学位论文 > 优秀研究生学位论文题录展示

法庭问话中的语用预设

作　者: 陈秀芳
导　师: 刘典忠；徐万治
学　校: 中国石油大学
专　业: 英语语言文学
关键词: 法庭交叉询问预设前提触发语虚假语用预设
分类号: H030
类　型: 硕士论文
年　份: 2007年
下　载: 370次
引　用: 2次
阅　读: 论文下载

内容摘要

本文采用预设理论,从语用学的角度对人们在法庭交叉询问中如何策略性地使用预设的情况进行了研究,旨在发现预设策略的实现形式,并揭示预设策略对人们在交叉询问中实现辩驳和说服目的所起的作用,揭示了其对法庭中各方为实现各自目的所做出的有利影响,并指出可以通过一些语用策略取消其不利影响。作为语言学,特别是语用学中的一个重要话题,预设由于其自身具有的主观性、隐蔽性、可取消性等特点经常被人们在询问中加以使用以更好地达到询问的目的。我们在预设理论基础上构建了理论框架。本文主要根据已有的法庭资料,分析了预设这一在法庭交叉询问中最常用的语用推理策略。研究表明,预设在法庭对话中非常常见。在法庭会话中,各方当事人力图使话题向有利于他们自己的方向发展,人们使用“前提触发语”和虚假预设来设置语言陷阱,或者引导话题的方向。同时,通过分析,我们发现人们可以运用一些反语用推理的语言策略及时取消对自己不利的影响。全文共分四章:第一章阐述法庭交叉询问的定义、语境特征及目的,回顾了前人对法庭交叉询问的研究及对其研究的评价,同时也对预设理论研究及其评价作了简单的回顾。第二章是本文研究的理论框架—预设,主要包括其含义,两种研究途径—语义预设和语用预设,预设与信息中心的关系及本文中采用的预设研究途径。第三章对预设策略在法庭交叉询问中的应用作了具体的分析,其策略主要包括前提触发语(确定性描述、定语丛菊等)和虚假语用预设(尤其是故意的虚假语用预设)。第四章分析了一案例来阐述预设是怎样在法庭交叉询问中应用的,同时我们也对怎样辨别预设提供了建议和方法,并对预设策略在法庭交叉询问中的应用作了评价,既有积极作用也有消极的一面。我们希望本文能够丰富语用推理的研究,有助于加深对法庭会话中预设的理解,并有助于提高司法领域执业人员在法庭辩论中获取信息的效率。

全文目录

Abstract  4-6
摘要  6-11
Introduction  11-15
Chapter One Review of Relevant Literature  15-30
  1.1 Introduction  15
  1.2 Definition of Courtroom Cross-examination  15-17
  1.3 Contextual Features of Courtroom Cross-examination  17-20
    1.3.1 Roles of Participants in Courtroom Cross-examination  17-19
    1.3.2 The Interpersonal Relation Between Participants  19
    1.3.3 The Psychology of Participants in Courtroom Cross-examination  19-20
  1.4 Purpose of Courtroom Cross-examination  20-21
  1.5 Related Research on Courtroom Cross-examination  21-24
  1.6 Critique of the Previous Researches on Courtroom Cross-examination  24-25
  1.7 Overview of the Presupposition Theory  25-28
    1.7.1 Overview of the Theoretical Study  25-27
    1.7.2 Overview of the Practical Study  27-28
  1.8 Critique on the Presupposition Theory  28-29
  1.9 Summary  29-30
Chapter Two Theoretical Framework  30-51
  2.1 Introduction  30
  2.2 Introduction to the Presupposition Theory  30-47
    2.2.1 The Concept of Presupposition  30-33
    2.2.2 Two Approaches to Presupposition  33-43
      2.2.2.1 Semantic presupposition  33-35
      2.2.2.2 Pragmatic presupposition  35-43
    2.2.3 Relation Between Semantic Presupposition and Pragmatic Presupposition  43-44
    2.2.4 Properties or Characteristics of Presupposition  44-47
  2.3 Presupposition and Information Focus  47-49
    2.3.1 The Position of Information Focus  47-48
    2.3.2 Information Focus and Presupposition  48-49
  2.4 Presupposition in This Thesis  49-51
Chapter Three The Strategic Employment of Presupposition in Courtroom Cross-examination  51-81
  3.1 Introduction to Presupposition Triggers  51
  3.2 The Pragmatic Analysis of Presupposition Triggers in the Courtroom Cross-examination  51-69
    3.2.1 Definite Descriptions in Courtroom Cross-examination  51-53
    3.2.2 Factive Verbs in Courtroom Cross-examination  53-55
    3.2.3 Implicative Verbs in Courtroom Cross-examination  55-56
    3.2.4 Change of State Verbs in Courtroom Cross-examination  56-57
    3.2.5 Iteratives in Courtroom Cross-examination  57-58
    3.2.6 Attributive Clauses in Courtroom Cross-examination  58-60
    3.2.7 Adverbial Clauses of Time in Courtroom Cross-examination  60-61
    3.2.8 Adverbial Clauses of Counterfactual Conditionals in Courtroom Cross-examination  61-62
    3.2.9 Cleft and Pseudo-cleft Sentences in Courtroom Cross-examination  62-65
    3.2.10 Comparative Sentences in Courtroom Cross-examination  65-67
    3.2.11 Question Types in Courtroom Cross-examination  67-69
  3.3 The Analysis of Sham Pragmatic Presupposition in Courtroom Cross-examination  69-81
    3.3.1 Definition of Sham Pragmatic Presupposition  69-70
    3.3.2 Two Forms of Sham Pragmatic Presupposition  70-73
      3.3.2.1 Unintentional sham pragmatic presupposition  70-71
      3.3.2.2 Intentional sham pragmatic presupposition  71-73
    3.3.3 Two Ways for the Counsel to Use Sham Pragmatic Presupposition in Courtroom Cross-examination  73-81
      3.3.3.1 The counsel makes use of sham pragmatic presupposition to test the truth of hypothesis  74-77
      3.3.3.2 The counsel can use the witness’s sham pragmatic presupposition as the weapon to make him/her unable to change and quibble.  77-81
Chapter Four The Pragmatic Analysis of Presupposition in the Courtroom Cross-examination of a Case  81-90
  4.1 Introduction  81
  4.2 The Case Analysis  81-86
  4.3 Ways to Distinguish and Break the Presuppositions  86-88
  4.4 Evaluation About the Presupposition Strategy in Courtroom Cross-examination  88-90
Conclusion  90-93
Bibliography  93-99
Acknowledgement  99-100
Resume  100

法庭问话中的语用预设

内容摘要

全文目录

相似论文