Examining the Interactional Dynamics of (Non)Accommodation: A Case of Amber Heard's Final Cross-Examination

Authors

  • Hajar Khalifa Al Sultan

    Department of English Language, College of Arts, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 400, Al-Hofuf, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
  • Hiba Ali Alomary

    Department of Applied Linguistics, College of Languages, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, Riyadh 11564, Saudi Arabia
  • Alhanouf Mubarak Aldawsari

    Department of English Language, College of Arts, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 400, Al-Hofuf, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia
  • Fotoun Khaled Al Qahtani

    Department of English Language, College of Arts, King Faisal University, P.O. Box 400, Al-Hofuf, Al-Ahsa 31982, Saudi Arabia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i8.10638
Received: 22 June 2025 | Revised: 1 July 2025 | Accepted: 8 July 2025 | Published Online: 5 August 2025

Abstract

Courtroom interaction is often viewed as highly structured and rule-governed, yet research shows that interaction can sometimes be spontaneous, with defendants shifting topics, interrupting, or offering unsolicited comments. This study builds on discourse-based research by integrating Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT) and Conversation Analysis (CA) to investigate the interactional dynamics of (non)accommodation during cross-examination. Focusing on the widely publicized 2022 Depp v. Heard case, the analysis explores how Amber Heard and the attorney oriented to local actions, specifically how (non)accommodative behaviors were recognized, managed, and evaluated. Three key themes structured the analysis: the defendant's escalating use of hostile nonaccommodation practices, the attorney's responses to these practices, and the defendant's shift between accommodation and nonaccommodation during extended exchanges. CA reveals how (non)accommodation is interactionally produced and managed, shaping the trajectory of the exchange. Findings underscore the dynamic and context-sensitive nature of courtroom interactions, where reciprocal nonaccommodative behaviors amplify hostility. The study challenges prior quantitative CAT findings by demonstrating that coercive questioning did not consistently affect the length or quality of responses. It highlights how roles and context shape the management and perception of (non)accommodation in adversarial settings. This work advances the application of CAT and CA in legal discourse research and offers insights into how power, alignment, and control are negotiated in courtroom talk. Future research is encouraged to explore other factors influencing (non)accommodation, such as nonverbal behavior and the defendant's perceived social category.

Keywords:

Communication Accommodation Theory; Question-Answer Interaction; Courtroom Discourse; Conversation Analysis; (Non)Accommodation; Cross-Examination

References

[1] Cotterill, J., 2003. Language and power in court: a linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial. Springer: New York, NY, USA.

[2] Gnisci, A., Bakeman, R., 2007. Sequential accommodation of turn taking and turn length. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 26(3), 234–259. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x06303474

[3] Harris, S., 1984. Questions as a mode of control in magistrates' courts. International Journal of the Sociology of Language. 1984(49), 5–29. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1984.49.5

[4] Opeibi, T., 2012. Language countertrading in courtroom exchanges in Nigeria: a discursive study. International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature. 1(5), 49–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7575/ijalel.v.1n.5p.49

[5] Giles, H., Mulac, A., Bradac, J.J., Johnson, P., 1987. Speech accommodation theory: the first decade and beyond. Annals of the International Communication Association. 10(1), 13–48. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.1987.11678638

[6] Linell, P., 1991. Accommodation on Trial: Processes of Communicative Accommodation in Courtroom Interaction. In: Giles, H., Coupland, J., Coupland, N. (eds.). Contexts of Accommodation: Developments in Applied Sociolinguistics. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 103–130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663673.003

[7] 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. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 470–520.

[8] Drew, P., Almeida, F.F. de, 2020. Order in Court: Talk-in-Interaction in Judicial Settings. In: Coulthard, M., May, A., Sousa-Silva, R. (eds.). The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Routledge: London, UK. pp. 177–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429030581-16

[9] Hutchby, I., 2013. Confrontation Talk: Arguments, Asymmetries, and Power on Talk Radio. Routledge. Routledge: New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203811825

[10] Seuren, L.M., 2018. Questioning in court: the construction of direct examinations. Discourse Studies. 21(3), 340–357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445618770483

[11] Heffer, C., 2005. The Language of Jury Trial. Palgrave Macmillan: London, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502888

[12] Danet, B., Bogoch, B., 1980. Fixed fight or free-for-all? An empirical study of combativeness in the adversary system of justice. British Journal of Law and Society. 7(1), 36–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/1409753

[13] Mortensen, S.S., 2020. A question of control? Forms and functions of courtroom questioning in two different adversarial trial systems. Scandinavian Studies in Language. 11(1), 239–278. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7146/sss.v11i1.121370

[14] Komter, M.L., 1994. Accusations and defences in courtroom interaction. Discourse and Society. 5(2), 165–187. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926594005002002

[15] Giles, H., Edwards, A.L., Walther, J.B., 2023. Communication accommodation theory: past accomplishments, current trends, and future prospects. Language Sciences. 99, 101571. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2023.101571

[16] Anisah, A., Sari, D.F., 2024. The force of questioning and pragmatic strategies in courtroom interrogation: a conversation analysis. Studies in English Language and Education. 11(2), 1030–1045. DOI: https://doi.org/10.24815/siele.v11i2.35587

[17] Giles, H., 2016. Communication Accommodation Theory. In: Berger, C.R., Roloff, M.E., (eds.). The International Encyclopedia of Communication Theory and Philosophy. Wiley-Blackwell: Malden, MA, USA. pp. 1–7. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118766804.wbiect056

[18] Giles, H. (ed.), 2016. Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Contexts. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226537

[19] Gallois, C., Weatherall, A., Giles, H., 2016. CAT and Talk in Action. In: Giles, H. (ed.). Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Contexts. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 105–122. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316226537.006

[20] Gasiorek, J., 2016. The “Dark Side” of CAT. In: Giles, H. (ed.). Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Contexts. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 85–104. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316226537.005

[21] Gnisci, A., Giles, H., Soliz, J., 2016. CAT on Trial. In: Giles, H. (ed.). Communication Accommodation Theory: Negotiating Personal Relationships and Social Identities Across Contexts. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK. pp. 169–191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781316226537.009

[22] Sacks, H., Schegloff, E.A., Jefferson, G., 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language. 50(4), 696–735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/412243

[23] Heritage, J., Clayman, S., 2010. Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. John Wiley & Sons: Malden, MA, USA. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318135

[24] Clayman, S.E., 2001. Answers and evasions. Language in Society. 30(3), 403–442. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404501003037

[25] Clayman, S.E., Heritage, J., 2021. Conversation analysis and the study of sociohistorical change. Research on Language and Social Interaction. 54(2), 225–240. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2021.1899717

[26] Matoesian, G., 2013. Language and material conduct in legal discourse. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 17(5), 634–660. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/josl.12054

[27] Gnisci, A., 2005. Sequential strategies of accommodation: a new method in courtroom. British Journal of Social Psychology. 44(4), 621–643. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1348/014466604x16363

[28] Stivers, T., Robinson, J.D., 2006. A preference for progressivity in interaction. Language in Society. 35(3), 367–392. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404506060179

[29] YouTube, 2022. Day 17 - Johnny Depp & Amber Heard Trial: Amber Heard Gets Cross-Examined. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DOM0jRQQNmE (cited 20, September 2024).

[30] Speachpad.com, 2022. Transcript of the pool TV feed from Depp v. Heard, Fairfax County Court, 2022. Available from: https://reportingdeppvheard.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/20220517-Amber-Heard-Day-4-iO-Tillett-Wright-Raquel-Pennington.pdf (cited 20, September 2024 ).

[31] Gnisci, A., Bonaiuto, M., 2003. Grilling politicians. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 22(4), 385–413. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x03258088

[32] Jefferson, G., 2004. Glossary of Transcript Symbols with an Introduction. In: Lerner, G.H. Conversation Analysis: Studies From the First Generation. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 13–31. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef

[33] Heritage, J., Raymond, G., 2005. The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-interaction. Social Psychology Quarterly. 68(1), 15–38. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800103

[34] Eades, D., 2008. Telling and retelling your story in court: questions, assumptions and intercultural implications. Current Issues in Criminal Justice. 20(2), 209–230. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10345329.2008.12035805

[35] Gasiorek, J., 2013. “I was impolite to her because that's how she was to me”: perceptions of motive and young adults' communicative responses to underaccommodation. Western Journal of Communication. 77(5), 604–624. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2013.778421

[36] Raymond, G., Chen, J., Whitehead, K.A., 2023. Sequential standoffs in police encounters with the public. Journal of Language and Social Psychology. 42(5–6), 653–678. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x231185529

[37] Robles, J.S., 2011. Doing disagreement in the House of Lords: ‘talking around the issue' as a context-appropriate argumentative strategy. Discourse and Communication. 5(2), 147–168. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481310395452

[38] Clair, M., 2020. Being a disadvantaged criminal defendant: mistrust and resistance in attorney-client interactions. Social Forces, 100(1), 194–217. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa082

[39] Eades, D., 2006. Lexical struggle in court: aboriginal Australians versus the state. Journal of Sociolinguistics. 10(2), 153–180. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-6441.2006.00323.x

[40] Chen, M., 2021. Is courtroom discourse an ‘oral' or ‘literate' register? The importance of sub-register. Discourse Studies. 23(3), 249–273. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445620982097

Downloads

How to Cite

Al Sultan, H. K., Alomary, H. A., Aldawsari, A. M., & Al Qahtani, F. K. (2025). Examining the Interactional Dynamics of (Non)Accommodation: A Case of Amber Heard’s Final Cross-Examination. Forum for Linguistic Studies, 7(8), 566–582. https://doi.org/10.30564/fls.v7i8.10638

Issue

Vol. 7 , Iss. 8 (August 2025)

Article Type

Article

License

Copyright © 2025 Hajar Khalifa Al Sultan, Hiba Ali Alomary, Alhanouf Mubarak Aldawsari, Fotoun Khaled AlQahtani

Creative Commons License

This is an open access article under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0) License.