發(fā)布時(shí)間：2024-07-09 03:52

　　本文采用了語(yǔ)用推理的理論對(duì)法庭會(huì)話(huà)中的問(wèn)答策略進(jìn)行了分析，旨在發(fā)現(xiàn)語(yǔ)用推理在法庭對(duì)話(huà)中的作用，揭示了其對(duì)法庭中各方為實(shí)現(xiàn)各自目的所作出的有利影響，并指出可以通過(guò)一些語(yǔ)用策略取消其不利影響。 我們?cè)陬A(yù)設(shè)理論和Grice會(huì)話(huà)含義理論基礎(chǔ)上構(gòu)建了理論框架。本文主要根據(jù)從山東省采集的法庭錄音語(yǔ)料，分析了預(yù)設(shè)和會(huì)話(huà)含義這兩種在法庭對(duì)話(huà)互動(dòng)中最常用的語(yǔ)用推理策略。研究表明，語(yǔ)用推理策略在法庭對(duì)話(huà)中非常常見(jiàn)。在法庭會(huì)話(huà)中，各方當(dāng)事人力圖使話(huà)題向有利于他們自己的方向發(fā)展，人們使用“前提觸發(fā)語(yǔ)”或者通過(guò)故意違反合作原則下的四大準(zhǔn)則來(lái)設(shè)置語(yǔ)言陷阱，或者引導(dǎo)話(huà)題的方向。同時(shí)，通過(guò)分析，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)人們可以運(yùn)用一些反語(yǔ)用推理的語(yǔ)言策略及時(shí)取消對(duì)自己不利的影響。 我們希望本文能夠豐富語(yǔ)用推理的研究，有助于加深對(duì)法庭會(huì)話(huà)中預(yù)設(shè)和會(huì)話(huà)含義的理解，并有助于提高司法領(lǐng)域執(zhí)業(yè)人員在法庭辯論中獲取信息的效率。

【文章頁(yè)數(shù)】：90 頁(yè)

【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
DECLARATION
ABSTRACT
摘要
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Transcription Conventions
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
    1.1 Introduction
    1.2 The Rationale of the Study
    1.3 The Objectives of the Study
    1.4 Research Questions
    1.5 Data and Methodology
    1.6 The Organization of the Thesis
Chapter 2 Review of the Relevant Literature
    2.1 Introduction
    2.2 Previous Studies on Discourse Analysis in Courtroom Trial
        2.2.1 Studies on the Language of Mediation in Courtroom Interaction
        2.2.2 Studies on Persuasion in Courtroom Interaction
        2.2.3 Studies on Question and Questioning in Courtroom Interaction
        2.2.4 Studies on Pragmatic Strategies in Courtroom Interaction
    2.3 Studies on Presupposition
        2.3.1 Traditional Approaches to presupposition
        2.3.2 Semantic Approach to Presupposition
        2.3.3 Pragmatic Approach to Presupposition
    2.4 Studies on Conversational Implicature
        2.4.1.Grice's theory of communication and implicature
        2.4.2.The Relevance Theory Approach
        2.4.3.The Neo-Gricean Approach
    2.5.Summary
Chapter 3 Description of the Theoretical Framework
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 The Theoretical Framework for the Present Study
    3.3 Description of the Theoretical Framework
        3.3.1 Semantic Presupposition
            3.3.1.1 Truth-Conditional Theory
            3.3.1.2 Presupposition Triggers
        3.3.2 Pragmatic Presupposition
            3.3.2.1 Felicity Conditions and Common Ground
            3.3.2.2 Defeasibility
        3.3.3 Conversational Implicature
    3.4 Summary
Chapter 4 Analysis of Pragmatic Inferences in Courtroom Interaction
    4.1 Introduction
    4.2 Presupposition in Courtroom Interaction
        4.2.1 Semantic Presupposition
            4.2.1.1 Presupposition of Truth Conditional Theory
            4.2.1.2 Presupposition Triggers
        4.2.2 Pragmatic Presupposition
            4.2.2.1 Felicity Conditions
            4.2.2.2 Defcasibility
    4.3 Conversational Implicature in Courtroom Interaction
        4.3.1 Violation of Quality Maxim
        4.3.2 Violation of Quantity Maxim
        4.3.3 Violation of Relation Maxim
        4.3.4 Violation of Manner Maxim
    4.4 Summary
Chapter 5 Conclusion
    5.1 Summary of the Present Study
    5.2 Conclusion
    5.3 Implications
    5.4 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Study
References



本文編號(hào)：4004349