Anderson, T. J. (1999). The Netherlands Criminal Justice System: An audit model of decision-making. In: Malsch, M. and Nijboer, J. F. (eds.), Complex cases. Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar

Atkinson, J. M. (1981). Ethnomethodological approaches to socio-legal studies. In: Podgórecki, A. and Whelan, C. J. (eds.), Sociological approaches to the law, pp. 201–24. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar

Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Atkinson, P. and Coffey, A. (2004). Analysing documentary realities. In: Silverman, D. (ed.), Qualitative research. Theory, method and practice (2nd edn), pp. 56–75. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Bauman, R. and Briggs, C. L. (1990). Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beach, W. A. (1993). Transitional regularities for casual ‘okay’ usages. Journal of Pragmatics 19: 325–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beach, W. A. (1995). Conversation analysis: ‘Okay’ as a clue for understanding consequentiality. In: Sigman, S. J. (ed.), The consequentiality of communication, pp. 121–61. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Beach, W. A. and Dixson, C. N. (2001). Revealing moments: formulating understandings of adverse experiences in a health appraisal interview. Social Science and Medicine 52: 25–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Beach, W. A. and LeBaron, C. D. (2002) Attending to personal problems and reported sexual abuse during a medical encounter. Journal of Communication 52/3: 617–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Benson, D. and Drew, P. (1978). “Was there firing in sandy row that night?”: some features of the organisation of disputes about recorded facts. Sociological Inquiry 48/2: 89–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A critical introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Brants, C. (2012). Wrongful convictions and inquisitorial process: The case of the Netherlands. University of Cincinnati La Review. 80/4: 1069–1114.Google Scholar

Bucholtz, (2000). The politics of transcription. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1439–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cicourel, A. V. (1968). The social organization of juvenile justice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar

Cicourel, A. V. (1992). The interpenetration of communicative contexts: examples from medical encounters. In: Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.), Rethinking context: language as an interactive phenomenon, pp. 310–91. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Clayman, S. (1990). From talk to text: newspaper accounts of reporter–source interactions. Media, Culture & Society 12: 79–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clayman, S. (2001). Answers and evasions. Language in Society 30: 403–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clayman, S. and Heritage, J. (2002). The news interview. Journalists and public figures on the air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Clift, R. and Holt, E. (2007). Introduction In: Holt, E. and Clift, R. (eds.), Reporting Talk. Reported speech in interaction, pp. 1–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Coulthard, R. M. (2002). Whose voice is it? Invented and concealed dialogue in written records of verbal evidence produced by the police. In: Cotterill, J. (ed.), Language in the legal process, pp. 19–34. Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.) (2010), The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London/New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

De Boer, M. (2014). ‘Ik zal het in die bewoordingen op papier zetten’. De verschillen tussen politieverhoren en processen-verbaal. [‘I shall put it on paper in those words’. The differences between police interrogations and police reports]. NSCR report.Google Scholar

De Keijser, J. Malsch, M., Kranendonk, R. and de Gruyter, M. (2012). Written records of police interrogation: differential registration as determinant of statement credibility and interrogation quality. Psychology, Crime & Law 18/7: 613–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Depperman, A., Schmitt, R. and Mondada, L. (2010). Agenda and emergence: contingent and planned activities in a meeting. Journal of Pragmatics 42/6: 1700–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’hondt, S. (2014). Defending through disaffiliation: The vicissitudes of alignment and footing in Belgian criminal hearings. Language & Communication 36: 68–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

D’hondt, S. and Van der Houwen, F. (2014). Quoting from the case file: How intertextual practices shape discourse at various stages in the legal trajectory. Language & Communication 36: 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings, pp. 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Drew, P. (1998). Complaints about transgressions and misconduct. Research on Language and Social Interaction 31/3 & 4: 295–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, P. (2006). When documents ‘speak’: Documents, language and interaction. In: Drew, P., Raymond, G. and Weinberg, D. (eds.), Talking research: Talk and interaction in social research methods, pp. 63–80. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) (1992a). Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (1992b). Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In: Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.) Talk at work. Interaction in institutional settings, pp. 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Drew, P., Raymond, G. and Weinberg, D. (eds.) (2006). Talk and interaction in social research methods. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dupret, B., Lynch, M. and Berard, T. (eds.) (2015a). Law at work. Studies in legal ethnomethods. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dupret, B., Lynch, M. and Berard, T. (2015b). Introduction: law at work. In: Duprez, B., Lynch, M. and Berard, T. (eds.) Law at work. Studies in legal ethnomethods, pp. 1–24. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eades, D. (2000). I don’t think it’s an answer to the question: Silencing Aboriginal witnesses in court. Language in Society 29: 161–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eades, D. (2008a). Taken for a ride: courtroom talk and neo-colonial control. The Hague/Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eades, D. (2008b). Telling and retelling your story in court. Current Issues in Criminal Justice: 209–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Bristol/Tonawanda/Ontario: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Eades, D. (2012). The social consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross-examination. Language in Society 41: 471–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Edwards, D. (2008). Intentionality and mens rea in police interrogations: The production of actions as crimes. Intercultural Pragmatics 5/2: 177–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ehrlich, S. (2012). Text trajectories, legal discourse and gendered inequalities. Applied Linguistics Review 3/1: 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ehrlich, S. and Eades, D. (2016). Introduction. Linguistic and discursive dimensions of consent. In: Ehrlich, S., Eades, D. and Ainsworth, J. (eds.), Discursive constructions of consent in the legal process, pp. 1–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ericson, R. V. (1981). Making crime. A study of detective work. Toronto: Butterworths.Google Scholar

Frankel, R. (1989). ‘I wz wondering – uhm could RAID uhm effect the brain permanently d’y know?’: Some observations on the intersection of speaking and writing in calls to a poison control center. Western Journal of Speech Communication 53: 195–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Franken, A. A. (2010). Regels voor het strafdossier [Rules for the criminal case file]. Delikt en Delinkwent 40/4: 403–18.Google Scholar

Frers, L. (2009). Space, materiality and the contingency of action: A sequential analysis of the patient’s file in doctor–patient interactions. Discourse Studies 11/3: 285–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Galatolo, R. (2007). Active voicing in court. In: Holt, E. and Clift, R. (eds.), Reporting talk: reported speech in interaction, pp. 195–220. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Galatolo, R. (2015). Reporting talk when testifying. Intertextuality, consistency, and transformation in witnesses’ use of direct reported speech. In: Dupret, et al. (eds.), Law at work. Studies in legal ethnomethods, pp. 139–62. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Galatolo, R. and Drew, P. (2006). Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. Text & Talk 26/6: 661–98.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967a). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967b). What is ethnomethodology? In: Garfinkel, H., Studies in ethnomethodology, pp. 1–34. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967c). Common sense knowledge of social structures: The documentary method of interpretation in lay and professional fact finding. In: Garfinkel, H., Studies in ethnomethodology, pp. 76–103. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967d). Some rules of correct decisions that jurors respect. In: Garfinkel, H., Studies in ethnomethodology, pp. 104–15. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Garfinkel, H. (1967e). Good organizational reasons for ‘bad’ clinic records. In: Garfinkel, H., Studies in ethnomethodology, pp. 186–207. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar

Glenn, P. and LeBaron, C. (2011). Epistemic authority in employment interviews: Glancing, pointing, touching. Discourse and Communication 5/1: 3–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goffman, E. (1970). Strategic interaction. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1981). Footing. In: Forms of talk, pp. 124–59. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar

González Martínez, E. (2000). La ‘déclaration’ dans le cadre d’une procédure pénale ou la constitution d’un ‘je’ multiple et rassembleur. Schweitzerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie 26/3: 591–614.Google Scholar

