn as nonrespon-

sive (‘but answer to this question’, lines 6 and 7), then repeats the ques-

tion stating the two alternatives between which the witness must choose

(‘raised voices or not’, line 7).

The examples show that expanded answers may expose witnesses to the

risk of being sanctioned or challenged, especially if the expansion is not

preceded by the requested answer. In our corpus we found 20 occurrences

of sanctioned expanded answers.5 Among these, 14 occurrences (70%)were sanctions of directly expanded answers, and 6 occurrences (30%)

were sanctions of expansions following type-conforming answers.

In Examples (9), (10), and (11), the witnesses did not succeed in con-

veying the additional, unrequested information they wish to communi-

cate. In this way, the choice to directly produce an extended answer, ne-

glecting to give the requested response, can then nullify the advantage

that the structure of the expanded answer can give to the witnesses. Fur-

thermore, sanctions of directly expanded answers, for the interrogators,can become occasions to highlight witnesses’ evasiveness.

The constraint imposed by the form of the question does not necessary

imply that, in the case of yes/no questions, the respondent must always




produce a conforming answer, that is, an answer that begins with a ‘yes’

or a ‘no’, before producing the expansion. The requested minimal answer

can also be implied and accepted as such, as in the following example:

(12) (Niccolo Lipari examination; Tape 5: 1.02.23–70)

1 P: e:h did it seem to you somehow

2 eh: a: di¤erent eh: tone3 compared to the other times" (.)

4 the tone used on the evening of

5 Ma- May twenty second"6 ! W: he was really determined

7 ! to speak with Chiara

((7 lines omitted))

15 P: e::h when later you

16 subsequently the following17 morning (.) eh you went

18 with your daughter

19 to speak with

20 Professor Romano (.)

In Example (12), the questioner asks whether or not Professor Romano

spoke in his usual tone when he called to speak with the witness’s daugh-

ter. The witness does not answer ‘yes’ or ‘no’, but directly produces a de-

scription of Professor Romano’s tone, ‘he was really determined to speak

with Chiara’ (lines 6 and 7). The witness produces a nonconforming an-

swer (Raymond 2003) because he neglects to explicitly produce the mini-

mal and direct answer requested by the form of the question, that is a

‘yes’ or a ‘no’. The witness produces an expansion, ‘he was really deter-mined to speak with Chiara’, which is a description of Professor Roma-

no’s intention, thereby only implying the minimal requested answer

(‘yes’) about Professor Romano’s tone (‘did it seem to you somehow a

di¤erent tone’). As we can see, the answer is accepted and the prosecutor

goes on to ask a new question (lines 15–20).

It appears in the data, then, that expanded answers are generally ac-

cepted if the expansion is preceded by the minimal answer, ‘yes’ or ‘no’,

as in Examples (3)–(5), and that they can also be accepted if they are pre-ceded by nonconforming answers that imply a minimal answer, as in Ex-

ample (12). It appears also that witnesses run a greater risk of being sanc-

tioned if they directly produce expansions by omitting to state or to imply

the minimal answers ‘yes’ or ‘no’. In consideration of the frequency of ex-

panded answers, which in our corpus represent 64% of responses to yes/

no questions and of the constraints on their production,6 Penman’s (1987)




conclusion that ‘witnesses are not permitted to give unrequested informa-

tion’ could then be mitigated in ‘witnesses are not permitted to give un-

requested information unless they have just provided the requested infor-

mation’ (Gnisci and Pontecorvo 2004: 982).

4. The accomplishment of the expansions

An expanded answer is composed, therefore, of a minimal answer to the

question, plus further information that was not explicitly requested and

that constitutes the narrative expansion. This suggests that participantsmight consider an answer to be complete after the minimal answer has

been produced. The optional nature of an expansion implies that the

speaker has to do special work to secure the necessary conversational

space for the expansion, signaling that something more is coming. If the

answer were to be considered complete just before the beginning of the

expansion, then, at that point, the questioner might otherwise begin to

speak. Thus, having produced minimal answers, witnesses signal that the

answer is not yet complete. The analysis of our data shows that, when go-ing on to expand their answers, witnesses produce the initial minimal an-

swer using a rising or suspended intonation. The use of this prosodic de-

vice allows speakers to project further talk and to prevent the questioners

from taking the turn immediately after the minimal answer (Raymond

2000). Speakers use this prosodic device systemically, in correspondence

with the end of every turn constructional unit (TCU),7 that is, to project

every further expansion of their turn (Scheglo¤ 1996; Ford and Thomp-

son 1996). In this section, we will analyze the di¤erent modalities thewitnesses use to realize the transition from the minimal response to the

expansion.

4.1. Minimal answer þ narrative expansion: Prosodic and rhythmic

devices

4.1.1. Rising intonation. In some cases, the speaker manages the tran-

sition from the minimal answer to a narrative expansion by using only the

prosodic device of rising intonation, as in Example (4) above. In Example

(4), the witness produces a narrative expansion after the preferred mini-

mal answer ‘yes’ (line 7). The question is about his recollection of having

spoken with his wife about a conversation he had with Doctor Ormanni,

who is the prosecutor. Having said that he remembers that particular cir-cumstance, producing a ‘yes’ with a rising intonation, the witness pro-

ceeds by giving further information about the conversation he had with

his wife.




4.1.2. Rush-through device. The prosodic device of rising intonation

may be accompanied by a rhythmic change in speech delivery, as in Ex-

ample (5) above. As in Example (4), in Example (5) the witness manages

the transition from the minimal answer ‘no’ to the narrative expansion

by producing the ‘no’ with rising intonation. But here in Example (5), im-

mediately after the ‘no’, the witness speeds up the speech (line 12, the

latching sign ¼) and produces the word ‘the’. The minimal answer to thequestion, that is, the word ‘no’, and the first word of the expansion, ‘the’,

are produced closer than the other elements of the turn. The use of this

particular device, which Scheglo¤ calls the rush through device (Scheglo¤

1982), prevents the interlocutor from taking the turn after the initial ‘no’.8

The speeding up of the speech reinforces the projection of further talk

already accomplished by the use of the rising intonation. These devices

work together to ward o¤ the possibility that the interlocutor will treat

the initial ‘no’ as an already complete response.

4.2. Minimal answer þ partial repetition of the question þ narrative

expansion

Narrative expansions can be introduced by a partial repetition of the

question:

(13) (Niccolo Lipari examination; Tape 5: 1.00.24)

1 P: Professor" eh

2 do you remember (.) if you had any

3 conversations (0.5) with

4 Professor: Roma"no- (.)

5 from May the ninth-(.) onwards"6 (.) from May the ninth

7 ninety seven onwards"8 (0.5)

9 ! W: yes, I had a conversation

10 ! with Professor Romano

11 on (.) e::h

12 May twenty second (.) e::h

In Example (13), after the initial minimal response ‘yes’ (line 9), the wit-

ness produces a partial repetition of the question ‘I had a conversation

with Professor Romano’ (lines 9 and 10), which introduces the subse-

quent narrative expansion ‘on (.) e::h May twenty second (.) e::h’ (lines11 and 12).

The partial repetition of the question stays between the minimal answer

to the question and the narrative expansion, which begins at line 11. As




outlined by Clayman and Heritage (2002: 247), the partial repetition of

the question has the general function of demonstrating that the respon-

dent is answering the question. Simultaneously, it signals that further talk

will come (Raymond 2000: 273). In producing the partial repetition of the

question in correspondence with the transition from the minimal con-

forming answer to the narrative expansion, the speakers underline the

fact that they are answering the question, explicitly indicating to whichpart of the question they are responding to. In so doing, they create the

condition for proceeding with the expansion, which constitutes their au-

tonomous conversational contribution.

4.3. Minimal answer þ conjunction þ narrative expansion

The transition from the minimal answer to the narrative expansion can

also be accomplished through the production of a conjunction, explicitly

packaging the subsequent expansion as a continuation of the first part.

We found the conjunction ‘because’ after dispreferred answers, or after

nonconforming answers, i.e., those that omit the minimal requested an-

swer ‘yes’ or ‘no’.


1 P: were you conta"cted- (.)then

2 by Ferraro or by Scattone

3 sub[se�quently�

4 W: [no5 P: >subsequently<

6 ! W: no, because Scattone

7 I didn’t see him

8 again

In Example (14), the negative answer is a dispreferred one and the expan-

sion is constructed as an account, using the conjunction ‘because’ (line 6).

Note that despite this construction and the use of ‘because’, the expansionis not an account but a report of the encounters the witness had or did not

have with one of the two defendants in the period following the murder.


1 P: did you speak with Liparota

2 about what had happened"3 W: .h e: ye- in a brief manner

4 ! because we said5 it’s an absurd thing (0.7)

6 ehm¼it’s a very serious

7 disgrace




In Example (15), the answer is a nonconforming one, because the positive

minimal answer is not completely produced. Rather, it is interrupted (see

the initial ‘s’ of the Italian ‘sı’, which means ‘yes’, at line 3 of Example

[15] in Appendix 2) and self-repaired by the description of the manner in

which the witness spoke with Liparota about the murder (‘in a brief man-

ner’, line 3). The second expansion of the answer is introduced by the use

of the conjunction ‘because’, which projects an account that does notcome. The ‘because’ is in fact followed by the reproduction of the past

conversation the witness had with Liparota through the use of direct re-

ported speech.

In a couple of prior examples, we found that the conjunction ‘but’ was

used both after a preferred answer (‘Yes, but I didn’t do it’; Example [3]),

and after a dispreferred answer (‘No I didn’t ask him " but e::h person-

ally I thought it should be like that’; Example [6]). As can be seen, in case

of dispreferred answer, the conjunction ‘but’ is combined with the partialrepetition of the question (‘I didn’t ask him’, lines 7 and 9).

5. What witnesses do in the expansions of the answers

We turn now to what witnesses are actually doing, what they seek to ac-

complish interactionally, in these expansions. It appears from our analy-

sis that expansions perform two principal functions, or more precisely,that witnesses use them as resources to manage two principal tasks. They

provide evidence that has not been sought in the question but which the

witnesses regard as salient to the issue in question. They also serve to con-

textualize events, as well as witness actions and conduct. In both cases,

witnesses use the expansions of their answers to defend themselves from

the potential allocation of blame conveyed by the questions. Both activ-

ities prevent or counteract the potential accusations of having subverted

a shared moral order. In the case of the activity of providing evidence,the witness prevents or counteracts the allocation of blame linked to his/

her duty to report what he/she e¤ectively experienced. In the case of the

activity of contextualizing, he/she counteracts the potential accusations

of having subverted the shared moral order for having accomplished or

avoided certain actions. In all these cases, through the production of ex-

pansions, witnesses can achieve partial control over the production of in-

formation countering the negative (for them) implications of a question

and of a short answer to it; or, realizing that they might not otherwiseget the opportunity to make a (defensive) point, using an expansion as a

resource to introduce a point they might not otherwise be able to make

because they do not control the agenda.




5.1. The activity of providing evidence

A primary aim of witnesses is to convince the court of the credibility of

what they say, of the veracity of their reconstructions of events. Theytherefore construct versions of what happened in such a way as to demon-

strate the credibility of those versions.9 Expanding their answers is one re-

source that witnesses have to display that this version is their ‘real’ ac-

count/version (that they are producing it spontaneously, without being

solicited by the questioner).

The activity of providing evidence can be accomplished through the de-

tailed representation of a past event.10 In the following example, the wit-

ness reproduces a past conversation he had with Professor Romano, usingthe form of direct reported speech:


1 L: when: ehm (.)

2 you left (0.7)

3 �eh�did Professor Romano

4 invite- (.) your daughter (0.5)

5 to- inform- to inform him- (.)

6 e:h >about

7 what could happen<8 if they took place (.) eh

9 the new interrogations new¼10 W: y[es,

11 L: ¼[involvements: of

12 your daughter¼13 W: yes,

14 L: ¼in the investigation"15 ! W: yes,¼he said: (.) he said16 ! I recommend that you inform me

17 ! about any news

18 ! otherwise I will take o¤ence

In Example (16), the question is part of a line of questioning that aims to

reconstruct the content and the tones of the conversation that Professor

Lipari and his daughter, Maria Chiara, had with Professor Romano, at

the university, during the period of the investigations. In their previous

testimonies, both Maria Chiara and her father have claimed that Roma-

no’s attitude toward Maria Chiara was threatening, part of an attempt toconvince her not to testify. In Example (16), the lawyer is asking for more

details about this circumstance. In his answer, the witness confirms his

previous version. After the minimal answer ‘yes’ (line 15), he introduces




the expansion using the rush-through device, as noted earlier, by speeding

up in producing the word ‘he’ (line 15) so as to make that contiguous

to the prior word ‘yes’. In the narrative expansion, the witness produces

evidence in support of his a‰rmative answer to the question. He does

not simply state that Professor Romano asked his daughter to keep him

informed about the evolution of the investigation, but he shows it, repro-

ducing Professor Romano’s words: ‘I recommend that you inform meabout any news otherwise I will take o¤ence’. The location of Professor

