On pragmatic presupposition of leading questions in courtroom interaction.pdfVIP

CHAPTERONE CHAPTERONE CCHHAAPPTTEERROONNEE INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION IINNTTRROODDUUCCTTIIOONN 1.1 RationaleoftheStudy 1.1 RationaleoftheStudy 11..11 RRaattiioonnaalleeoofftthheeSSttuuddyy In civil law countries, the power to interrogate witnesses resides in the judge or the prosecutor. Generally, there is no risk of false statement of the witness by offering a hint. So, it is not necessary to prohibit the use of leading questions. While in common law countries, the discovery of evidence is adopted by the mode of litigant lawsuit. The judge is simply responsible for using his right of arbitration to the dispute when dispute arises as to the investigation. In order to standardize the litigant acts between the prosecution and the defense so as to reduce the transgressing behavior, and to check and balance the power of the prosecution and the defense to prevent misleading the jury, and to provide a predetermined standard for the judge’s rule of procedure for the purpose of keeping from the blindness of the proceedings and the arbitrary of verdict which could cause injustice, it is necessary to establish a set of rules so that the litigation between the two parties could be smoothly achieved and finally find out the truth of the case. The thesis mainly talks about the use of leading questions in Common law system. The rule of leading questions is an importantrulefortheguaranteeofevidenceandcross-examinationandrevealingfacts. The notion of pragmatic presupposition is one of the most important ideas in pragmatics (Levinson, 1983: 205). The Common law makes it clear that the defendants or the witnesses are not allowed to ask questions, they could only answer inactively all questions related to the discovery of cases and under rules of procedures. What is more, witnesses must swear an oath that what they said in court is tru