A Critical Discourse Analysis Of Courtroom Conversation

Power and discourse is s popular issue in the area of critical discourse analysis. Based on the basic viewpoint of Norman Fairclough, this thesis studies power relations and discourse in courtroom conversation and strategies to realize power, by means of conversational analysis to analyze the corpus.Centering on the objectives, the thesis first of all makes a brief survey of CDA, which involves the development of CDA and power as the central concern of CDA. It is generalized some characteristics of power: first, power is closely linked with ideology; second, power is a discursive force to achieve one's aim; third, the exercise of power can be covert or overt. Then, Grice's co-operative principle and implicature are discussed. Finally, a neat summary to the characteristics of courtroom conversation is given.The thesis discusses strategies to realize power in courtroom conversation from two aspects: questions and violation of co-operative principle.Due to their anticipation and expectation of answer, questions are regarded as the key and obligatory element in courtroom conversation. The courtroom is the forum whose basic role is to make a decision, on any issue brought before it concerning the legality of social behavior, either criminal or civil. Quite obviously, only those who have the most right to speak, to choose, to control and to change topics and turn-taking are endowed with power in courtroom conversation. And, questions could help the powerful to realize their power.We all know that in order to realize the participants'intention and get their intentions realized in the communication, it demands every participant to cooperate with one other. But, courtroom discourse is goal-directed and task-driven. In the courtroom, because the participants have different purposes respectively, their task in a trial is quite different too: the judge's task is to settle the dispute in the courtroom fairly and justly. The defendant's task is to deny or find an excuse for what he is charged with. The supportive counsel's task is to undermine the reliance and creditability of the adversarial witness'testimony. Therefore, participants have to violate co-operative principle to realize their power.Of course, this thesis is tentative and there remains limitation and suggestion for further research. Courtroom conversation is goal-directed and task-driven, so that it demands every participant to cooperate with each other. The limitation is, to what extent, the participants believe that they cooperate with each other, which is very vague. In the further study, we should find out the way to protect the less-powerful participants'right in courtroom conversation.