| Law has, since ancient times, been recognized as an inherently rhetorical activity. It is written and promulgated in words. Language is law's vehicle of expression. So legal language came into being since the birth of law.Courts are increasingly calling on linguists to help in certain types of cases. Most of the linguists' forensic work has been in the fields of phonetics and graphology, i.e. comparisons of samples of handwriting, and of tape-recorded voices, where the methodology is already well developed. By contrast, forensic discourse analysis, especially courtroom discourse analysis, is a very new area and the methodology is still being developed adcasum.One can already see the beginning of a new discipline, forensic linguistics ?1993 saw the first International Conference of Forensic Linguistics and 1994 the first journal of forensic linguistics ?language and law.Courtroom discourse refers to opening statements, courtroom testimony, closing arguments, examination, etc.. Lawyer-witness examination, especially cross-examination, is a major part of courtroom discourse analysis. There are three types of examinations: one is direct examination, in which the prosecuting lawyer and the defense lawyer examine their own witnesses; one is cross-examination, in which the prosecuting lawyer andthe defense lawyer examine the opposite side's witnesses; the third one is re-examination, which is used by the lawyers to examine their own witnesses when necessary. Generally speaking, examination is developed in question-answer format in order to get favorable information.This thesis explores power in the discourse of cross-examination ?an important component of courtroom discourse ?from the perspectives of conversation analysis and the modality system. Language can make people possess different social positions in certain context of situation, this is called linguistic power. It is mainly realized by means of controlling or losing control of language. The grammatical means to control or lose control of language are mood and modality, the textual means is turn-taking, and the lexical means are mood adjuncts and comment adjuncts. This thesis focuses on the grammatical level and the textual level.This thesis consists of four chapters. Chapter I introduces the concepts of power and discourse. Michel Foucault's theory of discourse is introduced in this thesis to explore the connection between discourse and power. The key to unlocking the conundrum of power is to understand the minute details, in particular the micro-linguistic details, of the interaction in which power is exercised. Linguistic analysis can help us to understand the nature of power itself. Court is a place within which two opposite sides compete for power, and cross-examination is the focus of the furious competition, so the discourse of cross-examination is chosen to be analyzed to explore power.Chapter II first compares daily conversation with cross-examination to find out their different turn-taking organizations, then examines five features that lawyers manipulate to control witnesses: silence, question form, topic management, evaluative commentary, and challenges to the witness's capacity for knowledge. These five features are indeed important strategies whereby cross-examining lawyers can dominate witnesses. And they should be managed through the production of information in "question-answer" turn-taking organization.Chapter HI goes more deeply to discuss the modality system, whose role in language is more inconspicuous to people. I first expound the modality system in Systemic Functional Grammar, then apply the system to cross-examination in O.J. Simpson Trial. We can see from the discussion of the statistic results that the modality system plays a very important role in interaction. Those who can control the modality system speak objectively and definitely; those who cannot always speak subjectively and uncertainly. The power relationship is thus formed.Chapter IV is the conclusion, in which the point is made clear that th...
|
PDF Full Text Request