Presuppositions And Discursive Control In Court Examinations

Lijin Sha,Le Cheng
2011-01-01
Abstract:Based on the literature review of previous studies in court interaction, this paper tries to confine its discussion to a relatively narrow topic presuppositions in both direct examination and cross-examination, with the aim to uncover the commonality and roles of presupposition in both. The paper finds in direct examination, presuppositions make evidence more admissible, witnesses more credible and therefore, narrative more coherent, and believable. In cross-examination, presuppositions, the demonstration of discursive control among legal professionals, are mainly used to challenge the credibility of the hostile witness and therefore, deconstruct the narrative of the opposite lawyer. A presupposition is a method of verifying or challenging facts and credibility and the representation of discursive control, which in turn, reflects the power structure in the legal discourse community.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?