A Study on Vagueness Used by the Defendant in Courtroom Discourse from the Perspective of Adaptation Theory

Mengna LiU

Abstract


Court discourse is a typical legal language, recently arousing scholars’ interest. In the courtroom discourse, many language strategies would be applied in this special setting out of various purposes and vagueness is one of them. With the transcripts from the Jodi Arias’ murder case as the database, this paper investigates vagueness in the American courtroom from the perspective of adaptation theory, paying specific attention to the defendant. Two conclusions are reached: (1) the defendant uses vagueness commonly to adapt to the mental world, the social world and the physical world. As to the mental world, it can be divided into speaker-directed adaptation and hearer-directed adaptation. As to the social world, the study analyzes how the defendant adapts to the legal obligation. Defendant also adapts to the physical world in courtroom settings. (2) the study finds four pragmatic functions of vagueness used by the defendant in the courtroom discourse, they are 1) increasing the credibility of utterance; 2) avoiding absolute utterance; 3) providing appropriate information; 4) Being polite.


Keywords


Vagueness; Adaptation theory; Courtroom discourse; Jodi Arias’ murder case

Full Text:

PDF

References


Chaemsaithong, K. (2017). Speech reporting in courtroom opening statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 119, 1–14. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.08.003

Chaemsaithong, K. (2018). Referential practice and contested identities in legal narratives. Lingua, 212, 44-59. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2018.06.001

Chaemsaithong, K. (2019). Person reference, identity, and linguistic violence in capital trials. Journal of Pragmatics, 142, 90-104. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2019.01.010

Chaemsaithong, K., & Kim, Y. (2018). From narration to argumentation: Intertextuality in two courtroom genres. Lingua, 203, 36-50. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2017.10.003

Channell, J. (1994). Vague language. Oxford University Press.

Cotterill, J. (2007). “I think he was kind of shouting or something”: Uses and abuses of vagueness in the British courtroom. In Vague language explored (pp.97-114). Springer.

Cui, F., Yu, C., & Song, Y. (2017). A study of the relationship between discourse role and fuzzy speech in courtroom trials. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages, 40(2), 42–50.

D’hondt, S., & van der Houwen, F. (2014). Quoting from the case file: How intertextual practices shape discourse at various stages in the legal trajectory. Language & Communication, 36, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.008

Grice, P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics (pp. 41-58). Academic Press.

He, Z., & Yu, G. (1999). Understanding pragmatics-a review of verschueren’s new works. Modern Foreign Language, 04, 3–5.

Janney, R. W. (2002). Cotext as context: Vague answers in court. Language & Communication, 22(4), 457-475. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1016/S0271-5309(02)00020-4

Li, S. (2017). A corpus-based study of vague language in legislative texts: Strategic use of vague terms. English for Specific Purposes, 45, 98–109.

Li, S. (2019). Communicative significance of vague language: A diachronic corpus-based study of legislative texts. English for Specific Purposes, 53, 104–117.

Liao, M. (2006). The linguistic turn of law. Social Science Front, 02, 200–204.

Peirce, C. S. (1902). Vagueness. Macmillan.

Russell, B. (1923). Vagueness. The Australasian Journal of Psychology and Philosopy, 1, 84–92.

Shi, G. (2012). An analysis of modality in Chinese courtroom discourse. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 7(2), 161–178. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1080/17447143.2011.581285

Ullmann, S. (1962). Semantics: An introduction to the science of meaning. Blackwell.

Verschueren, J. (1999). Understanding pragmatics. Arnold.




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3968/11923

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Canadian Social Science

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Reminder

  • How to do online submission to another Journal?
  • If you have already registered in Journal A, then how can you submit another article to Journal B? It takes two steps to make it happen:

Submission Guidelines for Canadian Social Science

We are currently accepting submissions via email only. The registration and online submission functions have been disabled.

Please send your manuscripts to css@cscanada.net，or css@cscanada.org for consideration. We look forward to receiving your work.

 Articles published in Canadian Social Science are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC-BY).

 

Canadian Social Science Editorial Office

Address: 1020 Bouvier Street, Suite 400, Quebec City, Quebec, G2K 0K9, Canada.
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138 
Website: Http://www.cscanada.net; Http://www.cscanada.org 
E-mail:caooc@hotmail.com; office@cscanada.net

Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture