Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-19T22:02:23.983Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - CAT on Trial

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2016

By
Augusto Gnisci ,
Howard Giles  and
Jordan Soliz
Edited by
Howard Giles
Howard Giles
Affiliation:
University of California, Santa Barbara
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Communication Accommodation Theory
Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities across Contexts
 , pp. 169 - 191
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adelswärd, V., Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction. Text, 7, 313–346.Google Scholar
Antaki, C., Richardson, E., Stokoe, E., & Willmott, S. (2015). Police interviews with vulnerable people alleging sexual assault: Probing inconsistency and questioning conduct. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 19, 328–350.Google Scholar
Aronsson, K., Jönsson, L., & Linell, P. (1987). The courtroom hearing as a middle ground: Speech accommodation by lawyers and defendants. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 6, 99–115.Google Scholar
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14, 20–39.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. (1992). Displaying neutrality: Formal aspects of informal court proceedings. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 199–211). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press.Google Scholar
Ayoko, O. B., Hartel, C., & Callan, V. (2002). Resolving the puzzle of productive and destructive conflict in culturally heterogeneous workgroups: A communication accommodation theory approach. International Journal of Conflict Management, 13, 165–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakeman, R., & Quera, V. (2011). Sequential analysis and observational methods for the behavioural sciences. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Barker, V., Giles, H., Hajek, C., Ota, H., Noels, K. A., Lim, T.‐S., & Somera, L. (2008). Police-Civilian interaction, compliance, accommodation, and trust in an intergroup context: International data. Journal of International and Intercultural Communication, 1, 93–112.Google Scholar
Bochantin, J. E., & Cowan, R. L. (2008). On being “one of the guys”: How female police officers manage tensions and contradictions in their work and their lives. Ohio Communication Journal, 45, 145–169.Google Scholar
Boggs, C., & Giles, H. (1999). “The canary in the cage”: The nonaccommodation cycle in the gendered workplace. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 22, 223–245.Google Scholar
Bourhis, R. Y. (1977). Language and social evaluation in Wales. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bristol, UK.Google Scholar
Bozeman, J. M. (2014). The common language of homicide and suicide: Evidence of the value of Durkheim’s typologies. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly Publishing.Google Scholar
Choi, C., & Giles, H. (2012). Intergroup messages in policing the community. In Giles, H. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 264–277). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Clay, R. A. (2015). Post-Ferguson. Monitor in Psychology, 46, 14–16.Google Scholar
Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. M. (1990). Rules versus relationship.: The ethnography of legal discourse. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, N., Coupland, J., Giles, H., & Henwood, K. (1988). Accommodating the elderly: Invoking and extending a theory. Language in Society, 17, 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, T., & White, M. (1988). Traffic citations and student attitudes toward the police: An evaluation of selected interaction dynamics. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 16, 105–21.Google Scholar
Di Conza, A., Gnisci, A., Scognamiglio, L., & Abbamonte, L. (2012). Accommodation strategies in Italian Courtroom examinations: A cross-disciplinary analysis of the reciprocal effects of questioning – answering. US-China Law Review, 9, 330–341.Google Scholar
Dixon, J. A., Tredoux, C. G., Durrheim, K., & Foster, Don H. (2001). The role of speech accommodation and crime type in attribution of guilty. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 465–473.Google Scholar
Dixon, T. L. (2006). Psychological reactions to crime news portrayals of Black criminals: Understanding the moderating roles of prior news viewing and stereotype endorsement. Communication Monographs, 73, 162–187.Google Scholar
Dixon, T. L., Schell, T., Giles, H., & Drogos, K. (2008). The influence of race in police-civilian interactions: A content analysis of videotaped interactions taken during Cincinnati police traffic stops. Journal of Communication, 58, 530–549.Google Scholar
Dragojevic, M., & Giles, H. (2014). Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics. In Berger, C. R. (Ed.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 29–51). Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Drew, P. & Heritage, J. (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470–520). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drury, J. (2010). Identity dynamics in adolescent-adult communication. In Giles, H., Reid, S. A., & Harwood, J. (Eds.), The dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 53–64). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Nier, J. A., Banker, B. S., Ward, C. M., Houlette, M., & Loux, S. (2000). The common ingroup identity model for reducing intergroup bias: Progress and challenges. In Capozza, D. & Brown, R. (Eds.), Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research (pp. 133–148). London, UK: Sage.Google Scholar
Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (1988). Communication accommodation and the prototypical speaker: Predicting evaluations of status and solidarity. Language and Communication, 8, 271–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, M. J., & Jones, E. (1999). Problematic communication in the workplace: beliefs of superiors and subordinates. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 9, 185–203.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (Ed.). (2002). Law enforcement, communication and community. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (Ed.) (2012). The handbook of intergroup communication. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giles, H., & Watson, B. M. (Eds.). (2013). The social meanings of language, dialect and accent. New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Choi, C., & Dixon, T. L. (2010). Police-civilian encounters. In Giles, H., Reid, S. A., & Harwood, J. (Eds.), The dynamics of intergroup communication (pp. 65–76). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (1991). Accommodation theory: Communication, context, and consequences. In Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation (pp. 1–68). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Fortman, J., Dailey, R., Barker, V., Hajek, C., Anderson, M. C., & Rule, N. O. (2006). Communication accommodation: Law enforcement and the public. In Dailey, R. M. & Le Poire, B. A. (Eds.), Interpersonal communication matters: Family, health, and community relations (pp. 241–270). New York, NY: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Hajek, C., Barker, V., Chen, M.‐L., Zhang, B.Y., Hummert, M. L., & Anderson, M. C. (2007). Accommodation and institutional talk: Communicative dimensions of police-civilian interactions. In Weatherall, A., Watson, B. M., & Gallois, C. (Eds.), Language, discourse and social psychology (pp. 131–158). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Linz, D., Bonilla, D., & Gomez, M. L. (2012). Police stops of and interactions with Latino and White (Non-Latino) drivers: Extensive policing and communication accommodation. Communication Monographs, 79, 407–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giles, H., Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Anderson, M. C. (2007). Accommodating a new frontier: The context of law enforcement. In Fiedler, K. (Ed.), Social communication (pp. 129–162). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Giles, H., Zwang-Weissman, Y., & Hajek, C. (2004). Patronizing and policing elderly people. Psychological Reports, 95, 754–756.Google Scholar
Glauser, M. J., & Tullar, W. L. (1985). Communicator style of police officers and citizen satisfaction with officer/citizen telephone conversations. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 13, 36–45.Google Scholar
Glennon, J. (2010). Arresting communication: Essential interaction skills for law enforcement. Washington, DC: LifeLine Training National Law Enforcement Academy.Google Scholar
Gnisci, A. (2005). Sequential strategies of accommodation: A new method in courtroom. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44, 621–643.Google Scholar
Gnisci, A., & Bakeman, R. (2007). Sequential accommodation of turn taking and turn length: A study of courtroom interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26, 134–259.Google Scholar
Gnisci, A., & Di Conza, A. (2012). A mixed qualitative and quantitative study about judges’ interventions in criminal trials. International Journal of Multiple Research Approach, 6, 41–55.Google Scholar
Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2004). The organization of questions and answers in the thematic phases of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 965–995.Google Scholar
