预设在刑事法庭询问中的使用情况研究

发布时间：2018-11-17 10:18

【摘要】： 二十世纪七十年代以来,法律语言学发展成为一门相对独立的学科,相应研究范畴迅速扩大。语言学者和法律专家对语言与法律的交叉研究都产生了浓厚的兴趣。语言学的许多领域都与法庭语言的研究相关联。预设理论也不例外。有证据表明,在法庭询问中,法官、公诉人及辩护人经常使用预设来获取信息、检验被告人及证人陈述的可信度。但是,很少有研究系统地探讨预设在法庭上的使用情况。预设理论起源于哲学领域,也是语言学领域的一个重要概念。一般来讲,预设是对话参与人共享的背景信息,说话人认为此背景信息是真实存在的事情或命题。预设与一些词项和语言结构密切相关,并且对语境非常敏感。刑事法庭询问中的预设使用有其独特的语境、特点与效果。基于众多学者对预设理论的研究基础之上,本文构建了理论框架,并对刑事案件法庭询问中的预设使用情况进行了分析,集中探讨了法官、公诉人及辩护人在询问中如何使用预设来实现各自的目的、预设在整个法庭询问中所起的作用以及预设在刑事法庭询问这一特殊语境下的特点。根据转写自三个刑事案件的真实语料,本文主要对预设的使用情况进行了定性分析,并辅之以定量分析。研究结果表明,在刑事法庭询问中,法官、公诉人及辩护人广泛使用预设进行法庭调查、核实信息、诱导信息甚至设计预设陷阱。调查、核实、诱导及设陷成为预设在刑事法庭询问中的主要作用。分析结果显示,使用预设时,不同的法律专业人员有不同的目的,如法官、公诉人运用预设进行法庭调查、核实等。对此,本文指出,在法庭调查中法官使用有罪预设是不合适的,而公诉人利用有罪预设来证明起诉书的指控具有合法性。辩护人则会尽量使用无罪预设来证明自己代理的被告人是清白的或者试图减轻被告人行为的违法性。对语料的分析还发现,在刑事法庭询问中,公诉人使用预设的情况最多。此外,法庭询问中使用的预设涵盖了绝大多数预设触发语。本研究有望丰富有关预设的理论研究,加深对刑事法庭询问中预设的理解,有助于司法人员在法庭询问中获取信息,同时给司法改革中的庭审语言使用带来一些启示。
[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.
【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D90-055;H030

【参考文献】