法庭问话中的语用预设

论文摘要

本文采用预设理论,从语用学的角度对人们在法庭交叉询问中如何策略性地使用预设的情况进行了研究,旨在发现预设策略的实现形式,并揭示预设策略对人们在交叉询问中实现辩驳和说服目的所起的作用,揭示了其对法庭中各方为实现各自目的所做出的有利影响,并指出可以通过一些语用策略取消其不利影响。作为语言学,特别是语用学中的一个重要话题,预设由于其自身具有的主观性、隐蔽性、可取消性等特点经常被人们在询问中加以使用以更好地达到询问的目的。我们在预设理论基础上构建了理论框架。本文主要根据已有的法庭资料,分析了预设这一在法庭交叉询问中最常用的语用推理策略。研究表明,预设在法庭对话中非常常见。在法庭会话中,各方当事人力图使话题向有利于他们自己的方向发展,人们使用“前提触发语”和虚假预设来设置语言陷阱,或者引导话题的方向。同时,通过分析,我们发现人们可以运用一些反语用推理的语言策略及时取消对自己不利的影响。全文共分四章:第一章阐述法庭交叉询问的定义、语境特征及目的,回顾了前人对法庭交叉询问的研究及对其研究的评价,同时也对预设理论研究及其评价作了简单的回顾。第二章是本文研究的理论框架—预设,主要包括其含义,两种研究途径—语义预设和语用预设,预设与信息中心的关系及本文中采用的预设研究途径。第三章对预设策略在法庭交叉询问中的应用作了具体的分析,其策略主要包括前提触发语(确定性描述、定语丛菊等)和虚假语用预设(尤其是故意的虚假语用预设)。第四章分析了一案例来阐述预设是怎样在法庭交叉询问中应用的,同时我们也对怎样辨别预设提供了建议和方法,并对预设策略在法庭交叉询问中的应用作了评价,既有积极作用也有消极的一面。我们希望本文能够丰富语用推理的研究,有助于加深对法庭会话中预设的理解,并有助于提高司法领域执业人员在法庭辩论中获取信息的效率。

论文目录

• Abstract
• 摘要
• Introduction
• Chapter One Review of Relevant Literature
• 1.1 Introduction
• 1.2 Definition of Courtroom Cross-examination
• 1.3 Contextual Features of Courtroom Cross-examination
• 1.3.1 Roles of Participants in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 1.3.2 The Interpersonal Relation Between Participants
• 1.3.3 The Psychology of Participants in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 1.4 Purpose of Courtroom Cross-examination
• 1.5 Related Research on Courtroom Cross-examination
• 1.6 Critique of the Previous Researches on Courtroom Cross-examination
• 1.7 Overview of the Presupposition Theory
• 1.7.1 Overview of the Theoretical Study
• 1.7.2 Overview of the Practical Study
• 1.8 Critique on the Presupposition Theory
• 1.9 Summary
• Chapter Two Theoretical Framework
• 2.1 Introduction
• 2.2 Introduction to the Presupposition Theory
• 2.2.1 The Concept of Presupposition
• 2.2.2 Two Approaches to Presupposition
• 2.2.2.1 Semantic presupposition
• 2.2.2.2 Pragmatic presupposition
• 2.2.3 Relation Between Semantic Presupposition and Pragmatic Presupposition
• 2.2.4 Properties or Characteristics of Presupposition
• 2.3 Presupposition and Information Focus
• 2.3.1 The Position of Information Focus
• 2.3.2 Information Focus and Presupposition
• 2.4 Presupposition in This Thesis
• Chapter Three The Strategic Employment of Presupposition in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.1 Introduction to Presupposition Triggers
• 3.2 The Pragmatic Analysis of Presupposition Triggers in the Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.1 Definite Descriptions in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.2 Factive Verbs in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.3 Implicative Verbs in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.4 Change of State Verbs in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.5 Iteratives in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.6 Attributive Clauses in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.7 Adverbial Clauses of Time in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.8 Adverbial Clauses of Counterfactual Conditionals in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.9 Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Sentences in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.10 Comparative Sentences in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.2.11 Question Types in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.3 The Analysis of Sham Pragmatic Presupposition in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.3.1 Definition of Sham Pragmatic Presupposition
• 3.3.2 Two Forms of Sham Pragmatic Presupposition
• 3.3.2.1 Unintentional sham pragmatic presupposition
• 3.3.2.2 Intentional sham pragmatic presupposition
• 3.3.3 Two Ways for the Counsel to Use Sham Pragmatic Presupposition in Courtroom Cross-examination
• 3.3.3.1 The counsel makes use of sham pragmatic presupposition to test the truth of hypothesis
• 3.3.3.2 The counsel can use the witness’s sham pragmatic presupposition as the weapon to make him/her unable to change and quibble.
• Chapter Four The Pragmatic Analysis of Presupposition in the Courtroom Cross-examination of a Case
• 4.1 Introduction
• 4.2 The Case Analysis
• 4.3 Ways to Distinguish and Break the Presuppositions
• 4.4 Evaluation About the Presupposition Strategy in Courtroom Cross-examination
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Acknowledgement
• Resume