<!-- image -->

## Interjections in American and Danish courtroom interaction: A linguistic and legal cultural comparison

Sune Sønderberg Mortensen Roskilde University sunes@ruc.dk

Abstract: This study compares the use of interjections by the defence lawyers in an American and a Danish criminal trial during their direct-examination of their clients, i.e. the defendants. Through quantitative and qualitative analyses it  is  shown that the Danish lawyer uses interjections much more frequently than the American lawyer, and that the interjections used by the American lawyer tend to have different interactional functions than those used by the Danish lawyer. Thus, while the American lawyer practices a composed and transactional  style  of  interaction,  the  Danish  lawyer  adopts  a  fairly  loose and casual style. The interactional styles of the two lawyers, as seen through their use of interjections, are discussed and explained as reflections of central cultural traits of the two countries' legal traditions, drawing, amongst others, on  the  basic  divide  between  common  law  adversarialism  and  civil  law inquisitorialism.

## 1. Introduction 1

## 1.1. The no longer so neglected part of speech

After the groundbreaking treatment of interjections in a 1992 special issue of Journal of Pragmatics (e.g. Ameka 1992), studies of interjections seem to have been gradually accepted as linguistics proper - at least in branches of linguistics concerned with meanings and socio-cultural functions (see e.g. Wierzbicka 2003; Hansen & Heltoft 2011; Velmezova 2011; Goddard 2013; Pei-Jung Lee 2017; Le Grezause 2017). While the traditional negligence of interjections may still constitute an important lesson for linguistics, the question these days is not so much - or at least should not be - whether interjections are important or not, but rather what they mean, how they are used, what we can learn from them, and so on. This paper deals with aspects of these questions in the special context of criminal trial procedures.

Interjections are widely held to reflect cultural values, perhaps more densely than other parts of speech, e.g.:

… far from being universal and 'natural' signs which don't have to be learnt, interjections are often among the most characteristic peculiarities of individual cultures. (Wierzbicka 2003:285)

Not only are the semantics of individual interjections steeped in culture, the norms of how and when to use various kinds of interjections may also be seen as reflections of cultural values and practices, or as Wierzbicka has it:

… no definitions of the kind provided by […] conventional dictionaries […] would teach the reader in what situations wow , gee , ah or phew would be inappropriate. (Wierzbicka 2003:287)

## 1.2. Comparing legal cultures through interjections

The  language  of  courtrooms  is  regulated  by  special  institutional,  legal  and social  norms,  as  well  as  strategic  considerations  of  the  trial  parties  (e.g. Atkinson & Drew 1979; Drew 1992; Gibbons 2003; Mortensen & Mortensen 2017). Such features are constitutive elements of what we may consider the cultural  practices  of  the  courtrooms,  embedded  in  broader  languacultural (Agar 1996) and indeed legal cultural traditions:

As  such,  law  in  any  country  is  formulated,  construed  and  enforced through  language.  Under  each  legal  system,  the  language  that  has developed for hundreds of years for the purposes of a particular legal system  reflects  the  idiosyncratic  traits  of  that  legal  system  and  legal culture. (Bednarek 2014:32-33)

Thus,  the  norms  of  language  use  in  a  trial  hearing,  including  for  example the norms of how and when to use (or avoid) interjections, reflect aspects of  the  legal  culture  in  question.  Differences  between  the  legal  traditions  of e.g. the American and the Danish society may be traced in numerous ways in  the  interactional  styles  employed  in  the  courtrooms,  especially  by  the professionals  representing  the  legal  institution.  In  this  paper  I  investigate one such linguistic trace, as I compare the use of interjections by the defence lawyers in an American and a Danish criminal trial during their examination of their clients, i.e. the defendants. On the basis of quantitative and qualitative analyses of their use of interjections, I discuss how the differences between the lawyers' interactional styles reflect aspects of the legal cultures of the two countries and jurisdictions.

## 2. Courtroom interaction in the USA and in Denmark

## 2.1. The American adversarial courtroom

The two major Western legal traditions are the common law system on the one hand, which employs what is known as the adversarial system of trial and  is  associated  mainly  with  Anglophone  countries,  including  the  USA, and the civil law system on the other hand, which employs the inquisitorial system  of  trial  and  is  associated  with  most  of  Continental  Europe  (e.g. Damaška 1997; Komter & Malsch 2012; Jackson & Summers 2012; Bednarek 2014). Differences in ideology, form and practice between the two systems abound, one significant aspect being the implications of adversarialism and inquisitorialism for how the purpose of truth-seeking is conceived:

Adversarial and inquisitorial procedures are structured around different normative views of the trial.  Under the adversarial  ideal  the  law  is  a game, courts are where the contest takes place, and the goal of criminal procedure is to make sure the outcome is fair, even if the prosecution does not uncover the truth […] Under the inquisitorial ideal, the goal of the law is fact finding, and the criminal trial is a search for truth. (Kahn 2004:13)

Truth, then, under the adversarial system of trial, has been dubbed 'formal legal truth' , to be distinguished in principle from actual or 'substantive truth':

I define as 'formal legal truth' whatever is found as fact by the legal factfinder (judge or lay jurors or both), whether it accords with substantive truth or not. (Summers 1999:498)

Bednarek (2014), comparing American and Polish (inquisitorial) courtroom interaction,  discusses  aspects  of  how  the  adversarial  formal  legal  truth approach is reflected in the courtroom examination style:

In the United States, the process of examining witnesses and the search for the truth may be compared to the process of storytelling, owing to the  fact  that  the  prosecution  and  defense  are  allowed  to  present  two different constructs of the events related to the crime, versions obtained through meticulous questioning of their witnesses. However, the process of examining witnesses and the search for the truth in Poland may not be compared to the process of telling a story […] the examination of witnesses is conducted by an impartial judge who represents neither the injured person nor the defendant. Such procedure is to guarantee an impartial trial and search for the objective truth. (Bednarek 2014:215)

Another consequence of the adversarial system of trial is a relatively high level of combativeness between the parties:

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 2019 (152-173)

'Discrediting the witness' , 'disgracing the witness' , 'attacking' the witness's testimony, 'pouncing' if contradictions arise during  the witness's testimony [...] are typical aggressive actions characterizing the activity of the cross-examiner. (Biscetti 2006:216-217)

The formal and aggressive mode of interaction is linguistically visible on many parameters, including, it seems, parameters relating to interjections:

The whole point of the exchange is to solicit a response that will inform the  jury,  who  are  watching  and  listening  and  will  eventually  pass judgment on the case. This state of affairs is confirmed and reinforced by the attorney's practice of not responding to the answers with 'oh' , or indeed with any kind of receipt object ( yeah , uh huh , etc.). (Heritage & Clayman 2010:175)

Examples  of  the  prototypical  aggressive  adversarial  examination  style  can be found in the O.J. Simpson trial transcripts from the 90's, as illustrated in Example 1:

## Example 1:

Lawyer:

Now, in 1989, when you had this altercation with Nicole, you had beaten Nicole in the past, hadn't you?

Simpson:

No.

Lawyer:

And in this 1989 incident, it was the last straw for Nicole, wasn't

it?

Simpson:

No.

Lawyer:

And she told you that, didn't she?

Simpson:

No.

Lawyer:

You had beaten her in the past, and on one occasion, you and she went to a doctor and lied about what happened, true?

Simpson:

No.

Lawyer:

And told the doctor that she fell off a bicycle. True?

Note the salient lack of acknowledging response from the lawyer, who even introduces several questions by and , bluntly treating Simpson's negative replies as if they were in fact affirmations.

## 2.2. The Continental inquisitorial courtroom

Civil  law  jurisdictions  in  Continental  Europe  are  known  to  offer  a  less aggressive  and  more  relaxed  courtroom  atmosphere  than  that  of  the adversarial  courtroom,  although  such  characterisations  are  typically  based on personal experiences and general observations, rather than e.g. linguistic documentation:

Anglo-American  observers  of  the  court  scene  are  regularly  struck by  the  rarity  and  the  subdued  nature  of  challenges  to  the  witnesses' credibility. If such a challenge occurs, it mainly focuses on the witness's reliability  with  respect  to  facts  to  which  he  has  been  deposed  and seldom escalates into a general attack on his character or reputation for truthfulness. With apparent insouciance, Continental courts freely rely on uninterrupted narrative accounts - the testimonial yield of relatively mild, unpenetrating interrogations. (Damaška 1997:80-81)

## 2.3. The Danish hybrid courtroom

The Danish system of trial is often characterized as a kind of hybrid between the adversarial and the inquisitorial system, since, on the one hand, Danish trials are organized in an adversarial-style participation pattern featuring two actively opposing sides and a fairly passive, impartial judge (Jacobsen 2002). On the other hand, the general atmosphere of the trials are less combative and perhaps more inclined to cooperation across sides in search for the truth:

[Some] civil law countries, including Italy and Denmark, provide for [an]  extensive  questioning  regime,  which  bears  some  resemblance  to adversarial  cross-examination,  although  the  judge  retains  very  close control over the questions posed and generally ensures that witnesses are treated with respect. Most commentators agree that questioning is much less aggressive in form… (Doak, McGourlay & Thomas 2018:31)

While  very  little  research  exists  on  Danish  courtroom  interaction  (see however  Jacobsen  2002;  Mortensen  &  Mortensen  2017),  anecdotal  reports seem to indicate that the examination style in Danish courts is unaggressive and casual:

… one of the salient differences [noticed by visiting judges from five European countries] is how informal everything is. You don't have to ask for permission to speak or stand up, and there's far more dialogue throughout  than  any  of  the  visitors  are  used  to  from  their  home countries. It's almost snug [orig. 'hyggeligt']. [My translation]. (Kæraa 2011:25-26)

Still, observations of this kind remain more or less undocumented. The most extensive direct comparison of the interactional styles of the adversarial and the  inquisitorial  courtrooms  is  probably  Bednarek  (2014),  quoted  earlier. Bednarek employs three different linguistically oriented approaches for the comparison, but none of them seem to address the questions of formality or aggressiveness. Moreover, the comparison seems at risk of being skewed, as the American data are taken from the O.J. Simpson murder trial, while the Polish data are from a highly different petty robbery trial featuring a 17-year- old defendant. In what follows I will show how an investigation of lawyers' use of interjections may illuminate key cultural differences, as discussed above, between the legal systems of the USA and Denmark. First, I will outline how interjections  may  be  defined  and  understood  in  relation  to  the  courtroom context.