González Martínez, E. (2006). The interweaving of talk and text in a French pretrial hearing. Research on Language and Social Interaction 39/3: 229–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, C. (1981). Conversational organization: Interaction between speakers and hearers. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American Anthropologist 96: 606–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2000). Action and embodiment within situated human interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 1489–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Goodwin, C. (2007) Interactive footing. In: Holt, E. and Clift, R. (eds.), Reporting talk: Reported speech in interaction, pp. 16–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Goodwin, C. and Duranti, A. (1992). Rethinking context: An introduction. In: Duranti, A. and Goodwin, C. (eds.) Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon, pp. 1–42. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Greatbatch, D., Luff, P., Heath, C., Campion, P. (1993). Interpersonal communication and human–computer interaction: An examination of the use of computers in medical consultations. Interacting with Computers 5/2: 193–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greatbatch, D., Heath, C., Luff, P. and Campion, P. (1995a). Conversation analysis: Human–computer interaction and the general practice consultation. In: Monk, A. F. and Gilbert, G. N. (eds.), Perspectives on HCI. Diverse approaches pp. 199–222. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Greatbatch, D., Heath, C., Luff, P. and Campion, P. (1995b). How do desk-top computers affect the doctor–patient interaction. Family Practice 12/1: 32–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Halldorsdottir, I. (2006). Orientations to law, guidelines, and codes in lawyer–client interaction. Research on Language and Social interaction 39/3: 263–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Hanks, W. H. (2012). Evidentiality in social interaction. Pragmatics and Society 3/2: 169–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Harper, R. H. R. (1998). Inside the IMF. An ethnography of documents, technology and organisational action. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Haviland, J. B. (1987). Fighting words: Evidential particles, affect, and argument. Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society: 343–54.Google Scholar

Haviland, J. B. (1996). Text from talk in Tzotzil. In: Silverstein, M. and Urban, G. (eds.), Natural histories of discourse, pp. 45–78. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Haworth, K. (2010). Police interviews in the judicial process. Police interviews as evidence. In: Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, pp. 169–181. London/New York: Routledge.Google Scholar

Hayano, K. (2012). Question design in conversation. In: Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J. (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, pp. 395–414. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heath, C. and Luff, P. (1996). Documents and professional practice: ‘Bad’ organisational reasons for ‘good’ clinical records. Proceedings of the Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 354–63. Boston: ACM Press.Google Scholar

Heath, C. and Luff, P. (2012). Embodied action and organizational activity. In: Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J. (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, pp. 283–307. Hoboken NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Heffer, C., Rock, F. and Conley, J. (eds.), Legal–lay communication. Textual travels in the law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Hepburn, A. and Bolden, G. B. (2012). The conversation analytic approach to transcription. In: Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J. (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, pp. 57–76. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (1984b). A change-of-state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In: Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action. Studies in conversation analysis, pp. 299–345. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Heritage, J. (2012a). Epistemics in action: Action formation and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45/1: 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, J. (2012b). The epistemic engine: Sequence organization and territories of knowledge. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45/1: 30–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, J. and Raymond, G. (2005). The terms of agreement: Indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly 68/1: 15–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Heritage, J. C. and Watson, D. R. (1979). Formulations as conversational objects. In: Psathas, G. (ed.), Everyday language. Studies in ethnomethodology, pp. 123–62. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar

Holt, E. (1996). Reporting on talk: The use of direct reported speech in conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 29/3: 219–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holt, E. (2000) Reporting and reacting: Concurrent responses to reported speech. Research on Language and Social Interaction 33/4: 425–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Holt, E. (2007). ‘I’m eyeing your chop up mind’: Reporting and enacting. In: Holt, E. and Clift, R. (eds.), Reporting talk. Reported speech in interaction, pp. 47–80. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Holt, E. and Johnson, A. (2006). Formulating the facts. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA-06), Helsinki.Google Scholar

Horselenberg, R., Vredeveldt, A. and van Koppen, P. J. (2016). Nederlandse politieverhoren in de praktijk [Dutch police interrogations in practice]. Nederlands Juristenblad (NJB) 43: 3185.Google Scholar

Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (2000). Interaction and the standardized survey interview: The living questionnaire. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Iversen, C. (2012) Recordability: Resistance and collusion in psychometric interviews with children. Discourse Studies 14: 691–709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Jefferson, Gail (1983). Issues in the transcription of naturally-occurring talk: Caricature versus capturing pronunciational particulars. Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature, 34, 1–12. Tilburg: Tilburg University.Google Scholar

Johnson, A. (2013). Embedding police interviews in the prosecution case in the Shipman trial. In: Heffer, C., Rock, F. and Conley, J. (eds), Legal–lay communication. Textual travels in the law, pp. 147–67. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jönsson, L. and Linell, P. (1991). Story generations: From dialogical interviews to written reports in police interrogations. Text 11/3: 419–40.Google Scholar

Jörg, N., Field, S. and Brandts, C. (1995). Are inquisitorial and adversarial systems converging? In: Harding, C. et al. (eds.), Criminal justice in Europe. A comparative study, pp. 41–56. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kameo, N. and Whalen, J. (2015). Organizing documents: Standard forms, person production and organizational action. Qualitative Sociology 38: 205–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kessler, M. (2016). Audiovisuele verslaglegging in een gemoderniseerd Wetboek van Strafvordering [Audiovisual reporting in a modernised Code of Criminal Procedure]. Oratie [inaugural lecture], Universiteit Leiden.Google Scholar

Kidwell, M. (2009). What happened?: An epistemics of before and after in ‘at the scene’ police questioning. Research on Language and Social Interaction 42/1: 20–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Komter, M. L. (1995). The distribution of knowledge in courtroom interaction. In: ten Have, P. and Psathas, G. (eds.), Situated order: Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities, pp. 107–28. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Komter, M. L. (1998). Dilemmas in the courtroom. A study of trials of violent crime in the Netherlands. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2001) La construction de la preuve dans un interrogatoire de police. Droit et Société 48: 367–93.Google Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2002). The suspect’s own words: The treatment of written statements in Dutch courtrooms. Forensic Linguistics. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 9/2: 168–92.Google Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2002–3). The construction of records in Dutch police interrogations. Information Design Journal + Document Design 11, 2/3: 201–13.Google Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2003). The interactional dynamics of eliciting a confession in a Dutch police interrogation. Research on Language and Social Interaction 36/4: 433–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2005). Understanding problems in an interpreter-mediated police interrogation. In: Burns, S. (ed.), Ethnographies of law and social control. Sociology of crime, law and deviance, vol. VI, pp. 203–24. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2006a). Introduction. Special issue: Talk and text: The relationship between spoken interaction and written documentation in legal settings. Research on Language and Social interaction 39/3: 195–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2006b). From talk to text: The interactional construction of a police record. Research on Language and Social interaction 39/3: 201–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2006c). The interactional antecedents of ‘recontextualisation phrases’ in police records of suspect interrogations. Paper presented at the International Conference on Conversation Analysis (ICCA-06), Helsinki.Google Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2012a). The career of a suspect’s statement: Talk, text, context. Discourse Studies 14/6: 731–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2012b). Conversation analysis in the courtroom. In: Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, pp. 612–29. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Komter, M. L. (2013). Travels of a suspect’s statement. In: Heffer, C., Rock, F., Conley, J. (eds.), Legal–lay communication. Textual travels in the law, pp. 126–46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Komter, M. L. and Malsch, M. (2012). The language of criminal trials in an inquisitorial system: The case of the Netherlands. In: Tiersma, P. and Solan, L. (eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and the law, pp. 408–20. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. and Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic discourse: Psychology as conversation. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Labov, W. and Waletzky, J. (1967). Narrative analysis: Oral versions of personal experience. In: Helm, J. (ed.), Essays on the verbal and visual arts, pp. 12–44. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar

Lamerichs, J. and Te Molder, H. F. M. (2009). ‘And then I’m really like. . .’: The role of fuzzy self-quotations in adolescent talk. Discourse Studies 11/4: 401–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lerner, G. (2003). Selecting next speaker: The context-sensitive operation of a context-free organization. Language in Society 32: 177–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Levinson, S. C. (2012). Action formation and ascription. In: Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J. (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis, pp. 103–30. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Licoppe, C. (2014). Two modes of referring to the case file in the courtroom: The use of indirect reported text and text-as-addressed speech in case summaries. Language & Communication 36: 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Linell, P. (1998). Discourse across boundaries: On recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse. Text 18/2: 143–57.Google Scholar

Linell, P. and Jönsson, L. (1995). Suspect stories: perspective-setting in an asymmetrical situation. In: Marková, I. and Foppa, K. (eds.) Asymmetries in dialogue, pp. 75–100. New York: Barnes & Noble.Google Scholar

Llewellyn, N. and Hindmarsh, J. (2010), Work and organisation in real time: An introduction. In: Llewellyn, N. and Hindmarsh, J. (eds.), Organisation, interaction and practice. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, pp. 4–15. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lynch, M. (2015). Turning a witness: The textual and interactional production of a statement in adversarial testimony. In: Duprez, B., Lynch, M. and Berard, T. (eds.), Law at work. Studies in legal ethnomethods, pp. 163–89. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Lynch, M. and Bogen, D. (1996). The spectacle of history: Speech, text, and memory at the Iran–Contra hearings. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar

Malsch, M. and Nijboer, J. F. (1999). Conclusions and recommendations. In: Malsch, M. and Nijboer, J. F. (eds.) (1999). Complex cases. Perspectives on the Netherlands criminal justice system, pp. 228–39. Amsterdam: Thela Thesis.Google Scholar

Malsch, M., de Keijser, J., de Gruijter, M., Komter, M. L. and Elffers, H. (2012). Het opmaken van proces-verbaal van een verdachtenverhoor: ervaringen en oordelen van verbalisanten [Drawing up police reports of suspect interrogations: experiences and evaluations of reporting officers]. NSCR publication (Netherlands Institute for the Study of Crime and Law Enforcement).Google Scholar

Malsch, M., Kranendonk, R., de Keijser, J., Elffers, H., Komter, M. L. and de Boer, M. (2015). Kijken, luisteren, lezen. De invloed van beeld, geluid en schrift op het oordeel over verdachtenverhoren. [Look, listen, read. The influence of image, sound and writing on assessments of suspect interrogations]. Politie & Wetenschap, NSCR publication.Google Scholar

Manzo, J. F. (1997). Ethnomethodology, conversation analysis, and the sociology of law. In: Travers, M. and Manzo, J. F. (eds.)., Law in action. Ethnomethodological and conversation analytic approaches to law, pp. 1–15. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Maryns, K. (2013). ‘Theattricks’ in the courtroom: The intertextual construction of legal cases. In: Heffer, C., Rock, F. and Conley, J. (eds.), Legal–lay communication. Textual travels in the law, pp. 107–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Matoesian, G. (1993). Reproducing Rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Matoesian, G. (1999). Intertextuality, affect, and ideology. Text 19/1: 73–109.Google Scholar

Matoesian, G. (2000). Intertextual authority in reported speech: production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics 32/7: 879–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Maynard, D. and Schaeffer, N. (2006). Standardization-in-interaction: The survey interview. In: Drew, P., Raymond, G. and Weinberg, D. (eds.). Talk and interaction in social research methods, pp. 9–27. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Meehan, A. J. (1986). Record-keeping practices in the policing of juveniles. Urban Life 15/1: 70–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture. Ethnography and conversation analysis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mondada, L. (2007). Commentary: Transcript variations and the indexicality of transcribing practices. Discourse Studies 9/6: 809–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Moore, R. J., Whalen, J. and Cabell Hankinson Gathman, E. (2010). The work of the work order: Document practice in face-to-face service encounters. In: Llewellyn, N. and Hindmarsh, J. (eds.), Organisation, interaction and practice. Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, pp. 172–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Park, J. S and Bucholtz, M. (2009). Introduction. Public transcripts: entextualization and linguistic representation in institutional contexts. Text & Talk 29/5: 485–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Philips, S. U. (1986). Reported speech as evidence in an American trial. In: Tannen, D. and Alatis, J. E. (eds.), Languages and linguistics: The interdependence of theory, data, and application, pp. 154–70. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar

Pollner, M. (1975). ‘The very coinage of your brain’: The anatomy of reality disjunctures. Philosophy of the Social Sciences 5: 411–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pollner, M. (1987). Mundane reason: Reality in everyday and sociological discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. (1984a). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: Some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In: Atkinson, J. M. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis, pp. 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

Pomerantz, A. (1984b). Giving a source or basis: The practice in conversations of telling ‘how I know’. Journal of Pragmatics 8: 607–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pomerantz, A. and Denvir, P. (2007). Enacting the institutional role of chairperson in upper management meetings: The interactional realization of provisional authority. In: Cooren, F. (ed.), Interacting and organizing. Analyses of a management meeting, pp. 31–52. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Puchta, C., Potter, J. and Wolff, S. (2004). Repeat receipts: A device for generating visible data in market research focus groups. Qualitative Research 4/3: 285–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Raffel, S. (1979). Matters of fact: A sociological inquiry. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar

Ravotas, D. and Berkenkotter, C. (1998). Voices in the text: The uses of reported speech in a psychotherapist’s notes and initial assessments. Text 18/2: 211–39.Google Scholar

Raymond, G. (2006). Questions at work: Yes/no type interrogatives in institutional contexts. In: Drew, P., Raymond, G. and Weinberg, D. (eds.), Talk and interaction in social research methods, pp. 115–34. London: Sage.Google Scholar

Raymond, G. and Heritage, J. (2006). The epistemics of social relationships: Owning grandchildren. Language in Society 35/5: 677–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Robinson, J. D. and Stivers, T. (2001). Achieving activity transitions in physician–patient encounters from history taking to physical examination. Human Communication Research 27/2: 253–98.Google Scholar

Rock, F. (2001). The genesis of a witness statement. Journal of Forensic Linguistics 8/2: 44–72.Google Scholar

Rock, F. (2007). Communicating rights. The language of arrest and detention. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rock, F. (2013). ‘Every link in the chain’. The police interview as textual intersection. In: Heffer, C., Rock, F. and Conley, J. (eds.), Legal–lay communication. Textual travels in the law, pp. 78–103. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rossano, F. (2012). Gaze in conversation. In: Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J. (eds.), The handbook of conversation analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 308–29.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1978) Some technical considerations of a dirty joke. In: Schenkein, J. (ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational interaction, pp. 249–69. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation (Parts I and II). Edited by Jefferson, G. with an introduction by Schegloff, E.. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A. and Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50/4: 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sanders, W. B. (1977). Detective work. A study of criminal investigations. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Sandlund, E. (2014). Prescribing conduct: Enactments of talk or thought in advice-giving. Discourse Studies 16/5: 645–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sarangi, S. (2009). Editorial: Entextualizing the institutional. Text and Talk 29/5: 481–4.Google Scholar

Sarangi, S. and Brookes-Howell, L. (2006). Recontextualising the familial lifeworld in genetic counselling case notes. In: Gotti, M. and Salager-Meyer, F. (eds.), Advances in medical discourse analysis: Oral and written contexts, linguistic insights. Studies in language and communication 45, pp. 197–225. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar

Scheffer, T. (1998). Übergänge von Wort und Schrift: Zur Genese und Gestaltung von Anhörungsprotokollen im Asylverfahren. Zeitschrift für Rechtssoziologie, 20/2: 230–65.Google Scholar

Scheffer, T. (2006). The microformation of criminal defense: On the lawyer’s notes, speech production, and a field of presence. Research on Language and Social interaction 39/3: 303–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheffer, T. (2010). Adversarial case-making. An ethnography of English crown court procedure. Leiden/Boston: Brill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scheffer, T., Hannken-Illjes, K. and Kozin, A. (2010). Criminal defence and procedure. Comparative ethnographies in the United Kingdom, Germany, and the United States. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1972). Notes on a conversational practice: formulating place. In: Sudnow, D. (ed.), Studies in Social Interaction, pp. 75–120. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1987). Between micro and macro: Contexts and other connections. In: Alexander, J., Giesen, B., Munch, R. and Smelser, N. (eds.), The micro–macro link, pp. 207–34. Berkeley/Los Angeles: University of California Press.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1991). Reflections on talk and social structure. In: Boden, D. and Zimmerman, D. H. (eds.), Talk and social structure, pp. 44–70. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (1996). Some practices for referring to persons in talk-in-interaction: A partial sketch of a systematics, in: Fox, B. A. (ed.), Studies in anaphora, pp. 437–85. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar

Schegloff, E. A. (2000). Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society 29: 1–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Schegloff, H. and Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closings. Semiotica, 7: 289–327.Google Scholar

Shuy, R. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation, and deception. London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sidnell, J. (2012). Declaratives, questioning, defeasibility. Research on Language and Social Interaction 45/1: 53–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slembrouck, S. (1992). The parliamentary Hansard ‘verbatim’ report: The written construction of spoken discourse. Language and Literature 1/2: 101–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Slembrouck, S. (2001). Explanation, interpretation and critique in the analysis of discourse. Critique of Anthropology 21/1: 33–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sliedrecht, K. Y. (2013). Formulations in institutionele interactie: de praktijk van ‘samenvatten’ in het politieverhoor, sollicitatiegesprek en journalistieke interview [Formulations in institutional interaction: The practice of ‘summarising’ in the police interrogation, job interview and news interview]. PhD dissertation, VU University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Smets, L. and Ponsaers, P. (2011). Het proces-verbaal van een verdachtenverhoor: Een bron van informatie? [The police report of a suspect interrogation: A source of information?] Cahiers Politiestudies 2011/4: 123–42.Google Scholar

Smith, D. (1974). The social construction of documentary reality. Sociological Inquiry 44/4: 257–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, D. (1990a). The active text. In: Smith, D. Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling, pp. 120–58. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Smith, D. (1990b). Textually mediated social organization. In: Smith, D. Texts, facts, and femininity: Exploring the relations of ruling, pp. 209–24. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Smith, D. (2001). Texts and the ontologies of organizations. Studies in Cultures, Organizations and Societies 7/2: 159–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sneijder, P. (2014). The embedding of reported speech in a rhetorical structure by prosecutors and defense lawyers in Dutch trials. Text & Talk 34/4: 467–90.Google Scholar

Steensig, J. and Drew, P. (2008). Introduction: Questioning and affiliation/disaffiliation in interaction. Discourse Studies 10/1: 5–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, T. (2011). Morality and question design: ‘Of course’ as contesting a presupposition of askability. In: Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, pp. 82–106. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, T. and Heritage, J. (2001). Breaking the sequential mold: Answering ‘more than the question’ during comprehensive history taking. Text 21/1–2: 151–85.Google Scholar

Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (2011). Knowledge, morality and affiliation in social interaction. In: Stivers, T., Mondada, L. and Steensig, J. (eds.), The morality of knowledge in conversation, pp. 3–24. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, T. and Rossano, F. (2010). Mobilizing response. Research on Language and Social Interaction 43: 3–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Stivers, T. and Sidnell, J. (eds.) (2012). The handbook of conversation analysis. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Stokoe, E. and Edwards, D. (2008). ‘Did you have permission to smash your neighbour’s door? Silly questions and their answers in police-suspect interrogations. Discourse Studies 10/1: 89–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sudnow, D. (1965). Normal crimes: sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office. Social Problems 12/3: 255–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Charldorp, T. (2011). From police interrogation to police record. PhD dissertation, VU University, Amsterdam.Google Scholar

Van Charldorp, T. (2013). The intertwining of talk and technology: How talk and typing are combined in the various phases of the police interrogation. Discourse & Communication 7/2: 221–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Charldorp, T. (2014). ‘What happened?’ From talk to text in police interrogations. Language & Communication 36: 7–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van der Houwen, F. (2013). Reported writing in court: Putting evidence ‘on record’. Text & Talk 33/6: 747–69.Google Scholar

Van Oorschot, I. (2014a). Seeing the case clearly: File-work, material mediation, and visualizing practices in a Dutch criminal court. Symbolic Interaction 37/4: 439–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Van Oorschot, I. (2014b). Het dossier-in-actie: vouw- en ontvouwpraktijken in juridische waarheidsvinding [The dossier-in-action: folding and unfolding practices in judicial truth finding]. Sociologie 10/3: 301–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wartna, B. S. J., Beijers, W. M. E. H. and Essers, A. A. M. (1999). Ontkennende en bekennende verdachten [Denying and confessing suspects]. Den Haag: Ministerie van Justitie, WODC.Google Scholar

Watson, D. R. (1990). Some features of the elicitation of confessions in murder interrogations. In: Psathas, G. (ed.), Interaction competence, pp. 263–95. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Watson, R. (2009). Analysing practical and professional texts: A naturalistic approach. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar

Whalen, J. (1995). A technology of order production: Computer-aided dispatch in public safety communication. In: ten Have, P. and Psathas, G. (eds.), Situated order. Studies in the social organization of talk and embodied activities, pp. 187–230. Washington, DC: University Press of America.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, D. H. (1969). Record-keeping and the intake-process in a public welfare agency. In: Wheeler, S. (ed.), On record: Files and dossiers in American life, pp. 319–54. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar

Zimmerman, D.H. (1992). The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance. In: Drew, P. and Heritage, J. (eds.), Talk at work, pp. 418–69. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar