A Study Of Hedges In Courtroom Discourse:Perspectives From Relevance Theory

Hedges,as a linguistic mechanism,are often used to convey the intention of the speaker.Recently,there have been a lot of researches on hedges,but few scholars conduct researches on hedges from the perspective of relevance theory.In addition,although scholars have explored the pragmatic characteristics and functions of hedges in different texts and styles,they do not pay enough attention to courtroom discourse.Therefore,based on Prince et al.'s classification of hedges and the transcripts of twelve court cases(including four criminal cases,four civil cases and four administrative cases)derived from Chinese Court Net,this thesis analyses the categories and pragmatic functions of hedges in court from the perspective of relevance theory,as well as their functions in the comprehension of courtroom discourse.The results show that approximators account for 45.5%,while the percentage for shields is only 54.5% in courtroom discourse.In terms of their functions,approximators contribute to expand the information capacity of the language expression,widen the imagination space of the language and make the information more accurate.While shields make the discourse more euphemism and politeness and strengthens the cognitive hypothesis of the hearer.Besides,shields enhance the persuasion of utterances,reduce their own punishment and avoid taking greater responsibility.Relevance theory provides a new perspective for the interpretation of hedges in courtroom discourse,contributes to appropriate use of hedges,helps express and understand communicative intents,and make easier for trial participants to communicate harmoniously.Moreover,this study helps enrich the research content of domestic courtroom discourse,reveal the inquiry strategy and its role in the trial,and provide some enlightenment for the choice of the strategy in the judicial practice.