Thesis On Courtroom Argumentation

Decent Essays

This dissertation takes courtroom argumentation as a form of practical argumentation whose purpose is “to gain the assent or adherence of the audience to a claim.” (Sanders 2006). Drawing on Martin’s (2008) notion of affiliation from the perspective of Systemic Functional Linguistics (hereafter SFL), the dissertation investigates the similar ways through which public prosecutors and defense lawyers seek for bonding in the legal field as well as how they use different experience-infused values in achieving affiliation in the discourse of courtroom argumentation. 如果研究的是控辩双方的法律身份及其与法官的结盟,是不是与论文题目有些脱节,或联系的不是很紧密 This introductory chapter will briefly present the orientation, assumptions and methodologies of the dissertation to foreground the subsequent chapters. We start this chapter by introducing rationale and background of the research in Section 1.1 and …show more content…

1.1 Rationale
Perelman (1969:321) declares in his famous book The New Rhetoric: “the value of arguments will be gauged in terms of the value of the audience giving the credence…The interdependence of act and person in the audience influences the effect of the …show more content…

To date, courtroom argumentation studies have become a meeting point for scholars from forensics, linguistics, psychology and many other disciplines. Generally speaking, in line with Aristotle’s argumentation theory (2007), which emphasises on the trichotomy of logic, dialectic and rhetoric, there are three distinguished approaches to courtroom argumentation studies: the logical, the dialogical and the rhetorical. The logical approach sees arguments as the product of the activity of arguing; the dialectical approach takes argumentation as a procedure consisting of strategic movements by a proponent and an opponent; the rhetorical approach considers argumentation as a communicative

Get Access