Gnisci, A., Quera, V., Bakeman, R., Scognamiglio, L., & Di Conza, A. (2009). Differences in sequential processes of accommodation in courtroom interaction. 9th Conference on Forensic Linguistics/Language and Law of the International Association of Forensic Linguists, July 6–9th. VU University, Amsterdam: The Netherlands.Google Scholar
Gnisci, A., Scognamiglio, L., & Di Conza, A. (2010). Do coercion and pertinence in hearings examinations depend on sexual gender? Proceedings of the 3rd International Congress of the Group on Speech Communication, February 23–25th, 2009 (pp. 383–394). University of Naples L’Orientale, Napoli, Italy.Google Scholar
Gudykunst, W. B. (1995). Anxiety/uncertainty management (AUM) theory. In Wiseman, R. (Ed.), Intercultural communication theory (pp. 8–58). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Gundersen, D. F., & Hopper, R. H. (1984). Communication and law enforcement. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Hahn, H. (1971). A profile of urban police. Law and Contemporary Problems, 36, 449–66.Google Scholar
Hajek, C., Barker, V., Giles, H., Louw, J., Pecchioni, L., Makoni, S., & Myers, P. (2006). Communication dynamics of police-civilian encounters: American and African interethnic data. Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 35, 161–82.Google Scholar
Hajek, C., Giles, H., Barker, V., Demirtas-Madran, A., Pecchioni, L., & Choi, C. (2008). Perceptions of trust, compliance, and officer accommodation in police-civilian intergroup encounters: A Russian, Turkish, and American cross-national analysis. Russian Journal of Communication, 1, 127–148.Google Scholar
Hammer, M. R., & Rogan, R. G. (2002). Latino and Indochinese interpretive frames in negotiating conflict with law enforcement: A focus group analysis. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 26, 551–576.Google Scholar
Hennigan, K., Maxon, C., Sloane, D., & Ranney, M. (2002). Community views on crime and policing: Survey mode effects on bias in community services. Justice Quarterly, 19, 565–587.Google Scholar
Hewett, D. G., Watson, B. M., Gallois, C. (2013). Trust, distrust and communication accommodation among hospital doctors. In Candlin, C. N. & Crichton, J. (Eds.), Discourses of trust (pp. 36–51). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. London, UK: Palgrave.Google Scholar
Huo, Y., & Tyler, T. (2000). How different ethnic groups react to legal authority. San Francisco, CA: Public Policy Institute of California.Google Scholar
Innes, M. (2005). Why “Soft” policing is hard: On the curious development of reassurance policing, how it became neighborhood policing and what this signifies about the politics of police reform. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 156–169.Google Scholar
Kidd, V., & Braziel, R. (1999). Cop talk: Essential communication skills for community policing. San Francisco, CA: Acada Books.Google Scholar
Langan, P. A., Greenfeld, L. A., Smith, S. K., Durose, M. R., & Levin, D. J. (2001). Contact between police and the public. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
Langton, L., & Durose, M. (2013). Police behavior during traffic and street stops, 2011. Special Report (NCJ 242937). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice.Google Scholar
Levin, H., & Lin, T. (1988). An accommodating witness. Language and Communication, 8, 195–197.Google Scholar
Linell, P. (1991). Accommodation on trial: Processes of accommodation in courtroom interaction. In Giles, H., Coupland, N., & Coupland, J. (Eds.), Contexts of accommodation (pp. 103–130). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
McCann, R. M., & Giles, H. (2006). Communication with people of different ages in the workplace: Thai and American data. Human Communication Research, 32, 74–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCann, R. M., & Giles, H. (2007). Age-differentiated communication in organizations: Perspective from Thailand and the United States. Communication Research Reports, 24, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Molloy, J. & Giles, H. (2002). Communication, language, and law enforcement: An intergroup communication approach. In Glenn, P., LeBaron, C., & Mandelbaum, J. (Eds.), Excavating the taken-for granted: Essays in social interaction (pp. 327–340). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Morton, T. A., Wright, R. G., Peters, K., Reynolds, K. J., & Haslam, S. A. (2012). Social identity and the dynamics of organizational communication. In Giles, H. (Ed.), The handbook of intergroup communication (pp. 319–330). New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
Myers, P., Giles, H., Reid, S., & Nabi, R. (2008). Law enforcement encounters: The effects of officer accommodativeness and crime severity on interpersonal attributions are mediated by intergroup sensitivity. Communication Studies, 59, 1–15.Google Scholar
Neiderhoffer, K. G., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2002). Linguistic style matching in social interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 21, 337–360.Google Scholar
Ng, T. W. H., & Sorensen, K. L. (2008). Toward a further understanding of the relationships between perceptions of support and work attitudes: A meta-analysis. Group Organization Management, 33, 243–268.Google Scholar
Olsen, K. (2005). School of law. Teaching Tolerance, Spring, 40–45.Google Scholar
Osborne, S. (2015). The job: True tales from the life of a New York City cop. New York, NY: Doubleday.Google Scholar
Oxburgh, G., Myklebust, T., Grant, T., & Milne, R. (2015). Communication in investigative and legal contexts: Integrated approaches from forensic psychology, linguistics and law enforcement. New York, NY: John Wiley.Google Scholar
Perlmutter, D. D. (2000). Policing the media: Street cops and public perceptions of law enforcement. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pickler, N. (2015). Obama restricts military gear, says it can alienate. Santa Barbara NewsPress, May 19, pp. A4 & 5.Google Scholar
Pinizzotto, A. J., Davis, E. F., & Miller, C. E. (1997). In the line of fire: A study of selected felonious assaults on law enforcement officers. Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation: National Institute of Justice.Google Scholar
Revoyr, N. (2015). Making peace with the police. Los Angeles Times, June 7, p. A24.Google Scholar
Richardson, B. H., Taylor, P. J., Snook, B., Conchie, S. M., & Bennell, C. (2014). Language style matching and police interrogation outcomes. Law and Human Behavior, 38, 357–66.Google Scholar
Rogers, K. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2014). Respect in organizations: Feeling valued as “we” and “me.” Journal of Management. Online first, doi: 0149206314557159.Google Scholar
Rogerson, A. M. (2015). Accommodating demographic differences in managerial face-to-face conversations in Australian workplaces. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wollongong, Australia.Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, D. R., Schuck, A. M., Costello, S. K., Hawkins, D. F., & Ring, M. K. (2005). Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Quarterly, 8, 343–365.Google Scholar
Scognamiglio, L., & Gnisci, A. (2009). Mutual influences among participants in criminal trial. 19th Conference on the European Association of Psychology and Law (EAPL), September 1–5, Sorrento, Italy.Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation and deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Soliz, J., & Giles, H. (2014). Relational and identity processes in communication: A contextual and meta-analytical review of Communication Accommodation Theory. In Cohen, E. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 38 (pp. 108–143). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Sparks, B. (1994). Communicative aspects of the service encounter. Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Research, 17, 39–50.Google Scholar
Street, R., & Giles, H. (1982). Speech accommodation theory: A social cognitive model of speech behavior. In Roloff, M. E. & Berger, C. R. (Eds.), Social cognition and communication (pp. 193–226). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Stroshine, M., Alpert, G., & Dunham, R. (2008). The influence of “Working Rules” on police suspicion and discretionary decision making. Police Quarterly, 11, 315–37.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In Worchel, S. & Austin, W. G. (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
Thompson, G. J. (1983). Verbal judo: Words for street survival. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., Mason, M., & Zingraff, M. (2004). Looking for the driving while black phenomena: Conceptualizing racial bias processes and their associated distributions. Police Quarterly, 7, 3–29.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 215–235.Google Scholar
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Vick, K. (2015). What it’s like being a cop now. Time Magazine, 186, #7, 32–41.Google Scholar
Willemyns, M., Gallois, C., & Callan, V. J. (2009). The impact of sex and role identity on employees’ perceptions of managers’ communication style. Proceedings of the Annual London Conference on Money, Economy, and Management (pp. 1–15).Google Scholar
Womack, M. M., & Finley, H. H. (1986). Communication: A unique significance for law enforcement. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.Google Scholar
Yoong, D. (2010). Interactional norms in the Australia police interrogation room. Discourse and Society, 21, 692–713.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×