預設在刑事法庭詢問中的使用情況研究
發(fā)布時間：2018-11-17 10:18
【摘要】： 二十世紀七十年代以來,法律語言學發(fā)展成為一門相對獨立的學科,相應研究范疇迅速擴大。語言學者和法律專家對語言與法律的交叉研究都產生了濃厚的興趣。語言學的許多領域都與法庭語言的研究相關聯。預設理論也不例外。有證據表明,在法庭詢問中,法官、公訴人及辯護人經常使用預設來獲取信息、檢驗被告人及證人陳述的可信度。但是,很少有研究系統(tǒng)地探討預設在法庭上的使用情況。 預設理論起源于哲學領域,也是語言學領域的一個重要概念。一般來講,預設是對話參與人共享的背景信息,說話人認為此背景信息是真實存在的事情或命題。預設與一些詞項和語言結構密切相關,并且對語境非常敏感。刑事法庭詢問中的預設使用有其獨特的語境、特點與效果�；诒姸鄬W者對預設理論的研究基礎之上,本文構建了理論框架,并對刑事案件法庭詢問中的預設使用情況進行了分析,集中探討了法官、公訴人及辯護人在詢問中如何使用預設來實現各自的目的、預設在整個法庭詢問中所起的作用以及預設在刑事法庭詢問這一特殊語境下的特點。 根據轉寫自三個刑事案件的真實語料,本文主要對預設的使用情況進行了定性分析,并輔之以定量分析。研究結果表明,在刑事法庭詢問中,法官、公訴人及辯護人廣泛使用預設進行法庭調查、核實信息、誘導信息甚至設計預設陷阱。調查、核實、誘導及設陷成為預設在刑事法庭詢問中的主要作用。分析結果顯示,使用預設時,不同的法律專業(yè)人員有不同的目的,如法官、公訴人運用預設進行法庭調查、核實等。對此,本文指出,在法庭調查中法官使用有罪預設是不合適的,而公訴人利用有罪預設來證明起訴書的指控具有合法性。辯護人則會盡量使用無罪預設來證明自己代理的被告人是清白的或者試圖減輕被告人行為的違法性。對語料的分析還發(fā)現,在刑事法庭詢問中,公訴人使用預設的情況最多。此外,法庭詢問中使用的預設涵蓋了絕大多數預設觸發(fā)語。 本研究有望豐富有關預設的理論研究,加深對刑事法庭詢問中預設的理解,有助于司法人員在法庭詢問中獲取信息,同時給司法改革中的庭審語言使用帶來一些啟示。
[Abstract]:Since the 1970s, forensic linguistics has developed into a relatively independent subject, and the corresponding research scope has expanded rapidly. Linguists and legal experts are interested in the cross-study of language and law. Many fields of linguistics are related to the study of court language. Presupposition theory is no exception. There is evidence that in court interrogations, judges, prosecutors and defenders often use presuppositions to obtain information and test the credibility of the statements of defendants and witnesses. However, few studies have systematically explored the use of presuppositions in court. Presupposition originated in the field of philosophy and is also an important concept in the field of linguistics. Generally speaking, presupposition is the background information shared by the participants. The speaker thinks that the background information is a real thing or proposition. Presupposition is closely related to some lexical items and linguistic structures and is sensitive to context. The use of presupposition in criminal court inquiry has its unique context, characteristics and effects. Based on the research of presupposition theory by many scholars, this paper constructs a theoretical framework, analyzes the use of presupposition in criminal court inquiry, and focuses on the discussion of judges. How do public prosecutors and defenders use presupposition to achieve their respective purposes, the role of presupposition in the interrogation of the whole court and the characteristics of presupposition in the special context of criminal court interrogation? According to the real corpus of the three criminal cases, this paper makes a qualitative analysis of the presupposition of the use of the case, supplemented by quantitative analysis. The results show that in criminal court questioning judges prosecutors and defenders widely use presupposition to conduct court investigations verify information induce information and even design presupposition traps. Investigation, verification, induction and setup are the main roles of presupposition in criminal court inquiry. The analysis results show that different legal professionals have different purposes when using presupposition, such as judge, public prosecutor using presupposition to conduct court investigation, verification and so on. This paper points out that it is inappropriate for the judge to use the guilty presupposition in the court investigation, while the prosecutor uses the guilty presupposition to prove the legality of the indictment. Defenders try to use the presumption of innocence to prove that the accused they represent are innocent or try to reduce the illegality of the defendant's behavior. The analysis of corpus also found that the public prosecutor used presupposition most frequently in criminal court questioning. In addition, the presupposition used in court inquiry covers the vast majority of presupposition triggers. This study is expected to enrich the theoretical research on presupposition, deepen the understanding of the presupposition in the criminal court inquiry, help the judicial personnel to obtain information in the court inquiry, and bring some enlightenment to the use of the trial language in the judicial reform.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D90-055;H030
