A Study of the Strategy of Presupposition in Courtroom Interaction

TAN+Yao-wen

【Abstract】Based on presupposition theory， this paper tries to show how presupposition is realized in courtroom interaction and how a favorable effect is made for parties in a trial. By using the strategy of presupposition， judges， lawyers and public prosecutors can direct the conversation， make a linguistic trap and create a favorable effect for themselves. It is shown that the strategy of presupposition is helpful for judicial professionals to improve their language skills and enhance their efficiency in courtroom interaction.

【Key words】courtroom interaction； presupposition theory； the strategy of presupposition

1. Introduction

In todays world， legal language has been drawn attention by linguists and judicial professionals. Famous scholars in China， such as 杜金榜 （2004） and 陳炯 （1998）， have devoted themselves to legal texts and legislative language. With the development of Chinas legal system， the professional skills of the judicial workers need to be further enhanced. A study of the strategy in courtroom interaction can not only offer the judicial workers linguistic guidance but improve their efficiency in handling those cases.

Based on civil and criminal cases， this paper tries to study the strategy of presupposition in courtroom interaction. The study focuses on how to use the strategies to make a linguistic trap so that the court debates develop in a way that is favorable for all the parties. It is hoped that this study will contribute to the development of the language skills of judicial workers.

2. Introduction to Presupposition

The study of presupposition dates back to the philosophical debates about reference and referring expressions. Frege（1952） was the first to initiate this phenomenon. He was interested in the distinction between sense and reference， defined by using a proper name in an assertion presupposes that the name designating something. Frege also observed even though this assertion is negated； the proper name still designates something.

Example： （1） Kepler died in misery.

（2） There exists a person called Kepler.

（3） Kepler did not die in misery.

“Kepler” in sentence （1） must designate certain entity in the world. Although sentence （1） does not include sentence （2）， yet it presupposes sentence （2）. Despite that sentence （1） and sentence （3） contradict each other concerning their meaning， they presuppose sentence （2）.

The presupposition theory proposed by Frege includes the following aspects：

a. referring expressions and temporal clauses have a reference by virtue of the fact that they carry presuppositions；

b. a sentence and its negation share the same set of presuppositions； and

c. in order for an assertion to be true or false， its presupposition must be true or satisfied.

Freges theory has some problems with the truth conditions of definite expressions.

Russell （1905） proposed his theory to solve Freges problems. He claimed that a definite description， such as “the King of France is bald”， is the conjunction of three assertions：

a. There is a King of France.

b. There is only one King of France.

c. There is nothing which is King of France and is not bald.

According to logical rule for conjunction， if any one of the above conjunction is false， the conjunction of all three of them is false. But “the King of France is bald” still has a truth value.

Freges and Russells view of definite descriptions and referring expressions stem from a truth-conditional approach to the meaning of sentences.

Karttunen （1979） believes that there are over 31 types of presupposition triggers， but 何自然 （2003） sums up six main ones：

（1） implicative verbs： manage， forget， etc.

（2） factive verbs： regret， aware， realize， etc.

（3） change-of-state verbs： stop， begin， etc.

（4） verbs of judging： accuse， charge， etc.

（5） iteratives and adjuncts： again， too， etc.

（6） adjuncts and clauses： temporal/no-restrictive relative clauses， cleft sentences， etc.

Although the study of presupposition has been carried out in the linguistic field， the study of presupposition in courtroom interaction remains to be done. In the following part， the strategy of presupposition will be discussed.

3. The Strategy of Presupposition in Courtroom Interaction

The trial of the cases is sometimes carried out in the form of dialogue usually composing of questions and answers. In courtroom trial， the strategy of presupposition is widely used by counsels， judges and public prosecutors to lead the conversation to get the desired information.

3.1 Presupposition of Truth-Conditional Theory

Strawson （1964） said that in using certain expressions， the speaker assumed that the hearer can identify the person or thing mentioned. That is， he presupposed the existence of the person or thing. In courtroom interaction， such kind of strategy is usually applied in a trial. For example：

審判長：你和你的情婦是什么時候開始搬到朱莊去住的？

被告：是從2003年12月開始的。

“情婦”（mistress） means a woman who has an illicit but regular sexual relationship with a married man during their duration of marriage（Oxford Dictionary， 1997）. This word presupposes a fact that the defendants having a mistress is a truth. From the answer offered by the defendant， it is clearly that he actually admits the truth. In this way， it is hard for him to withdraw what he has said in the later trial.

