4. NO FORENSIC VOICE 5. Targeting 6. Metapragmatic Attack 7. Ethos

Question 1

Definiton: Targeting

Answer 1

Assigning negative features to persons of another party or a witness

Question 2

Source: Targeting

Answer 2

Derived from Gibbons pragmatic strategies ‘person targeted’ (2003) and further explored by Heffer (2005)

Question 3

Key elements: Targeting

Answer 3

• Deliberately set out to damage ‘face’ eg. outright calling someone a liar in the witness stand
• Violating face threatening act (FTA Brown and Levinson 1978) mitigation techniques eg. a defending lawyer belittling a witness
• Speakers can individually target social identities eg. calling the suspected a criminal

Example: A prosecuting lawyer drawing focus on the use of non-standard language by the suspected to attach negative connotations

Question 4

Critique: Targeting

Answer 4

The term is simply an umbrella for a range of strategies used to ‘target’ individuals.

Is it actually useful in its self?

Question 5

Significance: Targeting

Answer 5

Useful in destroying the credibility of a witness and therefore dismissing their story

Question 6

Definition: Metapragmatic attack

Answer 6

A type of targeting; drawing attention to and attacking an element of a speaker’s pragmatic behaviour

Question 7

Source: Metapragmatic attack

Answer 7

Jacquemet 1996 derived from Silverstein’s 1976 ‘metapragmatics’ concept

Question 8

Key elements: Metapragmatic attack

Answer 8

• Significant tool for targeting opposition’s identities and damaging credibility
• Focus on attacking social behaviour that is ostracised

Example: A prosecutor highlighting the defendants use of ‘wanna’ instead of ‘want to’, form potentially utilised by unruly youths or gangs?

Question 9

Critique: Metapragmatic attack

Answer 9

A complicated way to convey the idea of attacking one’s communicative behaviour, this could be simpler.

Question 10

Significance: Metapragmatic attack

Answer 10

Useful in destroying the credibility of a witness (attacks performance and identity) and therefore dismissing their story

Question 11

Definition: Ethos

Answer 11

Appeal to the character and status of a speaker

Question 12

Source: Ethos

Answer 12

Aristotle on Rhetoric: one of 3 modes of persuasion (logos, ethos and pathos)

Question 13

Key elements: Ethos

Answer 13

• Fundamental for determining credibility of a witness (especially experts)
• Linked closely to issues of trust and authority

Eg.

• Explains success of lie detector technology sellers
• Promoting and deflating credentials of expert witnesses

Question 14

Critique: Ethos

Answer 14

It is quite a vague concept, however its use can be identified in forensic settings

Question 15

Significance: Ethos

Answer 15

Authority of forensic rhetors and trust in them by audience is fundamental to forensic persuasion