Pragmatic Inference In Courtroom Interaction

This thesis examines the linguistic strategy of pragmatic inference in courtroom interaction. By analyzing the questions and answers in courtroom interaction, we aim to find out the way how pragmatic inference is realized in courtroom interaction, the way how a favorable effect is made for parties in a trial and how an unfavorable effect is canceled.We establish a theoretical framework by combining theories of presupposition and Grice's theory of conversational implicature. Mainly based on transcripts of courtroom recordings collected from Shandong Province, we investigate two kinds of pragmatic inference: presupposition and conversational implicature in courtroom interaction. The research shows pragmatic inference is widely used in courtroom communication. By using presupposition triggers and purposely violating sub-maxims of co-operative principle, people in a trial can lead the conversation, make a linguistic trap and make a favorable effect for themselves. It is also found that by using some anti pragmatic inference strategies, people involved can cancel some negative effect.This thesis may enrich the study of pragmatic inference, and may help to understand presupposition and conversational implicature in courtroom interaction. It is hoped that it will help judicial professionals improve their efficiency in courtroom argumentation.