Analysis Of Conversational Implicature Of Courtroom English Discourse

This essay attempts to explain the generation and inference of conversational implicature in courtroom English conversation based on Grice's co-operative principle. Courtroom communication is goal-directed and task- driven. The participants will employ conversational implicature to achieve their goals in courtroom conversation. The function of conversational implicature for counsel is to undermine the reliance and creditability of the testimony, for witness to give an effective rebut to counsel. On basis of previous study on courtroom discourse, the author summarized characteristics of courtroom discourse as three kinds: complex directions of communication, disparity of power in communication and contextual meaning.The author investigates conversational implicature of courtroom conversations through quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis and arrives at the conclusion: violation of co-operative principle is the main instrument of generating conversational implicature. Implicature is the real intention of speakers, by means of deliberate flouting CP or a maxim of CP to 'implicate' information. The author explored logical relationship among the four maxims of co-operative principle: the content levels of a communication are listed in the order from relevant to quality then to quantity, relevant maxim is the starting point of selecting the content of communication and the precondition of quality, quality is the premise of quantity. The relationship can be expressed as a formula: if x E" (x: element in the collection of quantity, E'": collection of quantity) , then the expressions x E" (E": collection of quality) and x E' (E': collection of relevant) are reached, in other words: E'"= E" E', the formula means that collection E'"is the intersection of collection E" and E'.In the cross-examination, counsel tends to employ three language strategies in an attempt to conceive his intentional implicature: Contrast devices, three- part lists, and repetition of the same question. Witness adopts other-correction to indicate his intentional implicature. The inference of conversational implicature courtroom conversation is constrained by context, courtroom culture, and courtroom regulations, the relationship between the participants, background information and intention of the speaker.