## 3. The functions of interjections in courtroom interaction

Hansen & Heltoft (2011:213) employ several criteria for their basic definition of interjections, displayed here in my adaptation:

- They are a word class with no inflectional options
- They can function as separate speech acts or as modifications of surrounding speech acts
- They can be incorporated in the far left periphery of a sentence

While interjections as a word class may often be associated with more or less uncontrolled expressions of emotion, e.g. ah , ugh , phew (Quirk et al. 1985:67), wow , yuk , phew (Matthews 2014), such outbursts are not the typical kinds of interjections observed in a courtroom. Rather, basic response words such as yes and no seem to prevail, since they are in many cases the default answers expected  from  witnesses  and  defendants  during  questioning.  However, interjections, including response interjections, are also used by the examining lawyers themselves, which is the focus of this study. One way lawyers may use interjections is for evaluating the defendant's answer by adding a third part to a question sequence (a practice first described for school teachers, cf. Sinclair & Coulthard 1975). Gibbons (2003) provides an example of this from a courtroom context:

Evaluative  third  parts  may  be  used  in  legal  settings  to  support  or challenge answers to questions, for example:

- C:  Would you agree with me that to be able to complete that process the Defendant needs to read or understand English?
- P:  The Defendant didn't read the record of Interview.
- C: No that wasn't my question with respect. Questions at large ... (Gibbons 2003:124)

Moreover, based on Swedish courtroom data, Adelswärd, Aronsson & Linell (1988) comment on the supportive function such feedback signals may serve:

Courtroom examinations are, of course, rather constrained in that judges and lawyers keep asking questions and seldom comment on defendants' answers  or  reciprocate  information,  whereas  defendants  respond  to questions  and  only  rarely  take  any  kind  of  communicative  initiative.

However,  judges  and  lawyers  do  sometimes  confirm  or  acknowledge defendants'  responses  before  moving  on  to  their  next  question.  The relative  frequency  of  such  feedback  may  therefore  serve  as  one  type of  index  of  positive  attention  on  the  part  of  the  legal  professionals. (Adelswärd, Aronsson & Linell 1988:271-272)

To account for this social aspect of the interjectional functions, I invoke the general  notion  of  foregrounding  vs.  backgrounding  of  'positive  relational goals' ,  as  discussed  in  relation  to  doctor-patient  interactions  by  Coupland, Coupland & Robinson (1992).

To distinguish between general functions of interjections, the semantic scope properties of interjections are a relevant criterion. Aijmer (2002), for instance, discusses two different functions of oh based on whether oh relates to preceding utterances or the following/current utterance:

Backwards-looking oh is typically a response marker  (reception marker)  with  information  management  tasks  such  as  acknowledging and accepting new information or recognizing a correction. […] The forwards-looking  particle oh can  be  associated  with  affect  and  has  a reinforcing or intensifying function. For example, when oh occurs in the lexicalized combination oh God , the effect is stronger than if the speaker uses the simple God . (Aijmer 2002:99)

Hansen  &  Heltoft  (2011)  employ  the  notion  of  scope  to  account  for  such backward  and  forward  operating  orientations  of  interjections,  and  on  this basis  identify  a  plain  response  function  of  interjections  as  one  involving simple backward scope:

Thus, in the function discussed so far, the response words are said to have scope to the left, anaphorical scope, as it were (Hansen & Heltoft 2011:1121, my translation)

Moreover, like Aijmer, they identify an emotive/affective function of interjections, in which the interjection (if not used in isolation) has forward scope over the utterance it introduces. However, this interjectional function is not present in the data studied here.

Hansen & Heltoft furthermore delimit a group of interjections used by the speaker to indicate how adjacent utterances are to be understood in relation to each other or to points of view assumed present in the discourse (Hansen & Heltoft  2011:1131-1132).  They  provide  the  example jamen ,  a  Danish  interjection best  translated  as but (although but is  a  conjunction,  not  an  interjection), which may be said to have bi-directional scope, in that it establishes a relation between discursive units. This is one of the key functions associated with the notion of discourse markers (Schiffrin 1987) and, following Aijmer (2002:98), I will refer to it as the discourse-organizing function of interjections.

Finally,  Hansen  &  Heltoft  identify  a  more  peripheral phatic function  of interjections, exemplified with hesitation markers such as æh and øh ' er'/'uh' , used for governing the interactional 'floor' , i.e. essentially the communication channel (Jakobson 1960). Phatic interjections stand out by having no scope relations to the preceding or ensuing discourse.

Thus, a working typology of general interjectional functions based on scope relations may be outlined as in figure 1:

Figure 1: Interjectional functions and scope relations

| Interjectional functions      | Scope relations            |
|-------------------------------|----------------------------|
| Plain response function       | Backward scope             |
| Emotive function              | Forward scope              |
| Discourse-organizing function | Backward and forward scope |
| Phatic function               | No scope relation          |

It  is  important  to  note,  however,  that  these  categories  are  fuzzy,  in  that interactional contributions are arguably always related somehow to aspects of  the  preceding  and  ensuing  or  expected  discourse.  In  other  words,  no interjection is likely to be used for only one function and with a completely unambiguous scope relation  in  authentic  interaction.  For  example,  a  plain response interjection, defined here as having backward scope, is often followed by an utterance confirming the response, e.g. ' Are you married? Yes, I am / No, I'm single' , in which case it may be said to actually have bi-directional scope (Hansen & Heltoft 2011:1118). However, the words following the interjection are then restricted to conveying the same meaning as the interjection itself - a case of semantic reduplication, as it were - otherwise they would rather form  a  separate  utterance,  beyond  the  interjection's  scope,  e.g.  ' Are  you married? Yes, why do you ask? / No, I prefer living alone' . While for this reason I  exclude 'semantic reduplication' from the notion of scope employed here, certainly borderline cases with unclear scope relations may still emerge, e.g. ' Are you married? Yes, I'm afraid I am' . In the data analyses presented below, my categorization of interjectional functions and scope relations necessarily involves a great deal of interpretation, and is based on what I regard as the most plausible or salient readings in each interactional context. The examples provided help illustrate how individual analyses have been carried out.

