Conceptual Integration Theory And Courtroom Discourse

This thesis intends to bring conceptual integration theory into the analysis of courtroom discourse. By the application and explanations, I try to explore the cognitive proceedings in a cross-examination trial so that people can have a better understanding of courtroom activities.Forensic linguistics as a peripheral subject has attracted more and more attention from diverse intellectual backgrounds. As courtroom is the focus of law, courtroom discourse study reasonably becomes kernel of the study by many researchers. Conley (1998), O'Barr (1998), Matoesian (1994), and Maley (1994) all choose courtroom discourse as their central topic of research. Their efforts are primarily put on the pragmatic and social context of courtroom discourse. Few of them have realized the cognitive proceedings in their researches. That is why we bring conceptual integration theory into the analysis of courtroom discourse.Conceptual integration theory has been studied by many linguists, such as Fauconnier and Turner (1994,1995,1996), Coulson (1995), and Mandelblit (1994,1995). My analysismainly adopts ideas of Fauconnier and Turner. Conceptual integration theory has completenetworks, which functions independently according to a set of uniform structural and dynamicprinciples. The operation is based on four spaces: two input spaces, a generic space, and a blended space. In blending, structures from input spaces are projected to a separate "blended" mental space. The projection is selective. Through completion and elaboration, the blend develops structure which are not provided by the inputs. Inferences, arguments, and ideas developed in the blend can have effect in cognition, leading us to modify the initial inputs and to change our view of the corresponding situations.Courtroom discourse in a cross-examination trial provides us with a good platform to carry out conceptual integration theory. When lawyers create witty questions, witnesses give answers, and other participants make responses, they all unavoidably undergo a series of cognitive processes. It is these cognitive processes that determine the result of a case. We seldom volunteer to trace the cognitive proceedings as a trial is going on. While, conceptual integration theory can make use of its blending to help us solve the mystery-how a lawyer always makes accomplishments in the cross-examination trial.The combination of conceptual integration theory with courtroom discourse must create a novel perspective both for the research of conceptual integration theory and for the researchof courtroom discourse.