Romano’s words, immediately after the minimal answer ‘yes’, strengthens

their evidential function in relation to the previous a‰rmative answer

(Galatolo forthcoming).11

The function of providing evidence is also accomplished through a par-

ticular type of expanded answer, in which the expansion precedes the min-

imal conforming answer to the question, ‘yes’ or ‘no’:


1 P: yes, (0.5) did you see the pistol"2 ! W: he was retracting it yes

In Example (17), asked if she saw the pistol entering the room from which

the shot is supposed to have been fired, the witness produces a brief de-

scription of what the defendant was doing with the pistol, (that ‘he was

retracting it’, line 2), before producing the minimal conforming answer‘yes’. The witness describes the scene she saw before admitting to having

seen the pistol, as directly requested by the question. The initial descrip-

tion is an expansion of the following answer ‘yes’, a pre-expansion (Ray-

mond 2000) of the answer. The witness begins the turn with a dispreferred

component and she concludes it with the preferred answer ‘yes’. In the ex-

pansion, the witness specifies the reference of the question, that is, the cir-

cumstances in which she saw the pistol. The pistol she saw was retracted

by the defendant. The fact that she describes the specific circumstances ofhaving seen the pistol, even though this was not requested, and the fact

that she does it in the first part of the answer, immediately after the ques-

tion, both contribute to representing the information as something that

automatically emerged from the witness’s recollection. Thus it functions

as evidence of what is then admitted by the witness with her ‘yes’, that

is, that she saw the pistol.

Through this construction, the witness backgrounds the action of

answering the question, which is the main activity in which she is publiclyimplicated, and instead foregrounds the action of remembering. When the

prosecutor asks the question, she does not immediately ‘translate’ her re-

collection in the minimal a‰rmative answer ‘yes’, but she directly gives the




details of what she saw, discursively representing the action of remember-

ing. In so doing, she obtains the e¤ect of directly describing the scene as it

emerges in her memory. This is a strong device for representing the activ-

ity of remembering while it is in course and, consequently, for certifying

the experience she maintains having had.

5.2. The activity of contextualizing

The contextualization of actions is the other principal activity that wit-

nesses accomplish through the production of expanded answers. This is

important for witnesses because it facilitates their defense in allowing a

richer and more complex representation of events. In all these cases, wit-

nesses seem to use the expanded answers in order to contrast the often

oversimplified version of events presupposed by yes/no questions.

Within the general function of contextualizing, expansions can alsoserve more specific purposes. They can be used by the witness to qualify

the eventual choice between the alternatives imposed by the yes/no ques-

tion, prior to an implication that things are actually quite di¤erent and

perhaps more complex. Finally, they can be used to give an account for

the actions or events addressed in the question.

5.2.1. Qualifying the terms of the question.

(15 0) (Gabriella Alletto examination; Tape 2: 0.09.42)

1 P: did you speak with Liparota

2 about what had happened"3 ! W: .h e: ye- in a brief manner

4 because we said5 it’s an absurd thing (0.7)

6 ehm¼it’s a very serious

7 disgrace but who dared

8 but how is it

9 possible that is all nonse:nse

10 sentences

In Example (15 0), the prosecutor asks the witness whether she spoke with

her colleague Liparota about the murder. The question aims to verify

whether or not the witness had truly been unaware of the seriousness of

the scene she had seen entering room number 6, as she had claimed dur-

ing previous interrogations, and whether or not she had truly failed tolink it immediately to the murder. The circumstance of having spoken or

not about the murder with the sta¤ of the department is important as far

as it could indirectly prove the witness’s mood during the period follow-




ing the crime. The question presupposes that, if worried about what she

had seen in room number 6, the witness would have tried to speak about

it with somebody else. This is why, in her answer, the witness tries to

downgrade the importance of the conversation she had with Liparota

and also to show that she did not look for it.

The witness begins to produce the a‰rmative answer ‘yes’ (the ‘ye-’ at

line 3), which is immediately self-repaired by the following description ‘ina brief manner’. This first description qualifies the conversation the wit-

ness had with Liparota, allowing her to implicitly admit that she spoke

with him and, at the same time, to minimize the relevance and impor-

tance of that conversation.12 The initial qualification, the downgrading

of the importance of having spoken with Liparota, is then sustained by

the representation of the conversation through the reported speech that

follows the conjunction ‘because’ (line 4) in the second expansion of the

answer. This second expansion is superficially constructed as an account,by the use of the conjunction ‘because’, but it is in e¤ect composed by a

representation of the past conversation with Liparota (lines 5–9) and a

general evaluation of this same conversation (‘all nonsense sentences’,

lines 9 and 10). The reported speech has the function of showing and

demonstrating both the witness’s previous admission that she had spoken

with Liparota and her qualification of that conversation through the ex-

pression ‘in a brief manner’. The witness represents the conversation by

reproducing a series of very generic and irrelevant comments she madeto Liparota: ‘it’s an absurd thing’, ‘It’s a very serious disgrace’, ‘how is it

possible’. The ‘brief manner’ of their speaking is represented through the

general irrelevancy of their speaking. In qualifying her conversation with

Liparota, the witness counters a possible implication of a direct positive

answer to the question, that is, the inference that she had sought to com-

municate with Liparota for any particular reason linked to the murder.

The conversation is described as having been so banal as to eliminate

any suspicion that the witness could have actually sought it out. It iseven assessed as having been nothing more than a series of sentences

without meaning. In the context of the witness’s testimony, this sup-

ports her general version of events, in which she claims she did not try to

have any conversations about the murder with the employees of the

department.

(4 0) (Niccolo Lipari cross-examination; Tape 5: 1.27.10)

1 L: do you remember (0.7)2 having said to your wife

3 that you had privately

4 spoken with




5 Doctor (.) Ormanni"6 (0.5)

7 ! W: yes" I reassured my wife (.)

8 that I had spoken

9 with Ormanni

10 about my daughter’s11 shadowing

Here, in Example (4 0), the lawyer’s question aims to demonstrate that the

witness and the prosecutor had some illegal encounters and conversationsin the period preceding the witness’s testimony. This element could be an

important factor in demonstrating the more general accusation that the

witness’s testimony is preconstructed. This is why the witness uses the ex-

pansion of the answer to specify the terms of the action described in the

question, that is, ‘having said to your wife that you had privately spoken

with Doctor (.) Ormanni’ (lines 2–5), which presupposes that the witness

had an illegal conversation with Doctor Ormanni, the prosecutor. The

witness accepts the terms of the question in producing the initial ‘yes’(line 7), and then goes on substituting the verb ‘say’ with the verb ‘reas-

sure’.13 In so doing, the witness qualifies the generic action of ‘saying’. He

spoke to his wife not for general reasons but with a specific purpose in

mind, that of reassuring her. The subsequent specification (lines 8–11)

refers to the object of his action of reassuring. In the question, the prose-

cutor generically defines the object as ‘privately spoken with Doctor Or-

manni’. In the answer, the witness specifies that he did not generally re-

port to his wife his conversation with Doctor Ormanni, but specificallywhat Doctor Ormanni said to him about the shadowing of his daughter.

Through this substitution and elaboration, the witness circumscribes his

action and constructs it as having been strongly motivated. In so doing,

he legitimates the conversation he had with his wife as well as his earlier

conversation with Doctor Ormanni. This is the really problematic conver-

sation that the witness is implicitly justifying by defending himself from

the potential accusation of having improperly spoken with the prosecutor

about the investigation, which would have been illegal. A simple admis-sion that he had spoken with his wife about a conversation he had with

Doctor Ormanni might have seemed like an implicit confirmation of the

accusation that he had communicated improperly with the prosecutor

about the investigations. The witness feels a need to specify the circum-

stances and the content of the conversation he had with his wife in order

to convey the circumstances and the content of the conversation he had

with Prosecutor Ormanni and thereby demonstrate that it was a (legally)

proper thing for him to have talked with the prosecutor.




5.2.2. Accounts. The other activity that witnesses accomplish in expan-

sions is to provide accounts for their own or other’s actions. Among the

various activities they can perform, this is the more explicitly defensive

one, because its explicit function is that of justifying or excusing (Austin

1970 [1961]) problematic behaviors.

In this context we use the term account to indicate all types of justifica-

tion or excuse given for untoward actions. Accounts and explanations candi¤er greatly because the latter do not necessarily refer to problematic ac-

tions, which can have critical implications (Scott and Lyman 1968: 47).

Accounts are explanations that refer to the commission or noncommis-

sion of actions which can be morally questioned and for which an actor

should have a good justification or excuse in order to re-establish the

moral order (Heritage 1988).

(6 0) (Niccolo Lipari cross-examination; Tape 5: 1.15.55)

1 L: did you on that occasion (.)

2 did you ask anyway Professor

3 Romano to continue (.) e:h

4 to supervise Chiara: eh

5 in her studies6 eventually rece[iving her

7 W: [no, I

8 L: meeting her

9 W: didn’t ask him"10 ! but e::h personally

11 ! >I thought that it should be

12 ! like that<(.)

In Example (6 0), after the negative answer ‘no, I didn’t ask him’ (lines 7

and 9), the witness produces the account meant to explain why he did not

ask Professor Romano to continue to supervise his daughter ‘but e::h per-

sonally I thought that it should be like that’, at lines 10–12. The fact thatthe witness might have asked Professor Romano to continue to supervise

his daughter is not problematic in itself, but the form of the question con-

structs it as problematic because it indicates a preference for a positive

answer, which is reinforced by the adverb ‘anyway’. This is why the wit-

ness expands his answer producing an account of his not having asked.

In the account, the witness justifies his behavior by saying he thought pur-

suing this point with Professor Romano would have been unnecessary.

In giving an account of his past behavior, here his past inaction (non-commission), the witness contrasts the potential allocation of blame con-

veyed by the question. The account normalizes the fact that the witness

did not ask Professor Romano to continue to supervise his daughter.




The initial ‘no’ addresses the constraints imposed by the form of the ques-

tion, and the expansion addresses the action performed by the question,

that is, the potential allocation of blame for not having accomplished the

action. In producing the expansion, the witness also conveys a negative

moral evaluation of Professor Romano’s behavior. Contrasting the fact

that Professor Romano did not continue to supervise his daughter, and

his own expectations, Professor Lipari depicts Professor Romano’sbehavior as having failed to comply with normal social expectations. Be-

cause of this, the expansion of the answer displaces the potential alloca-

tion of blame from the witness to Professor Romano.

In the course of a trial, the actions for which an account is expected

can be those which are generally recognized by society as being morally

problematic, and also of a problematic nature within the moral frame-

work of the specific trial itself. For a witness, a certain action can become

problematic and needs to be accounted for, because of a previous decla-ration the witness has made about it, and not because it is problematic in

itself.

(7 0) (Gabriella Alletto examination; Tape 2: 0.10.40)

1 P: with Urilli and with Ba"�sciu�

2 did you speak" (.)

3 [somehow

4 W: [yes, (0.5)

5 yes I spoke with them

6 ! pt .hhh I d- (1)*I had this¼eh

7 ! this thing inside

8 ! (.) to- to have

9 ! the possibility to manifest10 ! with somebody at least

11 ! with somebody who was near me¼and

12 ! who belonged to the surrounding

((*In correspondence with the pause it is possible to hear a perturbation


In Example (7 0), the witness is questioned about whom she spoke to

about the murder. In an answer to a previous question, the witness had

stated she had not spoken with anybody about the murder (‘I will tell

you something more I have never spoken with anybody I have always

tried to restrain myself ’, tape 2: 0.10.12). Now, in answering this ques-

tion, she admits having spoken with her colleagues Basciu and Urilli(lines 4 and 5). This admission suggests a possible contradiction, there-

fore, with her previous claim not to have spoken to anybody about the

murder. This is why the witness attempts to create the premise that this




was an exception to her general behavior by giving an account justifying

the fact that she had spoken with her colleagues Basciu and Urilli (lines

6–12). The justification is based on her necessity to manifest with some-

body who was near her, lines 9–11. The problematic nature of the behav-

ior for which the witness produces an account emerges only after compar-

ing the di¤erent stages of the testimony. The fact that she says she had

spoken with her colleague about the murder is not problematic in itself,but it emerges as such through the juxtaposition of apparently contradic-

tory versions of facts.

5.3. The exception: The avoidance of giving accounts as a defensive

device

In addition to the situations in which the general production of accounts

served witnesses as a defensive device for contrasting or preventing theallocation of blame, in our data we found a case in which a witness

chooses to defend herself by avoiding giving any account for her previous

behavior.

The action of providing accounts for one’s behavior is strong evidence

that the speaker recognizes and treats that behavior as problematic. The

account itself retrospectively constructs the problematic nature of the

action or event it refers to. This is why the action of avoiding giving an

account can become an even stronger defensive device. By avoiding beingforced to adopt a defensive stance, the witness makes a bid to normalize

the behavior or whatever else is at stake at the moment.


