Abstract: This paper is an exploratory analysis of questioning strategies in trials involving Gender-Based Violence (GBV) in Italy, and more specifically cases of male violence against women in heterosexual relationships, falling under the violation of art. 572 of the Italian penal code – ill-treatments against family members or persons living in the same household (domestic violence). The aim is to compare the questioning of survivors(complainants) and aggressors (defendants) in order to determine whether gender asymmetry can be said to exist (i.e., difference in the treatment of survivors and aggressors). The dataset collected includes three Italian cases involving four hearings where survivors were witnesses and four where aggressors were witnesses. The analysis is carried out from two perspectives: quantitative (turn-taking, words spoken, word per turn) and qualitative (strictly morphosyntactic question types, without considering pragmatics), the latter following the scalar model implemented by Archer (2005) and subsequently adapted by Mortensen (2020). Considerations as to quantitative dominance following Bellucci (2005) and Benevieri (2022) and gender-based dynamics following Conley & O' Barr (2005), Bogogh (1999) and Tannen (1993). The results from the dataset show that survivors are asked more questions than aggressors; they are allowed to speak less in their answers, and their morphological question types tend towards the high control side of the spectrum. According to these findings, it can therefore be said that there is an asymmetry in the administration of justice within the courtroom interaction in GBV cases, which might be due to gender roles.
Keywords: Italy, forensic linguistics, gender asymmetries, courtroom interaction discourse,domestic violence trials