The Cognitive Study of Courtroom Examination〔*〕

Lu Ying

(School of Foreign Studies Anhui University，Hefei Anhui230601)

Ⅰ.Introduction

Forensic linguistics，as a peripheral subject，has attracted more and more attention from diverse intellectual backgrounds，with a number of practical areas in which researchers can be in full play，among which，courtroom examination study arises as the kernel due to the fact that the procedure of questioning is the core of courtroom debate.Scholars both at home and abroad have contributed to the analysis of courtroom examination from different perspectives such as:rhetoric，conversation analysis，sociolinguistics and pragmatic analysis，which fail to present a convincing and thorough account of the hidden psychological operation in the courtroom proceedings.In order to simulate the working process in the black box，a cognitive approach based on Concep-tual Integration Theory is proposed to analyze courtroom examination for the present study.

Ⅱ.Conceptual integration theory

Conceptual Integration Theory，originally initiated by Fauconnier，is based on extensive empirical observation in multiple areas of meaning construction.Meanings are not mental objects bounded in conceptual places but rather complex operations of projection，binding，linking，blending and integration over multiple spaces，and meaning construction involves complex backstage cognition.

Conceptual integration network is the center of Conceptual Integration Theory.A basic conceptual integration network contains four mental spaces，which are small conceptual packets constructed as we think and talk，for purposes of local understanding and action.Two are called input spaces，and a cross-space mapping may set up between them.The cross-space mapping creates，or reflects，a more abstract and schematic structure or organization which is common to both inputs and shared by them.This schematic structure belongs to the third space，called the genetic space，which defines the cross-space mapping between elements and their counterparts.A fourth one，the blended space，arises by selective projection from the inputs.This fourth space develops emergent structure in various ways and works according to its own logic.Besides，the new emergent structure can be projected back to the inputs.The expected or unexpected outcome right emerges due to the blending.

The following is the basic diagram of conceptual integration.

Figure 1 The network model of conceptual integration 〔1〕

The basic diagram above illustrates the central features of conceptual integration.The circles represent mental spaces — two input spaces，one generic space plus one blended space.The solid lines indicate the cross-space mappings between the inputs，the dotted lines indicate connections between inputs and generic or blended space，and the solid square in the blended space stands for emergent structure.

In conceptual integration，there are partial counterpart connections between input spaces，and the generic space has the elements shared by all the input spaces and in turn maps onto the inputs.A given element in the generic space maps onto paired counterparts in the two input spaces.Compared with the generic space，the blended space is more concrete because it not only contains the shared elements in the generic space，but it can also have its own specific structures not included in the generic space.These structures are crucial for meaning construction.In the input spaces，not all elements are projected to the blend;only those that can be used to establish the emergent structure are permitted to enter the blended space.The emergent structure is not directly captured from any other on-line spaces but achieved via three processes:composition，completion and elaboration.

Ⅲ.The cognitive study of courtroom examination

The special rules of the courtroom are highly unusual from a conversational point of view.From an everyday perspective，it would be very peculiar to limit some speakers so that their only type of turn is asking questions，while restricting others to giving answers to whatever questions they are asked.Such institutional constraints introduce into courtroom interactions a degree of rigidity not found in everyday contexts and thereby help the court do its assigned task of trying cases.But，in addition，these courtroom-specific rules have the consequence of empowering lawyers linguistically over the witnesses they examine.For example，if a witness strays in answering a question，the lawyer has considerable leeway to interrupt and bring the witness back to the point of the question.And if the witness proves unresponsive despite such efforts，the lawyer may ask the judge to instruct the witness to answer the question.Witnesses，however，have no comparable power to demand that lawyers ask questions that they deem relevant to the issue at hand.From the outset，the structural arrangements for talking in court do not privilege all speakers in the same way.

This imbalance of power is present in all courtroom examinations.However，its consequences are most extreme during cross-examination，when lawyers examine the opposition’s witnesses.The lawyer’s objective is to discredit opposition witnesses and minimize the impact of their testimony.And it is in such contexts that lawyers make maximal use of the linguistic power accorded to them.

According to Conley ＆ O’Barr，lawyers in courtroom examination usually manip-ulate the following strategies to control witnesses:question form，topic management，challenges to the witness’capacity for knowledge and so on.〔2〕We are attempting to reveal what makes the lawyers achieve their goals in courtroom examination.In order to actualize this intention，we would like to go deep into some of the strategies from the cognitive perspective by adopting conceptual integration theory.With a cognitive interpretation of these strategies，it may become easier for us to understand how they are functioning in a court.

1.Cognitive study of question form in courtroom examination

Lawyers control not only the timing of questions but also their form.This is significant because the form of a question can limit the range of permissible answers available to the witness.Some kinds of questions can also serve as statements of blame that stand irrespective of the witness’answer.

Question forms differ radically in the extent to which they constrain the witness’answer.At the two ends of the continuum of control are the WH question and the tag question.The former is the open-ended why，where，when，which，who，what，and how question and it is characterized by the fact that it expects only an information answer.The latter consists of a statement followed by a question such as“isn’t that true?”or“correct?”or“didn’t you?”— as in“You drove the car into the parking lot，didn’t you?”Among the numerous question forms available to a lawyer，the WH question is the least controlling and coercive because it imposes no particular form on the answer，whereas the tag question，with its implicit insistence on a yes/no answer，is the most controlling.

Once the blend is established，we can operate cognitively within that space，which allows us to manipulate the various events as an integrated unit.There is emergent structure through pattern composition:witness as a youngster deals with things less carefully.There is emergent structure through completion:witness with intoxicants and alcohol could do things abnormally，such as sexual activities.Through elaboration process，we even could infer more things，such as the witness with her friends committing crimes.

The entire analysis by applying conceptual integration networks accurately shows that the fundamental cognitive origins of why the audience believe that the witness has the bad interest of sex，drugs，and alcohol.Furthermore，it is quite possible for the audience to continuously infer that a girl under such circumstances is possible to be attacked by males.The attorneys successfully implement the strategy of putting the witness in a negative position with tactful question forms.By our cognitive illustration of this case，we can see that not only the common people，but also the judges and lawyers will undergo such cognitive processes subconsciously when they finally make their own judgments.It is said that good counsels never ask a question to which they do not know the answer or which cannot be turned to some advantage.If a lawyer un-derstands what the cognitive process is proceeding in a court trial，he must create more dangerous question forms to make his opponents in a bad condition.

2.Cognitive study of topic management in courtroom examination

Besides the strategy of question form，another linguistic resource available to the lawyer in examination is the ability to manage the topic under discussion.On the simplest level，this is an obvious consequence of the fact that lawyers ask questions and witnesses answer them.By posing a particular question，one might assume，the lawyer determines the topic of the answer.However，the reality of topic management is a good deal more complex.An examination is not simply a series of questions followed by topically parallel answers.Instead，a witness may employ a variety of strategies to evade the lawyer’s preferred answer.The lawyer may then seek to regain control by repeating，rephrasing，or elaborating on questions that have failed to elicit the desired answers.

Once the blend is established，we can operate cognitively within that space，which allows us to manipulate the various events as an integrated unit.There is emergent structure through pattern composition:the witness is attracted by a man named Brian.There is emergent structure through completion:the witness may have some subsequent foresighted behaviors such as talking with him，making friends with him，and going together with him.There is emergent structure through elaboration:the witness may possibly agree to have intimate relations with the man.

In this case，the conceptual integration theory has done two things.One is that the proceedings open out in what way the witness finally drops into the trap set by the lawyer:she may volunteer to have sex with the defendant or she herself creates opportunities to be attacked.The other is that it makes the lawyer’s strategy intensively distinct.Therefore，it is not surprising that an intended question produced by the lawyer in examination is not occasional.No matter how the witness responds to the question，she is inevitable to be chained.

3.Cognitive study of challenges to the witness’capacity for knowledge in courtroom examination

A final linguistic strategy used by lawyers in courtroom examination to achieve and maintain domination involves direct challenges to knowledge claimed by the witness.Matoesian calls these challenges“epistemological filters”〔3〕Epistemology is the study of knowledge:how we acquire it and how we decide what is really known.The lawyers’challenges described below are epistemological in that they call into question not only the specific facts the witness claims to know，but also the sources of the claimed knowledge，and ultimately whether the witness is capable of knowing anything at all.

Once the blend is established，we can operate cognitively within that space.There is emergent structure through composition:Bowman is not a decent woman since she loses track of her pantyhose.There is emergent structure through completion:Bowman has intimate relationship with the defendant.There is emergent structure through elaboration:the defendant is not held responsible for his action towards such a woman like Bowman，that is，there is no rape during their interaction.

This example shows the great power of conceptual integration network.By the application of conceptual integration theory，it is obvious to expose what the cognitive proceedings of the lawyer during the whole courtroom examination.

Ⅳ.Conclusion

In the study，we discover that the triumphant operation of the strategies by the lawyers is due to the framework that is subconsciously contained in the questions posed by them.This framework is the proper viewpoints and common knowledge that can be easily accepted by people.In the blended space，the framework helps finish completion and elaboration.As these two proceedings are running，we can get our inferences and judgments of the case.The strict operation of conceptual integration network provides us with theoretical evidence that the inner construction of courtroom examination is closely connected with a cognitive mechanics.To know the existence of the cognitive mechanics，we can get a better understanding towards courtroom activities.Furthermore，through the careful and serious analysis and illustration，we prove that Conceptual Integration Theory has an elucidatory power on the interpretation of courtroom examination.

〔1〕Fauconnier，G.＆ M.Turner，Conceptual Integration Networks，Cognitive Science，1998(2)，p.143.

〔2〕Conley，John M.＆ O’Barr William M.，Just Words:Law，Language and Power，The University of Chicago Press，1998.

〔3〕Matoesian，G.M.，Reproducing Rape:Domination Through Talk in the Courtroom，Blackwell Publishers，1993，p.184.