## 4. Lawyers' use of interjections in trial examinations

## 4.1. Data and method

The data collected for this study consists of transcribed audio/video recordings from a Danish as well as an American criminal trial, both related to physical violence.  The  Danish  trial  was  conducted  in  August  2015  at  the  Court  of Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, after which a copy of the court's automated audio recording was provided to me. Prior to questioning the participants were asked for, and gave their, consent to the recording being used - in full anonymity -  for  linguistic  research  purposes.  The  American  trial  was  conducted  in March 2007 at the Oakland County Circuit Court, Michigan. The trial was video recorded and parts of the video recording were later made public by the  defence  lawyer's  firm  on  Y ouTube  (ambroselawfirm  2008),  from  where I  collected them. In the USA, court recordings are public domain material, meaning the video footage can legally be used for e.g. the present purpose, without the explicit individual consent of the participants. 2

For both cases, only data from the interaction between the defendant and his lawyer in direct examination were chosen for analysis. Thus, in the Danish case,  the  entire  direct  examination  of  the  defendant  was  chosen,  whereas for  the  American data, approximately the first half of the examination was chosen 3 , roughly corresponding in total number of words spoken, see figure 2 below.

Figure 2: Data overview

|                |   Words spoken 4 |   Duration in seconds |
|----------------|------------------|-----------------------|
| DKdata, total  |             1170 |                   320 |
| Defendant      |              516 |                       |
| Lawyer         |              654 |                       |
| US data, total |             1053 |                   405 |
| Defendant      |              513 |                       |
| Lawyer         |              540 |                       |

The  chosen  excerpts  were  transcribed  using  CLAN  transcription  software, employing orthographic conventions as far as possible (cf. appendix 1). While orthographic transcription involves generalization, and therefore the risk of misrepresentation,  it  offers  the  benefit  of  allowing  for  quantitative  analysis and comparison.

All interjections spoken by the defence lawyers in the Danish and the American data sets were manually singled out and individually coded for interjectional functions, based on the typology outlined in figure 1 above. Interjections with unclear functions or functions not clearly covered by the typology were assigned to a residual category labelled 'Indeterminable/other function' .

American defence lawyer - 8 interjections out of 540 words

(1.5 interjections per 100 words)

okay

yeah

oh

50

now

2

2

In the following sections, for each of the two data sets I first present a quantitative overview of the defence lawyer's use of interjections, and then provide examples illustrating how the interjections function in interaction. Finally, I compare main characteristics of the American and the Danish lawyer's use of interjections.

## 4.2. The American defence lawyer's use of interjections

## 4.2.1. Quantitative overview

Beginning with the American defence lawyer, his use of interjections corresponds well with the claim made by Heritage & Clayman (2010), as discussed in section 2.1., that receipt objects are not part of the typical register of trial examinations. Out of a total of 540 words spoken, the lawyer uses a mere 8 tokens of interjections, corresponding to 1.5 interjections per 100 words. The interjections are: okay (x2), yeah , oh , so 5 (x2) and now (x2). Figure 3 shows the 8 interjections and how they are distributed across interjectional functions:

5

· Indeterminable/other function

Figure 3: Interjections across functions - American data

<!-- image -->

## 4.2.2. Plain response function okay

As figure 3 illustrates, most of the interjections used by the American lawyer are  used  for  discourse-organizing  functions,  while  only  one  can  be  said  to convey a plain response to the defendant's statement, i.e. one of the occurrences of okay . 6 This interjection is displayed in example 2:

## Example 2:

Lawyer:

is there any time when the c- (.) when your car is actually stopped (3.7)

Defendant:

yeah i- yeah it is stop and go there is times when the car is stopped

(0.4)

Lawyer:  → okay (1.3) and at any time do you (1.1) the car that's stopped in front of you does (.) does somebody get out of the car in front of you

The interjection okay is  (in)famously multifunctional (cf. e.g. Mortensen & Mortensen 2009; Gaines 2011) and may express, amongst others, the simple acceptance of new information (e.g. 'okay, I see'), or an attempt to close/pause the topic at hand and introduce a new/intermediary topic (e.g. 'okay, I need to go'). In example 2, while the topic is certainly developing, i.e. from the defendant's stopped car to the stopped car in front of him, the lawyer clearly indicates, through the conjunction and , that his questions are to be understood as connected and belonging to the same line of reasoning. Hence, okay is not to be understood as a topic shifter, but as a simple expression of acknowledgment of what the defendant says. Its scope, then, is backward (over the defendant's statement), which warrants the 'plain response function' categorization. Moreover, the fact that the nature of the response is acknowledgment rather than rejection is indicated by the subcategorization 'positive' . The topic shifter variant of okay , on the other hand, which is not present in the American data, but in the Danish data, would constitute a 'discourse-organizing function' , due to having both backward and forward scope.

## 4.2.3. Discourse-organizing function yeah and oh

While the interjections yeah and oh may often be used in plain response functions (cf. Aijmer's analysis, section 3 above), their use in this context is somewhat different. In addition to expressing the reception of the defendant's previous utterance, they both serve to reorientate the interaction, as illustrated in examples 3 and 4:

```
Example 3: Lawyer: and (.) what do you see when (0.5) they get out of that car (1.6)
```

Defendant:

they get out of the car they get out and they start walking back (0.5) towards my car stop the car (0.9) XXX then they get out and start walking back towards my car

Lawyer:  → yeah when he gets out of the car

I'm gonna ask you to (.) sit (1.1) in the seat up to the left (0.9) so you (1.2) can show the jury (1.1) what the driver does

## Example 4: Defendant:

it' s a Monte Carlo (1.5) it's a: (.) eighty mid-eighties model (4.7)

Lawyer:

these (0.6) how many people get out of the c- out of that Monte Carlo

(0.7)

Defendant:

two people (0.8) two guys

(2.2)

Lawyer:

this would represent XXX

Defendant:

XXX (indicating confusion)

Lawyer:  →

oh the the car in front of you (pointing) (.) and your car okay (0.9)

Defendant:

okay

In both examples, the interaction revolves around a car (a Chevrolet Monte Carlo) that stopped in front of the defendant's car, and the lawyer has his client sit on chairs arranged as car seats to illustrate how individuals were located during the incident. In example 3, the lawyer uses yeah (pronounced with a vowel reduction and glottal stop) to assure his client that he is listening, while at the same time disrupting his testimony to direct him to a different chair. In example 4, the lawyer is explaining some details of the chair arrangement, and is interrupted by his client's (inaudible) expression of confusion. The lawyer then uses oh to express that he has understood his client's expression of confusion/query for clarification, and to signal that his following utterances are to be understood as clarification.

Thus, while both the interjections contain some kind of acknowledgment of the defendant's talk, this is not their only or main function, as they basically serve a more transactional discourse-organizing purpose.

## 4.2.3. Discourse-organizing function so and now

The two remaining types of interjections used, twice each, by the American defence lawyer also occur in discourse-organizing functions as they, like yeah and oh , have both backward and forward scope. They differ, however, by not featuring explicit acknowledgment; all they do is steer the examination forward, in different ways, as illustrated in example 5:

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 2019 (152-173)

Example 5:

Lawyer:

and when you see him do that (.) can you hear what he's saying to you

(.)

Defendant:

no

(1.2)

Lawyer:   →

and so starts motioning saying something what do you do

(1.1) the driver (2.3) gets out of  the car (.) walks back

(1.0)

Defendant:

I crack my (.) door my driver's side door (1.3) XXX I can't roll my window down cause it's broken so I crack the door to hear what he's saying

(1.1)

Lawyer:

and when you crack your win- you crack your door (.) are you able to hear what he's saying

Defendant:

yes

(.)

Lawyer:   →

now what is he saying

Prosecutor:

[prosecution] calls for hearsay

In the beginning of example 5, the lawyer uses so to introduce a summing up of what his client has told the court so far, in order to arrive at the next, minute steps of the recount. After having established that the defendant cracked his door open and was able to hear the words of the person standing there, the lawyer then uses now to alert the court and his client of the pivotal status of his follow-up question. A similar function of now has been described as the marking of 'proximization of threat' (Abuarrah 2016). Indeed, evoking a sense of fear and imminent threat to his client is a plausible defence strategy, which leads the prosecutor to interrupt the examination by objecting to the question.

Overall,  the  American  defence  lawyer's  direct  examination  of  his  client  is characterized by limited use of interjections and the preponderance of discourse-organizing interjectional functions, all consistent with a fairly transactional style of examination, where positive relational goals are backgrounded.

## 4.3. The Danish defence lawyer's use of interjections

## 4.3.1. Quantitative overview

Turning to the Danish data, a quite different picture emerges, as the Danish defence lawyer uses no less than 74 interjections out of 654 words spoken, amounting to 11.3 interjections per 100 words. The interjections are: ja 'yes' (x17), nej 'no'/'right' (x10), mh 'mh'/'uh-huh' (x5), okay ' okay' (x21), altså 'I

Danish defence lawyer - 74 interjections out of 654 words

(11.3 interjections per 100 words)

ja

nej

mh

okay

altså

øh

17

1

mean'/'you know' (x9) and øh 'er' (x12). Figure 4 shows the 74 interjections and how they are distributed across interjectional functions:

<!-- image -->

5

· Plain response function (positive)

· Plain response function (negative)

· Discourse-organizing function

· Phatic function

· Indeterminable/other function

Figure 4: Interjections across functions - Danish data

## 4.3.2. Plain response function ja, nej, mh and okay

As illustrated, the majority of the interjections used by the Danish lawyer occur in various plain response functions - they include ja 'yes' , nej 'no'/'right' , mh 'mh'/'uh-huh' and most occurrences of okay ' okay' , all illustrated in example 6:

```
Example 6 7 : Lawyer: then you say s- ask can I pass through or something Defendant: yes Lawyer:  → ja (.) do they react? (.)
```

'yes'

'no' / 'right'

5

'mh' / 'uh-huh'

18

'okay'

5

2

2

'I mean' / 'you know'

12

'er'

## Sune Sønderberg Mortensen Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 2019 (152-173)

Defendant: no Lawyer:  → nej Defendant: like they didn't hear me Lawyer:  → okay and then you just walk through like you said before ⌈ that (.) you pressed ⌉ through Defendant: ⌊ that's right yes ⌋ yes (0.5) Lawyer: could it be that you made some movement with your foot or something you knoDefendant: no (0.6) Lawyer:  → you didn't do that nej (.) ⌈ okay ⌉ Defendant: ⌊ I just ⌋ XXX wanted to go away from there Lawyer:  → ja (.) okay (.) then you get down to the end of the stairway Defendant: uh-huh Lawyer: and we'll also see in the video camera shortly that you get a couple of metres away Defendant: yes I told ⌈ them ⌉ to check ⌈ the video camera ⌉ Lawyer:  → ⌊ ja ⌋ ⌊ ja ⌋ Defendant: because it: ⌈ I knew ⌉ there were Lawyer:  → ⌊ okay ⌋ Defendant: video cameras ⌈ there ⌉ Lawyer:  → ⌊ mh ⌋ (.) then you said before that various things were shouted at you ⌈ among others ⌉ I'll kill you or something Defendant: ⌊ yes ⌋ yes I'll kill you ⌈ I'll ⌉ kill you Lawyer:  → ⌊ ja ⌋ As example 6 illustrates, throughout the examination the lawyer frequently offers affirmative feedback while his client speaks, i.e. through backchannelling, as well as in turn transitions, i.e. in the form of evaluative third parts. In all cases the lawyer's responses are positive, except for one occurrence of nej 'no' , in which the lawyer corrects the defendant's misunderstanding of his question, as shown in example 7: Example 7: Lawyer: how was it (.) you know ⌈ said ⌉ Defendant: ⌊ yes ⌋ Lawyer: or yelled or something Defendant: how I know Lawyer:  → er nej I'm saying er was it yelled loudly Defendant: it was yelled loudly XXX

## 4.3.3. Discourse-organizing function okay and altså

Like the American lawyer, the Danish defence lawyer occasionally employs interjections for discourse-organizing functions. This is the case for two occurrences of okay ' okay' and five occurrences of altså 'I mean'/'you know' . Both types are represented in example 8:

Example 8:

Defendant:

I was just scared they mustn't come near ⌈ me ⌉ ⌊ mh ⌋

Lawyer:

→

okay but altså couldn't you have run away

(1.8)

Defendant:

no: that could they might also run after me right

Lawyer:  →

yes (0.6) okay and then

(0.7)

Defendant:

then he comes and is like (hissing sound) turns around what do you want

The lawyer emphasizes the severity of the fear felt by his client through suggesting the possibility of fleeing, thus 'testing' the defendant's statement. Introducing the suggestion by altså 'I  mean'/'you know' (in combination with the adversative conjunction men 'but') serves to mark the utterance as - ostensibly - opposing the defendant's point of view.

After accepting the defendant's explanation of why he did not run, the lawyer pauses and finally asks the defendant to continue his recount, employing the topic-shifter okay .

## 4.3.4. Phatic function øh and altså

Finally, a group of interjections in the Danish data set are categorized as having phatic function, as they do not have scope over the surrounding discourse. This function is realized mainly by øh ' er' , as well as two occurrences of altså 'I mean'/'you know' . Both these types are represented in example 9:

Example 9:

Lawyer:  →

and øh ::  you  said  before  that  you  didn't  think  there  was  any blood on it (referring to the defendant's ring)

Defendant:

there is nothing at all ⌈ on it ⌉

Lawyer:  →

⌊ no ⌋ (0.6) but altså

→

øh

:: let me just ask whi-

which hand did you wear the ring on

The lawyer's frequent use of phatic interjections may be seen as indicative of a fairly loose and unscripted mode of examination, which is consistent with his general examination style. The interjections used by the Danish defence lawyer predominantly function as plain positive responses, serving to support his client's testimony and to approximate - within the limits of the fairly rigid question-answer format - conversational norms characterizing  more casual interviewing or conversation. Although the interpersonal relation between the lawyer and his client cannot be described as decidedly hearty, the lawyer's extensive use of positive response interjections contributes to creating a talkative atmosphere, backgrounding the transactional goals of the interaction.

## 5. Conclusive comparison - from a legal cultural perspective

It has been commonly observed that Continental European courtroom interaction is of a far less aggressive and formal nature than that of Anglophone adversarial courtroom interaction. Studying the interjections used by professional representatives of the two different legal systems helps confirm, document and explain this picture. Whereas the American defence lawyer serves his client's interests by addressing him in a composed, professional and highly transactional manner, the Danish defence lawyer draws to a higher degree on relational resources, overtly displaying his acknowledgment of his client's statements and motives.

This difference reflects the cultural values of the two legal systems in various ways. Obviously, the aggressive and confrontational nature of the adversarial system of trial is not as immediately visible in friendly direct examination discourse as it might have been if cross-examination had been the object of study. Still, the formal and composed transactional style featured in the American examination, as opposed to the relatively loose and casual Danish examination style, reflects the strong combative nature of American adversarialism, as the lawyer's tight control of the interaction can be understood as a way to protect his client. Any unscripted piece of testimony may reveal weaknesses that can be exploited in damaging ways by the opposing party. In the Danish trial, the fact that the opposition is not likely to be as aggressive and directly confrontational seems to ease the atmosphere and reduce the lawyer's urge for interactional control.

The two lawyers' use and avoidance, respectively, of interjections may furthermore be understood in relation to the storytelling conception of adversarial courtroom examination, as pointed at in section 2.1. By expressing positive response  and  recognition  throughout  his  examination,  the  Danish  lawyer frames  the  defendant's  contributions  as  generally  new  and  informative,  although he - and the rest of the court - is likely to know most of the details in advance. In the American examination, on the other hand, the testimony is treated not so much as actual information being exchanged but, embracing the fact that most of the participants know the evidence already, rather as artefacts, as it were, i.e. pieces of a story being recited and put to display.

Finally, legal traditions are of course not developed and practiced in isolation from other cultural pressures. Indeed the differences observed here may also be viewed in the light of more basic languacultural traits, such as the anti-hierarchical values said to permeate Danish/Scandinavian sociality, e.g.:

… social hierarchies are not marked. It is not good 'tone' in the Scandinavian welfare states to show off, demonstrate wealth or superiority; hierarchies (even in businesses and organisations) are largely invisible or hidden… (Fredsted 2005:159)

In any case, knowing how to act convincingly in court, whether as a law professional or as a lay person being questioned, is not only a matter of asking or answering questions in the right way, but also an exercise in understanding the culturally sensitive norms governing what goes on between the questions. This study of interjections sheds new light on these norms and the legal cultural values that shape, reproduce and accommodate to them.

## Appendix 1: Transcription conventions

| Pause                               | (0.2)        |
|-------------------------------------|--------------|
| Overlap markers top                 | ⌈ ⌉          |
| Overlap markers bottom              | ⌊ ⌋          |
| Inaudible                           | XXX          |
| Anonymized item                     | [anonymized] |
| Analytically significant line(s)    | →            |
| Analytically significant expression | okay         |

## Appendix 2: Original Danish examples

Example 6:

Lawyer:

så sig- s- spørger du om må jeg komme forbi eller noget

Defendant:

ja

Lawyer:  →

ja (.) reagerer de på det

(.)

Defendant:

nej

Lawyer:  →

nej

Defendant:

ligesom de ikke hørte mig

Lawyer:  →

okay ⌈ at (.) du pressede ⌉ dig igennem

og så er det at du bare går igennem som du sagde før

Defendant:

⌊ det er rigtigt ja ⌋

ja

(0.5)

Lawyer:

kan du have lavet bevægelse med din fod et eller andet alts-

## Sune Sønderberg Mortensen Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 2019 (152-173)

Defendant: nej

(0.6)

Lawyer:  →

det har du ikke gjort nej (.) ⌈ okay ⌉

Defendant:

⌊ jeg ville ⌋

XXX bare gået væk derfra

Lawyer:  →

ja (.) okay (.) så kommer du ned for enden af trappen

Defendant: mh

Lawyer: kommer et par meter væk

og vi kan også se lidt på videokameraet her lidt efterfølgende du

Defendant: ja jeg sagde ⌈ de ⌉ skulle se ⌈ videokameraet ⌉

Lawyer:  →

⌊ ja ⌋ ⌊ ja ⌋

Defendant: fordi det:

⌈ jeg ved godt ⌉ der var

Lawyer:  →

⌊ okay ⌋

Defendant: videokameraer ⌈ der

⌉

Lawyer:  →

⌊ mh ⌋ (.) så sagde du før at der blev råbt nogle

forskellige ting til dig ⌈ blandt andet ⌉ jeg dræber dig eller noget

Defendant:

⌊ ja ⌋

ja jeg slår dig ihjel ⌈ jeg ⌉ dræber dig

Lawyer:

⌊ ja ⌋

Example 7:

Lawyer:

hvordan blev det (.) altså ⌈ sagt ⌉

Defendant:

⌊ ja ⌋

Lawyer:

eller råbt eller noget

Defendant:

hvordan jeg ved det

Lawyer:  →

øh nej jeg siger øh blev det råbt højt

Defendant:

det blev råbt højt XXX

Example 8:

Defendant:

jeg var bare bange de skal ikke komme i nærheden af ⌈ mig ⌉

Lawyer:  →

⌊ mh ⌋ okay men altså kunne du ikke være løbet din vej

(1.8)

Defendant:

nej: det kunne de kunne også løbe efter mig jo ikke

Lawyer:  →

ja (0.6) okay og så

(0.7)

Defendant:

så kommer han og er sådan (hvislelyd) drejer rundt hvad vil du lige

Example 9:

Lawyer:  →

og øh :: du sagde før at du syntes ikke at der var noget blod på den

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 2019 (152-173)

Defendant:

der er ikke noget som helst ⌈ på den ⌉

Lawyer:

⌊ nej ⌋ (0.6) men

→

altså øh

:: jeg skal lige høre hvi- hvilken hånd havde du ringen på

## Notes

- 1 This work has received financial support by The Danish Council for Independent Research: project ID DFF - 1321-00180.
- 2 Some ethical considerations are worth mentioning in this context. Under other circumstances, collecting, studying and publishing audio/video recordings of individuals without their explicit consent is not only illegal, but unethical. In this case, in addition to being public domain material and therefore legally publishable, the video recordings were first published on YouTube by the defence lawyer; I find it safe to assume that this was not done against his client's will (the defendant and the defence lawyer are the only persons speaking in the data used for this study). Further, as all individuals who speak or are referred to in the data excerpts displayed here are fully anonymized, the privacy of the participants is maintained to a higher degree than is the case in the original unedited YouTube clips that are openly available on the internet.
- 3 The main reason for cutting out the second half of the examination is that this part - available in a separate YouTube clip - consists to a large extent of physical reenactment of events, rather than the 'normal' question-answer format which is more directly comparable with the Danish examination.
- 4 The  word  counts  only  include  interaction  between  defendant  and  lawyer,  i.e. occasional interactions involving other parties (judge and prosecutor) are left out.
- 5 The two occurrences of so in the data could alternatively be regarded as coordinating conjunctions instead of interjections, as there is no grammatical or phonetic evidence in favour of one or the other. Since the point here is that the American lawyer uses only few interjections, I find it reasonable to include borderline cases as interjections, in order not to boost the results.
- 6 The other occurrence, categorized as having an 'Indeterminable/other function' , is displayed in Example 3 below, where it is placed at the end of the lawyer's last utterance, functioning as a tag question.
- 7 Danish examples are displayed in English translation, except for the interjections in question. The original transcriptions in Danish are available in appendix 2.

## References

- Abuarrah, Sufyan. (2016). 'Now': a marker to a different mental representation and proximization of threat. Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 48(2), 195-218.
- Adelswärd, Viveka, Karin Aronsson & Per Linell. (1988). Discourse of Blame: Courtroom Construction of Social Identity From the Perspective of the Defendant. Semiotica 71(3-4), 261-284.

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 2019 (152-173)

- Agar, Michael H. (1996). Language shock, understanding the culture of conversation . New York: Perennial.
- Aijmer, Karin. (2002). English discourse particles, evidence from a corpus .  Philadelphia: John Benjamins Pub. Co.
- ambroselawfirm. (2008). Defendant's Testimony Part 1. YouTube,
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y04a\_ZV5USE.  Accessed  on  15  February 2019.
- Ameka, Felix. (1992). Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18(2), 101-118.
- Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Paul Drew. (1979). Order in court : the organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings . London: Macmillan.
- Bednarek, Grazyna Anna. (2014). Polish vs. American courtroom discourse : inquisitorial and adversarial procedures of witness examination in criminal trials .
- Biscetti, Stefania. (2006). Tag Questions in Courtroom Discourse. In Maurizio Gotti & John Flowerdew (eds.), Studies  in  Specialized  Discourse ,  209-238.  Bern:  Peter Lang.
- Coupland, Justine, Nikolas Coupland & Jeffrey D. Robinson. (1992). 'How Are You?': Negotiating Phatic Communion. Language in Society 21(2), 207-230.
- Damaška, Mirjan R. (1997). Evidence Law Adrift . Yale University Press.
- Doak, Jonathan, Claire McGourlay & Mark Thomas. (2018). Evidence, law and context . [Fifth edition]. Abingdon, Oxon UK New York, NY: Routledge.
- Drew, Paul. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work : Interaction in institutional settings , 470-520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Fredsted, Elin. (2005). Politeness in Denmark: Getting to the Point. In Leo Hickey & Miranda Stewart (eds.), Politeness in Europe . Bristol, UNITED KINGDOM: Channel View Publications.
- Gaines, Philip. (2011). The Multifunctionality of Discourse Operator Okay: Evidence from a police interview. Journal of Pragmatics 43(14), 3291-3315.
- Gibbons, John. (2003). Forensic linguistics : an introduction to language in the justice system . Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
- Goddard, Cliff. (2013). Interjections and Emotion (with Special Reference to 'Surprise' and 'Disgust'). Emotion Review 6(1), 53-63.
- Hansen, Erik & Lars Heltoft. (2011). Grammatik over det danske sprog . København/ Odense: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab/Syddansk Universitetsforlag.
- Heritage, John & Steven Clayman. (2010). Talk in Action : Interactions, Identities, and Institutions . West Sussex: Wiley / Blackwell Publishers.
- Hickey, Leo. (2005). Politeness in Europe . Clevedon Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
- Jackson, John D. & Sarah J. Summers. (2012). The Internationalisation of Criminal Evidence: Beyond the Common Law and Civil Law Traditions .  (Law in Context). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Jacobsen,  Bente.  (2002).  Pragmatic  meaning  in  court  interpreting:  An  empirical study of additions in consecutively interpreted question-answer dialogues. Aarhus: The Aarhus School of Business PhD thesis.
- Jakobson, Roman. (1960). Closing Statement: Linguistics and Poetics. In Thomas A Sebeok (ed.), Style in Language . Cambridge, Mass.

## Scandinavian Studies in Language, 10(1), 2019 (152-173)

- Kahn, Robert A., Robert Andrew. (2004). Holocaust denial and the law, a comparative study . New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
- Komter, Martha L. & Marijke Malsch. (2012). The Language of Criminal Trials in an Inquisitorial System: The Case of the Netherlands. In Lawrence M. Solan & Peter M. Tiersma (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law .  Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Kæraa, Camilla. (2011). Domstolene på tværs af landegrænser. Retten Rundt (8), 2427.
- Le Grezause, Esther. (2017). Um and Uh, and the Expression of Stance in Conversational Speech. United States -- Washington: University of Washington Ph.D.
- Matthews,  Peter  H.  (2014). The  Concise  Oxford  Dictionary  of  Linguistics  (3  ed.) . Oxford: Oxford University Press, Oxford Reference Online.
- Mortensen, Janus & Sune Sønderberg Mortensen. (2009). Om interjektionen okay i engelsk og dansk. In Rita Therkelsen & Eva Skafte Jensen (eds.), Dramatikken i grammatikken ,  281-304. Roskilde: Institut for Kultur og Identitet, Roskilde Universitet.
- Mortensen, Sune Sønderberg & Janus Mortensen. (2017). Epistemic Stance in Courtroom Interaction. In Francesca Poggi & Alessandro Capone (eds.), Pragmatics and Law: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives , 401-437. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
- Pei-Jung  Lee,  Amy.  (2017).  Ideophones,  Interjections,  and  Sound  Symbolism  in Seediq. Oceanic Linguistics 56(1), 181-209.
- Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. (1985). A Comprehensive grammar of the English language . London: Longman.
- Schiffrin, Deborah. (1987). Discourse markers .  Cambridge: Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Sinclair, J. McH & Malcolm Coulthard. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse, the English used by teachers and pupils . London: Oxford University Press.
- Summers,  Robert.  (1999).  Formal  Legal  Truth  and  Substantive  Truth  in  Judicial Fact-Finding -- Their Justified Divergence in some Particular Cases. Law and Philosophy 18(5), 497-511.
- Velmezova, Ekaterina. (2011). Interjections: An Insurmountable Problem of Structural Linguistics? The Case of Early Soviet Structuralism. In Gerda Hassler (ed.), The History of Linguistics 2008 ,  425-472.  Amsterdam, Netherlands: Amsterdam, Netherlands: Benjamins.
- Wierzbicka, Anna. (2003). Cross-Cultural Pragmatics: The Semantics of Human Interaction . Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton.