An Analysis Of Linguistic Presupposition Applied In Courtroomjnquiry

Since the1970s forensic linguistics has become a robust and independent area ofscholarship. Both linguistic and legal professionals have shown increasing interest in theways that language and law intersect. Many linguistic theories can be applied to the studyof courtroom language, so does presupposition theory in pragmatics. Evidence showsthat judges, prosecutors and lawyers in courtroom inquiries employ presuppositions at ahigh frequency to get information and to test the credibility of defendants and witnesses.But few studies have been found to explore the use of presupposition in the courtroominquiry.Presupposition, originated from philosophical studies and put forward by Germanphilosopher Frege, has become an important concept in linguistics. Generally speaking,presuppositions are what are taken by the speaker to be the common ground of theparticipants in the conversation. The thesis takes presupposition used in the courtroom asits study objects. Based on identifying the basic features of courtroom examination, itfocuses on how lawyers manipulate meaning through the use of presupposition andexplores how witnesses use different strategies to break trap and impose their own line ofargument.Because presupposition has such characteristics as subjectiveness, latentness andconstancy under negation, a direct answer either yes or no means the acceptance ofpresupposed information. It is these distinctive features that make presupposition trappossible and make presupposition an effective strategy to manipulate meaning by lawyers.If questioners aim to manipulate the truth or falsity of presupposed proposition, it is quitepossible for witnesses to be cheated into traps unconsciously. For witnesses, the key ishow to express what they intend to say and convince judges besides fighting against thepresupposition traps. The first and utmost step is to identify such presupposition traps.Previous studies show that presuppositions are closely tied to the meanings of lexicalitems or constructions, and are very sensitive to contextual factors. Stephen Levinsonsummarizes thirteen kinds of presupposition triggers, which refer to the semantic formsthat can trigger the occurrence of pragmatic presuppositions. Such presuppositiontriggers give hints and clues for witnesses to identify the false presuppositions.With a qualitative method, two cases are viewed through integrating discourse analysis, psychological analysis and presupposition analysis to see why and how thelawyers tried to manipulate by constituting false presuppositions. They will be givenplausible explanations which rely upon the goal principle. Based on the analysis of thetwo cases, the constitution of presupposition trap is elaborated and furthermore,suggestions about identifying and defeating presupposition traps are given.There are three parts in this thesis. They are introduction, body part and conclusion,respectively. The main contents are as follows:The first part introduces this thesis. In this part were introduced researchbackground, research object, research methodology and data collection. This part alsoreviews the related research area and analyzes the practical and theoretical significance.The second part is the main body of this thesis, composed of three chapters:Chapter One analyzes the features of courtroom inquiry, reviews the previousstudies of presupposition, determines the working definition of presupposition for thethesis, demonstrates the research methods of pragmatic presupposition and semanticpresupposition as well as their relations and reveals the characteristics of presupposition.This chapter is the theoretical basis for this thesis.Chapter Two classifies presupposition triggers into three types includinglexical-level, syntactic-level and contextual-level and investigates how they can triggerpresupposition in practice especially in courtroom examinations.Chapter Three is a case study of presuppositions in two excerpts transcribed fromauthentic courtroom trials. It focuses on how the lawyers employ presupposition as astrategy to lead, force and even cheat the counterpart witnesses to give favorabletestimonies to the lawyer’s side to realize their aim of winning the case. Comparativelyanalyzing the two witnesses’ replies in the cases, the thesis also explores the methods andsteps for the witness to identify presuppositions and break those false presuppositions.The third part, also the last part concludes the thesis. It sums up the theoretical andpractical implications of the thesis; at the same time, it points out the limitations of thisstudy and gives some suggestion for future study.