Rules versus relationships the ethnography of legal discourse-reg... online

Rules versus relationships : The Ethnography of legal discourse

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. It follows FOUCAULT's conviction that discursive powers, in order to trigger their extensive effects, must work on the most basic levels of everyday life. Court hearings are standardised in various degrees and directions, in order to configure procedure-specific areas of contingency. Scheffer, Thomas forthcoming. Some utterances are just statements of value for the client-lawyer ensemble. Spurk, Jan

Reformulation and Conflict in the Witness Examination: The Case of Public Inquiries

Learning to Listen. In other words, the case is the unit of micro-formation. Utterances become available to the legal discourse by means of: the internal case work; the multi-modal repetition of statements; the standardised speech in open court. The project is demanding and challenging not just in terms of the multi-sited and multi-temporal character of fieldwork and in terms of the analytical innovations. Materialities of legal proceedings. Relating event and process. Next...

Blommaert, J. () 'Ethnography as counterhegemony: Remarks on epistemology W. () Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. Rules Versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. In "Rules versus Relationships," John M. Conley and William M. O'Barr examine the. The Ethnography of Legal Discourse John M. Conley, William M. O'Barr, William M.. O'Barr. Language and Legal Discourse A series edited by William M. O'Barr.:

16.12.2019 : 10:01 -:

20.12.2019 : 16:05 -:

21.12.2019 : 18:19 -: