Let us make a brief diversion to the courtroom.
When a barrister examines or cross-examines a witness, the content of their questions is important.
It is this which determines which areas of the case the witness is to speak about.
It is the form of their questions, however, which exerts far greater power.
A really good barrister will control the witness (almost imperceptibly) by asking questions in such a way as to help make their own client’s case.
They will do this, for example, by asking a series of questions which can only be answered with short, highly specific responses.
Often this will be as specific as ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The point will not be to create testimony which is false. Rather, it will be to direct the witness so that what they say shows the barrister’s client’s case in the best light possible.
If the barrister stood up and said to the witness, ‘Tell me, sir, what happened?’ they could receive all manner of responses – many of which might prove highly detrimental to their client’s case (for example, if the witness interpreted something differently from someone else).
This is because the question is formed in such a way as to give the person being questioned a license to go in whatever direction they choose.
Here is an example which demonstrates what we are arguing:
Barrister: What is your name?
Witness: John Smith?
B: Where do you live?
W: 3, Hampton Gardens
B: Do you know the defendant?
W: Yes
B: Do you know the defendant through work or through some other way?
W: Through work
B: Do you work with the defendant at Hatton’s carpets?
W: Yes
B: How long have you worked at Hatton’s Carpets?
W: One year
B: Do you know how long the defendant has worked at Hatton’s Carpets?
W: Yes
B: Can you tell us please, how long the defendant has worked at Hatton’s Carpets?
W: One year – he started the same day as I did.
B: Did you receive training when you began working at Hatton’s?
W: Yes
B: Did this include health and safety training?
W: Yes
B: Did the health and safety training extend to use of the industrial carpet cleaner?
W: No, it did not.
B: Did the training cover the use of industrial strength chemicals?
W: No.
B: Did the defendant receive the same training as you?
W: Yes
B: How do you know?
W: Because he was with me at all the sessions
B: No further questions
In this example, the barrister keeps the witness on a short leash.
The form of the questions means that only certain responses are permissible (by permissible, we mean as regards the rules of language which we expect one another to follow in everyday life as well as those which people are expected to follow in the courtroom).
The barrister was not leading the witness (as in: ‘The training didn’t cover industrial strength chemicals, did it?), they were directing them. This was done through the form of each specific question and through the overall structure of the questioning.
I will present one more example to demonstrate the importance of form in directing responses:
- What is democracy?
- What might democracy be?
To this, we will return. For the moment, however, let’s think about the undertone of command that sits within all questions.
To do this, we’ll use the following question:
- ‘I’m worried about Johnny, what do you think we should do?’
Reciprocity and response-elicitation are both present here.
The latter in the sense that the speaker wants to know the thoughts of the other person, the former in what seems quite a strong sense – that of Johnny being a subject of shared concern.
At the same time, the question is commanding the listener to respond. The speaker is using language to induce something in someone else.
The question is an act in the way that a straight statement is not. For example:
I like fish
Do you like fish?
The first collection of words is an expression of what one thinks; the second collection of words is requesting someone else’s thoughts on the matter of fish.
In this sense, questions command a listener to respond. There are varying degrees of command, none of which guarantee a response, but all of which make the demand.
It is best to think of these degrees as continuous rather than discrete.
This leads us to a continuum model in which questions range from those containing a low level of command to those containing a high level of command.
Here is a demonstration of this point:
- What are your thoughts on fish?
- What do you think about fish?
- What do you know about fish?
- What, precisely, do you know about fish?
- Do you want fish tonight or not?
- Have you got a problem with me eating fish in front of you?
- Why are you bringing a fish into this house at this hour?
- Why are you bringing a fish into this house at this hour, while wearing that smug look on your face?
You will notice that the higher levels of command correlate with a desire to know more specific information. In the last case, the question is being wielded almost as a weapon, with the speaker demanding a response which, in itself, has been heavily circumscribed by the manner of the question.
Thinking back to our example of the barrister, we may also define their questions as containing a high level of command.
As with the questions at the end of the above list, those were being used with the intention of building bridges between minds which were based very much on the questioner’s own terms.
It is important to add that the level of command contained in a question is not exclusive to the wording. In speech, the intonation, body language and gesture which accompany the asking of questions also play a significant role.
