An Adaptability-theoretic Approach To Hedges In Courtroom Discourse

Hedging in courtroom discourse is a prevalent phenomenon of language use. It is an important communicative strategy used by courtroom participants (such as the judge, attorneys and witnesses) in various ways to adapt to different contextual factors. In spite of its importance, there are few or no descriptive frameworks for hedges as a whole based on the analysis of adequate corpus. Furthermore, there is no study of the dynamic generation of courtroom hedges. Thus, as a partial response to such limitations, this dissertation aims to carry out an integrative study of courtroom hedges in forms, functions and generation mechanism so as to understand how and why people use hedges in courtroom discourse.Based on Verschueren's theory of linguistic adaptation, this study aims to answer the following four questions:(1) What variables are involved in the choice of hedges? (2) How are hedges negotiated during the process of choice? (3) To what do courtroom hedges adapt? (4) What are the functions of hedges in courtroom discourse? To answer these questions, data of courtroom interaction are collected from the courtroom records of O. J. Simpson trial. The participants involved are the judge, prosecution and defense attorneys and witnesses. All the data are subject to a quantitative and qualitative analysis.The following are the major findings based on the analysis of these data:First, in courtroom context, hedging is a skillful communicative strategy frequently used by interlocutors to facilitate communication. Hedging is realized through various forms of hedges. The choice of an appropriate hedge is made among a wide range of variables. A total of 9603 tokens of hedges are found in the corpus. Among them, lexical hedges (such as verbs, adverbs, adjectives, and so on) account for 71%(6814 tokens), and non-lexical hedges (such as there-be clauses, tag questions, hypothetical conditionals and direct quotations) only account for 29%(2789 tokens). In fact, the choice of these various linguistic forms of courtroom hedges is reflected in the process of strategic choice oriented to communicative goals. Corresponding to different communicative goals, the use of courtroom hedges at the strategy level mainly varies on the dimensions of the accuracy of propositional content, affection orientation and discourse coherence. On the dimension of the accuracy of propositional content, hedges vary on the truth value of the proposition and signify a speaker's attitude toward the validity of the proposition. With reference to the dimension of affection, the affection orientation is highlighted. Hence, hedges mainly vary with the purpose of satisfying the speaker's affection or the hearer's affection. On the dimension of discourse coherence, hedges are chosen as cohesive devices to enable the speaker to manage conversation effectively.Second, the choice of hedges is negotiable in terms of its operative mechanism. Negotiation is conducted upon flexible principles or strategies rather than strict rules. Though the choice is not strictly governed by fixed form-function rules, there are still some working principles functioning in the process of negotiation. The present study explores three kinds of negotiations:cooperation-oriented negotiation, politeness-strategic negotiation and coherence-driven negotiation. For the convenience of discussion, these three aspects are analyzed separately. Actually, there is no clear line between them. Meanwhile, the process of choice demonstrates two salient properties of hedge negotiation, that is, indeterminacy and flexibility. These two properties are crucial to the negotiability of hedges.Third, negotiation does not occur in a vacuum. It is affected by various factors. In other words, the choice of language is a negotiable process of adaptation between linguistic structures and contexts. Contexts play important roles in the choice of linguistic structures. Courtroom discourse, as a type of institutionalized discourse, is highly context-dependent. Various contextual correlates inevitably influence linguistic choice in a profound manner. Hedges, as a result of linguistic choice, have been found to be interadaptable with a number of factors, including social factors such as courtroom norms and power relations, and mental factors such as the interlocutor's psychological motivations. These social and mental factors seem to provide an adequate explanation for the use of hedges in the courtroom setting. However, it is difficult, if not impossible, to exhaust the potential factors influencing hedging.Finally, the functions of hedges in courtroom discourse are broadly classified into three types:informative function, interactive function and discoursal function. Informative function refers to the role played by hedges in expressing the speaker's knowledge and degree of certainty. It shows the extent to which the speaker believes that his/her utterance is true. Interactive function generally focuses on the interpersonal relations between the speaker and the hearer. It concerns the speaker's attitude towards the hearer. Based on the corpus, interactive function of hedges can be condensed into two aspects:making the utterance appropriate and improving interpersonal relationships. The appropriateness of utterance is realized through three sub-functions:increasing the credibility of the utterance, reducing the risk of face threat, and enhancing flexibility and self-protection. Interpersonal relationships are improved by reinforcing interpersonal harmony as well as avoiding interpersonal conflict. Discoursal function refers to the function of organizing discourse and directing the hearer. That is to say, hedges can help coordinate texts or turns of utterances in a sequence so as to keep smooth communication.The present study demonstrates the working mechanism of hedges in courtroom interaction. Theoretically, this study enriches research in the areas of hedging, pragmatics and discourse analysis. Practically, it has implications for courtroom interaction. In other words, a deep understanding of how hedges operate in courtroom discourse can help the courtroom participants especially legal professionals to hedge appropriately so as to handle constantly changing contexts in judicial practice.