1 L: and did they tell you

2 also that (0.5)

3 in case of murder (0.5)

4 you could be (0.5)5 sentenced to twenty four years’

6 of imprison[ment"7 ! W: [yes,¼ but

8 ! I didn’t do it

9 (0.5)

10 L: yes I understand [Madam

11 ! W: [ehehem yes

12 ! but this didn’t13 ! co-concern me

14 (0.7)

15 L: were you told of




16 the hypothesis (0.5)

17 that your job

18 could be endangered"19 (0.5)

20 ! W: �eh certainly�((nods smiling))

21 (0.5)22 L: was it formulated

23 to you [th(is)

24 ! W: [yes

25 L: say that say that [yes

26 ! W: [I say that

27 (2.5)

28 L: madam (1.5)

29 did your brother-in-law also30 illustrate to you the hypothesis

31 (0.5)

32 L: of a possible arrest"33 ! W: ((nods))[�yes�

34 L: [yes or no

35 W: yes

36 L: yes

37 (1.7)

In Example (18), the lawyer’s line of interrogation aims at demonstrating

that during the preliminary interrogations the witness was threatened by

the prosecutor and then forced to agree to the version of facts to which

she is attesting.At the beginning of the sequence (lines 7 and 8 and 11–13), the witness

tries to defend herself by the use of expanded answers. Then she stops do-

ing so. Her first defense is an assertion of nonculpability (‘yes,¼ but

I didn’t do it’, lines 7 and 8). In her answer, the witness addresses the

presupposition of the question, that she must have felt threatened by the

possibility of being sentenced to 24 years of imprisonment, which is

the penalty for being found guilty of murder. The lawyer responds to the

witness’s defense with irony (‘yes I understand Madam’, line 10). The wit-ness then downgrades her defense by addressing more directly the topic of

the question (‘but this didn’t concern me’, lines 12 and 13). She now as-

serts that she was not concerned by the possible consequences of being

found guilty rather than protesting her innocence as before. The lawyer

proceeds with his line of questioning and mentions other possible threats

the witness may have received from the prosecution (‘Were you told of

the hypothesis . . .’, lines 15–18). It is at this point that the witness’s de-




fense strategy changes. At lines 20, 24, and 26, the witness produces min-

imal responses and seems no longer to be on the defensive. The witness’s

responses downgrade toward a gestural response, at line 33, in which a

simple nod precedes a whispered verbal answer ‘yes’.

The last part of the sequence can be interpreted as a change of the wit-

ness’s defense strategy for two reasons. First, her previous self-defense,

which involved first simply stating that she was not culpable and thenimplying her innocence by declaring that she was not concerned about

the prosecutor’s threats, had not met with success. Secondly, the new

line of defense is managed both verbally and nonverbally, and the latter

mode highlights the detached attitude the witness seems to want to con-

vey through the progressive lowering of her responsive production. This

detachment is evident in her strong positive answer at line 20 (‘eh cer-

tainly’), the strength and ironic value of which are reinforced by the prior

‘eh’ and the subsequent smile. This response is a nonconforming one andit does the work typical of nonconforming responses, that is, it treats the

previous question as problematic (Raymond 2003). Even if the positive

answer is implied by the certainly, it does not simply answer, but ad-

dresses the question and the suggestion it presupposes: that the prosecu-

tor’s conduct toward the witness was threatening. In this turn, the com-

plex construction of a positive answer treats the previous question as

both predictable and irrelevant. The construction of the predictability

and irrelevancies of following questions is then obtained by the progres-sive reduction of responses.

In the previous example, the analysis of the witness’s use of minimal

responses as a defensive strategy contrasts with what a witness in a simi-

lar position would usually do when faced with the need to defend herself

from the lawyer’s accusation line. The analysis of the witness’s behavior

as an avoidance of further defensive work can in fact be supported by

comparing what she e¤ectively does with what she ‘normally’ should do

in similar circumstances, which is also what she does at the beginning ofthe sequence.

So, it is in its departure from normative expectations about what a wit-

ness or defendant should do when defending herself that this sequence ac-

quires significance as well as from its sequential position and its internal

structure.

6. Conclusion

From the analysis of our data, it emerges that in the context of witnesses’

examination, expanded answers to yes/no questions are more frequent




than minimal answers, and mostly accepted. Compared with other con-

texts, i.e., broadcast interviews, where expanded answers to yes/no ques-

tions are normatively expected (Clayman and Heritage 2002: 113), in wit-

nesses’ examination expectations about witnesses’ answering behavior

may change, and witnesses are charged to understand whether expansions

are expected or not. Furthermore, the analysis has shown that expansions

are more easily accepted if preceded by the production or implicationof the requested yes/no answers. If witnesses answer directly, producing

the expansion and omitting to say or to imply the requested ‘yes’ or

‘no’, their answer is more frequently sanctioned by the interrogators as

nonresponsive.

The analysis focused on the linguistic and prosodic devices that wit-

nesses use for projecting the expansion of their answers. From the analy-

ses of our data, it appears that speakers always produce the last item of a

direct answer with a rising or suspended intonation when accomplishingthe transition from the first part of the answer, that is the minimal or the

direct answer to the question, to the narrative expansion. This prosodic

device can occur in isolation or it can co-occur with the rush-through de-

vice, a momentary acceleration of speech in correspondence with the pas-

sage from the last item of the direct answer to the question and the first

item of the narrative expansion. The rising intonation can also occur

with the production of a conjunction, which explicitly constructs the fol-

lowing part of the answer as an expansion upon the first part. In our data,the most frequent conjunctions are ‘but’ and ‘because’ and their distribu-

tion depends on whether or not the answer was preferred or dispreferred.

We found the conjunction ‘because’ only after dispreferred and non-

conforming answers, and the conjunction ‘but’ after preferred answers,

or dispreferred answers, followed by a partial repeat of the question.

The analysis demonstrates that witnesses use narrative expansions to

defend themselves against the eventual allocation of blame conveyed by

the interrogators through the question, or anticipating the line of ques-tioning being introduced by the question they are answering. They defend

themselves through two main activities: by providing evidence and by

contextualizing the information addressed by the question. The activity

of providing evidence aims to demonstrate the witness’s credibility and it

fulfils witness’s duty of telling the truth, that is, what he/she has e¤ec-

tively experienced. Witnesses can provide evidence of the version of facts

they claim have occurred by detailing a scene or event, or by representing

that scene or event, for example through the use of direct reported speech.Through the activity of contextualizing information, witnesses aim to

counter the potential allocation of blame conveyed by the question or by

a minimal answer to it. They can achieve this broad purpose by qualify-




ing the information conveyed by the question, or by producing accounts

that justify the event or behavior addressed by the question.

The analysis has also shown that the sense of the problematic nature of

events is not necessarily normatively established and recognized as such

by participants on the basis of a shared system of values, but that this

sense can also emerge through contradictions associated with the juxtapo-

sition of questions and answers. When it has previously been denied oronly partially admitted, an event that is not in itself problematic can be-

come problematic and, consequently, seem to require a justification.

The analysis o¤ers further confirmation that expanded answers are a

conversational resource for witnesses. Their particular structure allows

witnesses to respect the constraints imposed by the form of the questions

and, at the same time, to gain a conversational space in which they can

exert a partial control over the information. Witnesses’ use of expansion

is an important instrument for mitigating the conversational asymmetryin favor of the interrogators that is linked to the asymmetrical distribu-

tion of questions and answers.

Appendix 1: Transcription conventions

text increased volume�text� lower volumetext emphasis

>text< acceleration

te - cut-o¤ of the prior word or sound

te::xt extension of the prior sound

text" raising intonation

text, suspended intonation

¼ latching or contiguous utterances

[text beginning of an overlap(.) interval length less than 0.5 second

(0.5) numbers in parentheses indicate silence represented in tenths of

a second

(text) doubtful items

((text)) transcriber’s comments

Appendix 2: Examples presented in their original form






1 ! P: hm e che cos’altro

2 succede se lei se lo

3 ricorda"4 (1.0)

5 W: pt .h e::hm (0.8) succede

6 che dietro non: >non<:7 (.) insomma non sentivo

8 parlare: (0.7) ad alta

9 voce pero c- ci sono

10 stati: una: (1.2) .h



1 ! P: non le e stata fornita: una

2 versione preconce"tta

3 W: no,

4 (0.8)

5 ! P: non le e stato detto >cosa6 lei doveva dire"<

7 W: no.


lawyer (L); witness (W)

1 L: e le dissero anche che(0.5)

2 in caso di omicidio (0.5)

3 lei avrebbe potuto (0.5)

4 essere condannata

5 a ventiquattro anni

6 di reclusio[ne"7 ! W: [sı,¼ma io

8 non l’avevo fatto


1 L: lei ricorda: (0.7)2 di aver detto a sua moglie

3 di aver parlato

4 privatamente con il

5 dottor (.) Ormanni"6 (0.5)

7 ! W: sı" tranquillizzavo

8 mia mo:glie (.) di aver

9 parlato con Ormanni10 rispetto al pedinamento

11 di mia fi"glia





1 P: quindi lei praticamente

2 arrivo" e ando nella

3 segreteria della-4 dell’istituto per-

5 per scrivere questa

6 lettera >o comunque per

7 organizzare la spedizione

8 di questo fax< se non

9 ! ho capito ma"le.

10 (0.7)

11 ! W: no"¼come prima12 cosa arrivan:do: (.)

13 all’universita (0.5).hh io

14 andai (in-) nella stanza:

15 a bussare alla stanza del

16 professor Romano


1 L: lei in quell’occasione (.)

2 chiese comunque al-

3 professor Romano di-4 continuare (.) e:h a

5 seguire Chiara: eh negli

6 studi: eventualmente (.)

7 riceven[dola vedendola

8 ! W: [no, non

9 ! glielo chiesi"10 ma: e:::h personalmente

11 >ritenevo che cosı dovesse12 essere< (.)


1 P: con la Urilli e con Ba"�sciu�

2 ha parla"�to� (.) in

3 [qualche modo4 W: [sı, (0.5)

5 ! sı ho parlato con loro

6 pt .hhhh io d- (1)*c’avevo

7 questa¼eh questa cosa dentro

((*In correspondence with the pause it is possible to hear a perturbation,






1 P: la Alletto e:h le ha

2 W: hm

3 P: avuto modo" (.)

4 di dirle (.) di farle

5 qualche commento su quel

6 giorno cioe su7 [quella¼8 W: [s:ı

9 P: ¼mattina di venerdı"10 W: sı

11 (1.0)

12 W: disse: (.) .hh

13 che poi si ricorda

14 dottoressa Lipari eh"


1 L: questa e l’unica volta

2 quindi nella quale lei ha

3 spergiurato sulla testa

4 dei suoi >figli< giusto"5 (0.7)

6 ! W: avvocato io mi sono::hm:::7 l’ho fatto in questa

8 circostanza ed e stata

9 una cosa molto: grave

10 per me (0.7) e:hm (0.5)

11 e: ho cercato:

12 difendendo: difendendo me

13 ho difeso anche loro

14 mi sem[bra no"15 ! L: [signora

16 mi scusi (.) abbia

17 pazienza io apprezzo

18 quello che lei mi dice

19 ma lei non m’ha risposto"


1 L: ha: cominciato a dire io non ho pianto2 a dirotto ha pianto"3 ! W: come ho letto: sui giornA:[LI

4 ! L: [lasci stare




5 i giornali:

6 W: no- non piangevo


1 L: in questo colloquio c’erano toni2 violenti"3 ! W: ma io ho fatto venire mio padre

4 ma voglio anche

5 vede[re che davanti a mio padre

6 ! L: [ma (.) risponda a

7 questa domanda" (.) toni

8 violenti o no in questo

9 colloquio a tre"10 W: no

(12) (Niccolo Lipari examination; Tape 5: 1.02.23–70)1 P: e:h le sembro in qualche modo

2 eh: un: tono eh: diverso

3 dalle altre volte"(.)

4 quello della sera del

5 ventidue mag-maggio"6 ! W: era for:temente interessato

7 ! a parlare con Chiara

((7 lines omitted))15 P: e::h quando poi lei

16 successivamente la mattina

17 dopo: (.) eh si reco

18 insieme con sua figlia

19 a parlare con il

20 professor Romano (.)

(13) (Niccolo Lipari examination; Tape 5: 1.00.24)

1 P: professore" eh2 ricorda (.) se ha avuto dei

3 colloqui (0.5) con: il

4 professor: Roma"no (.)

5 dal nove maggio-(.) in poi"6 (.) dal nove maggio

7 novantasette in poi"8 (0.5)

9 ! W: sı, io ho avuto un colloquio10 ! con il Professor Romano

11 il giorno: (.) e::h

12 v:entidue maggio (.) e::h





1 P: e stata contatta"ta- (.)poi

2 da Ferraro o da Scattone

3 succe[ssiva�mente�

4 W: [no5 P: >successivamente<

6 ! W: no, perche Scattone non

7 l’ho piu visto


1 P: ha parlato con Liparota2 di quanto era accaduto"3 W: .h e: s- in modo- sommario::

4 ! perche dicevamo

5 e una cosa assurda (0.7)

6 ehm¼e una disgrazia

7 gravissima


1 L: quando: ehm: (.)

2 vi siete congedati(0.7)

3 �eh� il Professor Romano

4 ha- invitato- sua figlia (0.5)

5 a- metterla- a metterlo-al

6 corrente (.) e:h >di7 quelli che avessero potuto essere<

8 se vi fossero stati(.) eh

9 nuovi interrogatori nuovi¼10 W: s [ı,

11 L: ¼[coinvolgimenti: di

12 sua figlia:¼13 W: sı,

14 L: ¼nelle indagini"15 ! W: sı,¼disse: (.) disse

16 ! mi raccomando:: tienimi

17 ! informato di qualunque novita

18 ! altrimenti mi o¤endo


1 P: sı,(0.5)ha visto la pistola"2 ! W: la ritraeva sı





1 L: e le dissero anche che(0.5)

2 in caso di omicidio (0.5)

3 lei avrebbe potuto (0.5)4 essere condannata

5 a ventiquattro anni

6 di reclusio[ne"7 ! W: [sı,¼ma io

8 ! non l’avevo fatto

9 (0.5)

10 L: sı lo capisco [signora

11 ! W: [ehehem sı12 ! ma questo non mi-

13 ! non mi tangeva

14 (0.7)

15 L: le e stata profilata

16 l’ipotesi (0.5)

17 che poteva essere preggiudicato

18 il suo posto di lavoro"19 (0.5)20 ! W: �eh certo�((annuisce sorridendo))

21 (0.5)

22 L: le e stata formulata qu[e(sta)

23 ! W: [sı

24 L: lo dica lo dica [sı

25 ! W: [lo dico

26 (2.5)

27 L: signora (1.5)28 anche suo cognato

29 le prospetto l’ipotesi

30 (0.5)

31 L: di un possibile arresto"32 ! W: ((Alletto annuisce))[(sı)

33 L: [si o no

34 W: si

35 L: sı36 (1.7)

Notes

1. Transcription conventions are listed in Appendix 1. The original examples in Italian

are given in Appendix 2. The analyses refer to the line numbers of the English version

of the examples.




2. The concept of preference organization refers to di¤erences in the structure of alterna-

tive second-pair parts of adjacency pairs. Adjacency pairs are action sequences in

which the accomplishment of a first action creates the expectation of a second one,

i.e., an invitation that can be followed by an acceptance or a refusal, or an assessment

that can be followed by an agreement or a disagreement. The preference organization

describes the relationship between the possible alternative second actions of these types

of sequences. In all these cases, the alternative second actions are not equivalent and

the actions that enable solidarity among social members, such as the acceptation of

an invitation or the agreement with a previous assessment, are preferred. Preferred

and dispreferred actions di¤er in terms of form. Dispreferred actions are generally

produced within complex turns and are often accompanied by accounts, excuses,

and various forms of mitigation, while preferred actions are generally accomplished di-

rectly and in a simple manner. Di¤erences in structuring are related to types of actions

themselves and not to individual preferences or inclinations. For a definition of prefer-

ence, see also Levinson (1983: 332–345), Heritage (1984: 265–280), Pomerantz (1984),

Scheglo¤ (1988: 445–446), Drew (2005: 90).

3. In term of defining narrative expansions, we refer to the definition put forward by Ochs

and Capps (2001: 18) of narrative as ‘a cognitively and discursive complex genre that

routinely contains some or all of the following discourse components: description,

chronology, evaluation, and explanation’. Narratives in the courtroom have already

been analyzed by Bennet and Feldman (1981), O’Barr (1982), Conley and O’Barr

(1990), Barry (1991), Harris (2001). Narratives in the context of plea bargaining were

analyzed by Maynard (1988).

4. The expression ‘to swear on the heads of one’s children’ means to swear on something

one holds very dear, similar to the expression ‘to swear on one’s mother’s grave’.

5. We refer here to the three testimonies from which the examples of this paper were

taken, corresponding to four hours of examination and cross-examination.

6. In our corpus, expanded answers to yes/no questions are more frequent than minimal

answers. We found 135 expanded answers over a total amount of 210 yes/no questions.

This result agrees with Adelsward et al. (1987) and Gnisci and Pontecorvo (2004)

findings.

7. ‘By turn constructional unit, it may be recalled, we meant to register that these units can

constitute possibly complete turns; on their possible completion, transition to a next

speaker becomes relevant (although not necessarily accomplished)’ (Scheglo¤ 1996: 55).

8. An occurrence of the use of this device is also present in Example (16).

9. For the construction of the e¤ect of credibility in court, see O’Barr (1982), Conley and

O’Barr (1990), Jacquemet (1996), Matoesian (1999a, 1999b), Galatolo (2003). The ef-

fect of credibility has also been analyzed in medium–sitter interaction (Woo‰t 1992,

2001). For an analysis of the discursive devices for the construction of factual accounts,

see Hutchby and Woo‰tt (1998). About the relationship between direct experience and

storytelling, see also Sacks (1992 [1970]: lecture 4, part IV).

10. We distinguish the representation of an event from its description. In the representation

of a scene or of an event, the speaker shows the scene or the event to the interlocutor,

pretending to reproduce it as he/she experienced it. It could correspond to the category

of ‘demonstration’ used by Clark and Gerrig (1990: 765): ‘Demonstrations work by en-

abling others to experience what it is like to perceive the things depicted’.

11. This form of representation of past discursive events is interesting because, in addition

to having an evidential function, it often conveys the speaker’s point of view about

events. The form allows the speaker to mask his point of view behind the apparent ob-

jectivity of the representation (Galatolo and Mizzau 2005).




12. The qualification of the terms of the question is also indicated by Lynch and Bogen

(1996: 138) as a strategy that witnesses can use for both confirming and disconfirming

a premise of the preceding-question.

13. On the use of descriptive categories for explaining events, see Sacks (1992 [1966]). The

analysis of the use of descriptions in court for accomplishing accounts may also be

found in Atkinson and Drew (1979) and Drew (1992). Sterponi and Pontecorvo

(2003) analyze its use by children in family conversation.

References

Adelsward, V., Aronsson, K., Jonsson, L., and Linell, P. (1987). The unequal distribution

of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction. Text 7 (4):

313–346.

Atkinson, M. J. and Drew, P. (eds.) (1979). Order in Court. London: McMillan.

Austin, J. L. (1970 [1961]). A plea for excuses. In Philosophical Papers, 175–204. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Barry, A. (1991). Narrative style and witness testimony. Journal of Narrative and Life His-

tory 1 (4): 281–293.

Bennet, W. L. and Feldman, M. (1981). Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom. New

Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.

Clark, H. H. and Gerrig, R. G. (1990). Quotations as demonstrations. Language 66 (49):

764–805.

Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002). The News Interview. Journalists and Public Figures on

the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Conley, J. M. and O’Barr, W. M. (1990). Rules versus Relationships. The Ethnography of

Legal Discourse. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review 14 (3): 445–564.

Drew, P. (1979). The production of justifications and excuses by witnesses in cross-

examination. In Order in Court, J. M. Atkinson and P. Drew (eds.), 136–187. London:

MacMillan.

—(1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape.

In Talk at Work. Interaction in Institutional Settings, P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds.), 470–

520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

—(2005). Conversation analysis. In Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, Fitch K.

L. and Sanders R. E. (eds.), 71–102. Mahaw, NJ/London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

—(2006). Mis-alignments in ‘after-hours’ calls to a British GP’s practice: A study in tele-

phone medicine. In Communication in Medical Care: Interaction between Primary Care

Physicians and Patients, J. Heritage and D. W. Maynard (eds.), 416–444. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Ford, C. and Thompson, S. A. (1996). Interactional units in conversation: Syntactic, intona-

tional and pragmatic resources for the management of turns. In Interaction and Grammar,

E. Ochs, E. A. Scheglo¤, and S. A. Thompson (eds.), 134–184. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.

Galatolo, R. (2003). Les strategies de changement de footing dans le temoignage commun au

tribunal: Une resource pour la construction de credibilite. In Dialogue Analysis 2000, M.

Bondi and S. Stati (eds.), 209–218. Niemeyer: Tubingen.

—(forthcoming). Active voicing in court. Witness use of direct reported speech in testimony.

In Voicing: Reported Speech and Footing in Conversation, E. Holt and R. Clift (eds.), 253–

285. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.




Galatolo, R. and Mizzau, M. (2005). Quoting dialogues and the construction of the

narrative point of view in legal testimony. The role of prosody and gestures. Studies in

Communication Sciences (Special issue: Argumentation in Dialogic Interaction) June:

217–232.

Gnisci, A. and Pontecorvo, C. (2004). The organization of questions and answers in the the-

matic phases of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of

Pragmatics 36 (5): 965–995.

Harris, S. (2001). Fragmented narratives and multiple tellers: Witness and defendant ac-

counts in trials. Discourse Studies 3 (1): 53–74.

Heritage, J. (1984). Garfinkel and Etnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

—(1988). Explanations and accounts: A conversation analytic perspective. In Analyzing

Everyday Explanations: A Casebook of Methods, C. Antaki (ed.), 127–144. London:

Sage.

Hutchby, I. and Woo‰tt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Jacquemet, M. (1996). Credibility in Court: Communicative Practices in Camorra Trials.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Komter, M. L. (1994). Accusations and defences in courtroom interaction. Discourse and

Society 5 (2): 165–187.

—(1998). Dilemmas in the Courtroom. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Luchjenbroers, J. (1997). ‘In your own words . . .’ Questions and answers in a Supreme

Court trial. Journal of Pragmatics 27 (4): 477–503.

Lynch, M. and Bogen, D. (1996). The Spectacle of History. Speech, Text, and Memory at the

Iran-Contra Hearings. Durham, NC/London: Duke University Press.

Matoesian, G. (1999a). Intertextuality, a¤ect and ideology in legal discourse. Text 19 (1):

73–109.

—(1999b). The grammaticalization of participation roles in the constitution of expert iden-

tity. Language in Society 28 (4): 491–521.

Maynard, D. (1988). Narratives and narrative structure in plea bargaining. Law and Society

Review 22 (3): 449–481.

O’Barr, W. (1982). Linguistic Evidence. San Diego: Academic Press.

Ochs, E. and Capps, L. (2001). Living Narrative. Creating Lives in Everyday Storytelling.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Penman, R. (1987). Discourse in courts: Cooperation, coercion and coherence. Discourse

Processes 10 (3): 201–218.

Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of

preferred/dipreferred turn shapes. In Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversational

Analysis, J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (eds.), 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge Univer-

sity Press.

Raymond, G. (2000). The structure of responding: Type-conforming and nonconforming

responses to yes/no type interrogatives. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of

California, Los Angeles.

—(2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of re-

sponding. American Sociological Review 68 (Dec): 939–967.

Sacks, H. (1992 [1966]). Intelligibility; Causally e‰cacious categories. In Lectures on Conver-

sation, vol. 1, G. Je¤erson (ed.), 456–460. Oxford: Blackwell.

—(1992 [1970]). Storyteller as ‘witness’; Entitlement to experience. In Lectures on Conversa-

tion, vol. 2, G. Je¤erson (ed.), 242–248. Oxford: Blackwell.

Scheglo¤, E. A. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement: Some uses of ‘uh uh’ and

other things that come between sentences. In Georgetown University Roundtable on Lan-




guages and Linguistics, D. Tannen (ed.), 71–93. Washington, DC: Georgetown University

Press.

—(1988). On an actual virtual servo-mechanism for guessing bad news: A single case conjec-

ture. Social Problems 35 (4): 442–457.

—(1996). Turn organization: One intersection of grammar and interaction. In Interaction

and Grammar, E. Ochs, E. A. Scheglo¤, and S. A. Thompson (eds.), 52–133. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

Scott, M. B. and Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociologial Review 33: 46–62.

Sterponi, L. and Pontecorvo, C. (2003). Morale situata: Costruzione discorsiva delle norme

e del posizionamento morale attraverso l’attivita del ‘render conto’. Rivista Italiana di Psi-

colinguistica Applicata III (I): 139–158.

Stivers, T. and Heritage, J. (2001). Breaking the sequential mold: Answering ‘more than the

question’ during comprehensive history taking. Text 21 (1/2): 151–185.

Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica 48 (3/4): 197–228.

Woo‰tt, R. (1992). Telling Tales of the Unexpected. The Organization of Factual Discourse.

Hemel Hempstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf.

—(2001). Raising the dead: Reported speech in medium–sitter interaction. Discourse Studies

3 (3): 351–374.

Renata Galatolo is Researcher at the Department of Communication Disciplines at Bologna

University, where she teaches Psychology of Communication and Discursive Psychology.

Her main research interests concern the study of natural occurring interactions in institu-

tional and professional settings. She has published several articles on miscommunication

phenomena, conflict talk, storytelling in conversation, and direct reported speech. She is co-

editor, with G. Pallotti, of the book La conversazione (1999). Address for correspondence:

Department of Communication Disciplines, Bologna University, Via Azzo Gardino, 23,

40122 Bologna, Italy [email protected].

Paul Drew is Professor of Sociology at the University of York, UK. His research in conver-

sation analysis focuses on communicative practices underlying social interaction, and on in-

teraction in workplace and institutional settings such as courtrooms and medical consulta-

tions (see, e.g., Talk at Work, co-edited with John Heritage). He is currently investigating

a‰liation and disa‰liation in talk-in-interaction, as part of a six-nation European (ESF-

funded) project coordinated by Anna Lindstrom at the University of Uppsala, Sweden. Ad-

dress for correspondence: Department of Sociology, University of York, Heslington, York

Y10 5DD, UK [email protected].




Documents

Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony