Presuppositions as discourse strategies in court examinations

Abstract Based on the literature review of previous studies in court interaction, this paper tries to confine its discussion into a relatively detailed topic— presuppositions—in both direct examination and cross-examination. The primary aim is to examine the interaction between illocutionary acts, meaning and intentions in court discourse, which is helpful to understand the interaction between different discourse community in judicial system, while the ultimate goal is to investigate the balance between narrative and persuasion achieved by patterns of presuppositions, which are initiated by court questioners: prosecutors and lawyers. This paper finds in direct examination, presuppositions make evidence more admissible, witness more credible and therefore narrative more coherent, believable; in cross-examination, presuppositions 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.