Discourse in courts: Cooperation, coercion, and coherence

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
This paper addresses itself to the relevance of Grice's model in accounting for coherent discourse in courts of law. Using examination and cross‐examination episodes of 8 trials, 19 discourse rules were identified and all were shown to be congruent with Grice's Cooperative Principle. At the same time, however, it was also demonstrated that these rules were not easily or readily adhered to. In fact, a contradiction was found to exist: courts need to coerce participants to be cooperative. Given this coercion, it was suggested that adherence to the Cooperative Principle is not something that occurs “normally”. The evidence from this and other studies was used to argue that the criteria of maximally efficient information exchange used by Grice, and the courts, is inadequate for accounting for, or ensuring, coherent discourse in any context.

This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit: