Cover not available

Article published In: Teaching and practising interpreting: From traditional to new remote approaches
Edited by Pilar Rodríguez Reina and Estefanía Flores Acuña
[Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts 6:2] 2020
► pp. 131–148

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

“Yo intenté defenderme y se me cayó desnuca’”

Procedimientos de inagentivación y reticencia en el interrogatorio de un acusado de feminicidio: Notas preliminares para la formación de intérpretes judiciales

 | Università degli Studi di Bergamo

Article language: Spanish

Published online: 12 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ttmc.00049.gar
Resumen
El presente trabajo se inscribe en la senda marcada por varios estudios de lingüística forense (Ehrlich, Susan. 2001. Representing Rape. Language and Sexual Consent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and Power in Court. A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, , ed. 2007. The Language of Sexual Crime. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2007. “The Elicitation of a Confession: Admitting Murder but Resisting an Accusation of Attempted Rape.” In The Language of Sexual Crime, ed. by Janet Cotterill, 16–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) y aborda el tema de la reconstrucción lingüística de la violencia de género durante el debate oral y público de un juicio del Tribunal del Jurado, en el cual se acusaba a un joven varón de haber asesinado con alevosía a su excompañera sentimental. En concreto, se investigan las estructuras sintácticas del español empleadas en la sala por el acusado para declinar las responsabilidades penales derivadas de la comisión del delito. De hecho, el escenario de eventos que el acusado intenta construir a lo largo del interrogatorio directo y del contrainterrogatorio estriba en un conjunto de rutinas lingüísticas encaminadas a atenuar, difuminar, oscurecer o borrar totalmente las huellas de su agentividad de la reconstrucción verbal de la dinámica del asesinato (Berk-Selingson 2007). Tras evidenciar la relación entre no agentividad y reticencia en las respuestas del acusado a las preguntas de la acusación y de la defensa, se barajan las posibles razones de la conducta verbal del procesado, aparentemente ilógica, no cooperativa e improductiva, que, al negar lo obvio, produjo una sentencia de condena a la pena máxima prevista por el ordenamiento penal español.
Abstract
This paper follows in the wake of already-existing forensic linguistics research (Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2007. “The Elicitation of a Confession: Admitting Murder but Resisting an Accusation of Attempted Rape.” In The Language of Sexual Crime, ed. by Janet Cotterill, 16–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, , ed. 2007. The Language of Sexual Crime. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and Power in Court. A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; Ehrlich, Susan. 2001. Representing Rape. Language and Sexual Consent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar) and addresses the issue of the linguistic reconstruction of gender violence during the public hearing of a trial held in a Jury Court in Spain, in which a young man was accused of murdering his former girlfriend with premeditation. In particular, this study focuses on the syntactic structures used by the defendant in order to escape the criminal responsibilities arising from the commission of the offence. In fact, the scenario of events that the defendant tries to reconstruct in his answers to direct and cross-examination is based on a constellation of linguistic routines aimed at mitigating, obscuring, diffusing or totally eliminating the traces of his agency from the dynamics of murder (Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2007. “The Elicitation of a Confession: Admitting Murder but Resisting an Accusation of Attempted Rape.” In The Language of Sexual Crime, ed. by Janet Cotterill, 16–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). After highlighting the close link between non-agency and reticence in the defendant's responses to the prosecution and the defence, we discuss the rationale for the defendant's apparently illogical, non-cooperative and unproductive verbal behaviour, which ultimately caused him to face prosecution to the fullest extent of the Spanish criminal law.
Article outline
  • 1.Introducción
  • 2.Los hechos probados
  • 3.La gramática de la no agentividad del acusado
    • 3.1Atenuación del papel agentivo
    • 3.2Difuminación de responsabilidades
    • 3.3Oscurecimiento o eliminación de la agentividad
  • 4.Conclusiones
  • Notas
  • Referencias
References (32)
Referencias
Atkinson, Maxwell, and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Behavior in Legal Settings. London: MacMillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bellucci, Patrizia, and María Cristina Torchia. 2013. “La regia del discorso in tribunale: il potere delle domande.” In Lingua e diritto. Scritto e parlato nelle professioni legali, ed. by Alarico Mariani Marini, and Federigo Bambi, 79–106. Pisa: Pisa University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 2007. “The Elicitation of a Confession: Admitting Murder but Resisting an Accusation of Attempted Rape.” In The Language of Sexual Crime, ed. by Janet Cotterill, 16–41. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Briz, Antonio. 2010. El español coloquial. Situación y uso. Madrid: ArcoLibros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bromwich, William. 2013. “‘Mrs Buckley, you’re telling a pack of lies’: Cross-examination in the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh.” In Language in the Negociation of Justice, ed. by Chris Williams and Girolamo Tessuto, 15–31. Burlington: Ashgate.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Calvo, José. 1993. El discurso de los hechos: narrativismo en la interpretación operativa. Madrid: Tecnos.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. “Modelo narrativo del juicio de hecho; inventio y ratiocinatio.” In Horizontes de la Filosofía del Derecho, ed. by Virgilio Zapatero Gómez, 93–103. Alcalá de Henares: Universidad de Alcalá.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Capps, Lisa, and Elinor Ochs. 1995. Constructing Panic: The Discourse of Agoraphobia. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and Power in Court. A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
, ed. 2007. The Language of Sexual Crime. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1992. “Contested Evidence in Courtroom Cross-examination: the Case of a Trial for Rape.” In Talk at Work, ed. by Paul Drew, and John Heritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 1994. From Grammar to Politics: Linguistic Anthropology in a Western Samoan Village. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Linguistic Anthropology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan. 2001. Representing Rape. Language and Sexual Consent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Estalella del Pino, Jordi. 2014. El abogado eficaz. Cómo convencer, persuadir e influir en los juicios. Madrid: La Ley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gómez Torrego, Leonardo. 1992. Valores gramaticales de ‘SE’. Madrid: Arco/Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1998. La impersonalidad gramatical: descripción y norma. Madrid: Arco/Libros.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gutiérrez Ordóñez, Salvador. 1997. “/Se/ y construcciones inacusativas.” Moenia 31: 171–191.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. “Los dativos.” In Gramática Descriptiva de la Lengua Española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, 1855–1930. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haegeman, Liliane, and Jacqueline Gueron. 1999. English Grammar: A Generative Perspective. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyden, Margareta, and Imelda Colgan McCarthy. 1994. “Women Battering and Father-Daughter Incest Disclosure: Discourses of Denial and Acknowledgement.” Discourse & Society 51: 543–65. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Iglesias Bango, Manuel. 1991. La voz en la gramática española. León: Universidad de León.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 2007. No pienses en un elefante. Lenguaje y debate político. Madrid: Complutense.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory M. 1993. Reproducing Rape: Domination through Talk in Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
NGLE = Real Academia Española, and Asociación de Academias de Lengua Española. 2009. Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. Nueva Gramática de la Lengua Española. Manual. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
O’Connor, Patricia E. 1995. “Speaking of Crime: ‘I don’t Know what Made me Do it.’” Discourse & Society 61: 429–56. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rymes, Betsy. 1995. “The Construction of Moral Agency in the Narratives of High School Drop-outs.” Discourse & Society 61: 495–516. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Emanuel Scheglogg, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turntaking in Conversation.” Language 50 (4): 696–735. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saeed, John I. 2009. Semantics. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
STSJ = Sentencia Tribunal Superior de Justicia de la Comunidad Valenciana 2/2015, 3 de febrero 2015. [URL] [16/02/2018]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue