Declarative Questions are second in the hierarchy of question coerciveness. As with Tag Questions, Declarative Questions involved the examiner making a statement which he or she expects the respondent to affirm either positively or negatively. In direct examination, such an affirmation could be necessary to clarify issues and reinforce the version of facts that the direct examiner wishes to build as examples 6.4 (a)-(d) show.
Example 6.4: DS1Case05DE
(a) C1: You wanted to withdraw all the money?
W2: Yes that is what Mr. C____ wanted. I talked to the manager but he said his branch couldn’t handle the whole amount so we withdrew 5 million.
C1: When you say ‘we’, it was your account so you withdrew the money? W2: We were with them but yes I withdrew the money and gave it to
them [and-]
(b) C1: So you witnessed Mr. C_____ giving Mr. O______ the money?
W2: Yes.
(c) C1: You were to withdraw the remaining 5 million the following day?
(d) C1: You went together?
W2: No. I drove my car and they drove theirs. C1: They drove together?
W2: Yes.
The extracts in example 6.4(a)-(d) are from an anti-corruption case and they feature a series of Declarative Questions from the state counsel prosecuting the case. The witness responds to the questions with a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ with or without elaboration. The Declarative Questions contain information that is likely to be of significance in the case. For instance, in example 6.4(a) the first question is on the intention to withdraw ‘all the money’ which might be of significance because some money had been deposited in the account on the same day and it was all being withdrawn in cash. In the second question of 6.4(a), the lawyer wants the witness to confirm that it is he (the witness) who withdrew the money, which would serve as a clarification of the plural ‘we’ the witness has used in reference to the withdrawal transaction.
The Declarative Question in 6.4(b) deals with the fact of the witness having been an eye witness to money changing hands between two of the accused persons, and in affirming the proposition of the Declarative Question, the witness provides emphasis on the prosecution’s assertion that two of the accused persons before the court were the beneficiaries of the corrupt deal. This version of events is further emphasized by the two Declarative Questions in 6.4(d) as the witness confirms that even on the following day, the two accused persons rode in one car as they went to withdraw the remainder of the money. These are representations of the
secondary reality that are originating from the examiner and all the eye witness is doing is confirming their occurrence. This shows that Declarative Questions can give power to the examiner to control not just the discourse topic but the development of that topic.
In an almost similar vein, examiners can use Declarative Questions to draw conclusions not explicitly stated by the witness and then get the witness to affirm such conclusions. This is shown in example 7.4(a)-(b) below.
Example 7.4: DS2Case12DE
(a) P: Na hii kisu ilipatikana wapi?
And where did you get this knife?
W: Hapo alikuwa analala.
Where he was sleeping.
P: Aliacha hapo?
He left it there?
W: Wakati alishtuka hivi akaona kumekucha aliamka akakimbia.
When he started and saw it was daylight he got up and fled.
P: Ukapeleka wapi hii kisu?
Where did you take this knife?
W: Nikapeleka polisi.
I took it to the police.
P: Ukapeleka polisi ya O___?
You took it to the police at O__?
W: Ee.
(b) W: Wakati nilipotoka nje, alitaka kuninduga. Na mimi nilikuwa na panga. Sasa nilisi mama na nilikuwa na [fimbo-]
When I got out he wanted to stab me. And I had a machete. Now I stood and I had a club-
P: [Kwa] hivyo hiyo panga ndio ilimzuia
kukundunga.=
So that machete is what prevented him from stabbing you?
W: =Ee na hiyo siku si mara ya kwanza. [Ali-]
Ee and that is not the first day. He-
In example 7.4(a), the prosecutor uses two Declarative Questions to provide certain facts in line with his case theory. The witness says the knife that has been produced before court was found where the accused person had been sleeping and
the prosecutor uses the first Declarative Question in the exchange to create a link between the knife and the accused by declaring that it is ‘he’, the accused person who left it there. Given that this is a trial, one cannot but wonder at the significance of the fact that the witness does not affirm the prosecutor’s assertion that links the knife with the accused person. However, the prosecutor does not revisit the issue but moves on to what the witness did after recovering the knife. The second Declarative Question in 7.4(a) serves to make the witness’s previous response fit the specificity required of the court record. The witness says he took the knife that is an exhibit in the case to a police station without specifying the particular station. The prosecutor names the station in the Declarative Question and the witness confirms it.
In example 7.4(b), the prosecutor concludes that the accused intended to stab the witness and was only prevented from doing so by the fact that the witness was also armed. Through this question, the prosecutor seems to be seeking to have the witness rubberstamp one element of the charge the accused is facing; namely, having threatened another with a dangerous weapon. Though the witness affirms this assertion, the use of the Declarative Question seems calculated on the part of the prosecutor. The witness is describing a situation where there is a standoff between himself and the accused person and both had weapons. Given this, it might be detrimental to the prosecution’s case if the witness were to give a lengthy account that might blur the ‘facts’ on just who the aggressor was. Thus,
the Declarative Question gives a conclusion that the accused was the aggressor and the witness concurs. However, the witness’s attempt to elaborate his answer to the Declarative Question is interrupted by the prosecutor.
The other subtype of Declarative Questions observed in the data were Projected Statements in which the examiner quoted back to the witness what he or she had said earlier in testimony. Such questions are signaled by expressions like ‘you said…’ ‘you testified earlier…’ In direct examination, such questions were seen to be used in a supportive way by giving the witness a chance to rectify inconsistencies in their testimony as example 8.4 shows.
Example 8.4: DS1Case02DE
P: Ulisema wewe haukugongwa na gari natena unatibiwa?
You said you were not hit by the vehicle and then you are being treated?
W: Sikugongwa lakini wakati niliruka nilianguka na nikaumia hapa {((pointing))} na kwa mguu. Nilikuwa natokwa na damu na niliwekwa bandage.
I wasn’t hit but when I jumped I fell and I got hurt here and at the leg. I was bleeding and I was bandaged.
Here the prosecutor quotes back to the witness his earlier testimony so that he can clarify why he needed treatment at the hospital and yet he was not hit by the car. The witness clarifies that the injuries he sustained were not from being hit by the vehicle but from having landed in a ditch as he ran away from the vehicle.