3.2 Presupposition Triggers

Some presuppositions are produced by particular words or constructions， which usually are called presupposition triggers （Saeed， 1997）. Counsels， public prosecutors and judges usually use lexical triggers to make a certain pragmatic effect. In this way， some linguistic traps have been set to obtain certain information or to direct the question to a way that is favorable for the trial. There are various kinds of such triggers.

（1） Implicative Verbs

公訴人：被告，你當時放火的時候，你考慮沒考慮說將來，會不會影響別人的車庫呢？

被告：沒有。

“放火”（set fire） in the conversation above is an implicative word meaning that someone has set fire and this action is not only on purpose but causing great damages to the property of the public. The public prosecutor use“放火”to presuppose that the defendant has violated relevant law. Although the defendant responds to the public prosecutor in a negation manner， yet he still confirms the information of presupposition that he has set fire. Due to the implicative verbs used by the public prosecutor， the defendant has little chance to plead innocent in the later trial.

（2） Factive Verbs

律師：你發現了張華沒有交費而繼續經營，你跟張華面談過這件事沒有？

被告：面談過。我跟他說咱們一塊兒交利潤去，他說他不干了。

“發現”（discover） is a factive word presupposing the events followed are nothing but facts. By employing this verb， the lawyers attract the judges attention to the illegal given facts. This kind of strategy will raise some emotional effect on the judges and have an impact on the result of the trial.

（3） Change-of-state Verbs

律師：證人，請你說一下高莊鋼材市場成立的原因及經營的形式。

證人：它是一個廢材市場。收廢鋼來賣。

律師：它是不是一直延續這個模式？

證人：是的。

“延續”（go on） presupposes that the market used to be a junk market and is still one now. In the sentence above， the lawyers purpose of using this question is by no means for information but for confirmation. The lawyer once again stresses that the market is still the same as it used to be. Via this question， he manages to manifest that the items sold in this market are not those originally sold.

（4） Verbs of Judging

審判長：原告控告你犯有重婚罪，說你和劉玉這種關系性質屬于重婚，你怎么看？

被告：我沒想過。

In the example above， “控告”（complain） presupposes the fact that what the plaintiff tells to the judge is absolutely true. Whether the defendant confesses to the judge the truth or keeps silent， he may be viewed as having committed the crime， excepting that he denies the presupposition offered by the plaintiff. The word “控告”（complain） in the question further enhance the authenticity of the accusation.

（5） Iteratives

律師：你現在還打你老婆嗎？

被告：沒有了。

“還”（still） in the question presupposes a given fact that the defendant has beaten his wife at least once before. Whether the defendant offers a definite answer or a negative answer， it cannot deny the truth that he has beaten his wife. Against this backdrop， the defendant falls into the trap and has no chance to deny what he has done in the process of the trial.

（6） Adjuncts

公訴人：就是放火出來之前，你愛人譚某某知道嗎？

被告：當時她在哄孩子呢。

In the conservation above， “之前”（before） presupposes the fact that the defendant has already committed the crime of arson. Although the defendant does not answer the question in a direct way， since he does not show any objection to the presupposition spoken by the public prosecutor， he actually admits the truth of committing the crime of arson.

In courtroom interaction， all parties including judges， lawyers， plaintiffs， defendants and public prosecutors use the strategy of presupposition to achieve their goals respectively.

4. Conclusion

Based on some examples， this paper studies the strategy of presupposition and how its effects are realized in courtroom interaction. By using the strategy of presupposition， judges， lawyers and public prosecutors can enhance their efficiency in courtroom interaction. At present， our country is undergoing judicial reform and more attention has been paid to the language training of judicial workers. Mastering certain language strategy is important for the judicial workers to improve their trial efficiency.

參考文獻：

[1]Frege，G.1952.On sense and and reference[A].In P.T.Geach and M.Black（eds.）Translations from the Philosophical Writings of Gottlob Frege.Oxford：Blackwell.

[2]Karttunen，L.& Peter，S.1979.Conventional implicature[A].In Oh & Dinneen[C].

[3]Oxford Advanced Learners English-Chinese Dictionary.1997. Oxford University Press.

[4]Russell，Bertrand，1905.“On denoting.”[J].Mind.

[5]Saeed.1997.Semantics[M].Oxford：Oxford Blackwell Publisher Ltd.

[6]Strawson，Peter.1950.On Referring[J].Mind 59：320-344.