本文編號：2337423
[Abstract]:Since the 1970s, forensic linguistics has developed into a relatively independent subject, and the corresponding research scope has expanded rapidly. Linguists and legal experts are interested in the cross-study of language and law. Many fields of linguistics are related to the study of court language. Presupposition theory is no exception. There is evidence that in court interrogations, judges, prosecutors and defenders often use presuppositions to obtain information and test the credibility of the statements of defendants and witnesses. However, few studies have systematically explored the use of presuppositions in court. Presupposition originated in the field of philosophy and is also an important concept in the field of linguistics. Generally speaking, presupposition is the background information shared by the participants. The speaker thinks that the background information is a real thing or proposition. Presupposition is closely related to some lexical items and linguistic structures and is sensitive to context. The use of presupposition in criminal court inquiry has its unique context, characteristics and effects. Based on the research of presupposition theory by many scholars, this paper constructs a theoretical framework, analyzes the use of presupposition in criminal court inquiry, and focuses on the discussion of judges. How do public prosecutors and defenders use presupposition to achieve their respective purposes, the role of presupposition in the interrogation of the whole court and the characteristics of presupposition in the special context of criminal court interrogation? According to the real corpus of the three criminal cases, this paper makes a qualitative analysis of the presupposition of the use of the case, supplemented by quantitative analysis. The results show that in criminal court questioning judges prosecutors and defenders widely use presupposition to conduct court investigations verify information induce information and even design presupposition traps. Investigation, verification, induction and setup are the main roles of presupposition in criminal court inquiry. The analysis results show that different legal professionals have different purposes when using presupposition, such as judge, public prosecutor using presupposition to conduct court investigation, verification and so on. This paper points out that it is inappropriate for the judge to use the guilty presupposition in the court investigation, while the prosecutor uses the guilty presupposition to prove the legality of the indictment. Defenders try to use the presumption of innocence to prove that the accused they represent are innocent or try to reduce the illegality of the defendant's behavior. The analysis of corpus also found that the public prosecutor used presupposition most frequently in criminal court questioning. In addition, the presupposition used in court inquiry covers the vast majority of presupposition triggers. This study is expected to enrich the theoretical research on presupposition, deepen the understanding of the presupposition in the criminal court inquiry, help the judicial personnel to obtain information in the court inquiry, and bring some enlightenment to the use of the trial language in the judicial reform.
【學位授予單位】：山東大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2009
【分類號】：D90-055;H030
【參考文獻】
相關期刊論文 前10條
1 廖美珍;國外法律語言研究綜述[J];當代語言學;2004年01期
2 姜同玲;律師辯護詞的修辭功能初探[J];廣東外語外貿大學學報;2002年03期
3 胡海娟;法庭話語研究綜論[J];廣東外語外貿大學學報;2004年01期
4 束定芳;;關于預設理論的幾個問題[J];外語研究;1989年03期
5 李錫胤;再論預設與推涵[J];外語研究;2003年06期
6 魏在江;;語用預設的元語用探析[J];外語研究;2006年01期
7 李錫胤;對于預設與推涵的思考[J];外語學刊(黑龍江大學學報);1990年03期
8 徐盛桓;“預設”新論[J];外語學刊(黑龍江大學學報);1993年01期
9 蔡平;;語用預設理論對翻譯方法的解釋[J];外語學刊;2007年05期
10 張克定;語用預設與信息中心[J];外語教學;1995年02期
，本文編號：2337423
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/fashilw/2337423.html
