It has already been affirmed that there is power asymmetry in courtroom
discourse. Courtroom professionals such as judges or magistrates, lawyers
and prosecutors have power over the defendants and witnesses (Danet,
1984; Luchjenbroers, 1997). This thesis attempts to provide an explanatory
account of linguistic communication between legal professionals such as
lawyers and prosecutors, and witnesses, with a view to show the power
prevalent in courtroom discourse. To this end, various forms of questions
such as WR-questions, alternative questions, yes/no questions and
declarative questions are analysed to account for the discursive practices
between the lawyers/prosecutors and witnesses. The framework of this
study is supplied by Luchjenbroers (1993).
WR-questions and declaratives in their various forms are further analysed,
revealing further manipulation by lawyers to maintain control of courtroom
discourse.
The data are 20 hours of audio-taped cases recorded at the High Court of
Justice and Magistrate Court in Nigeria. The cases collected include
assault, theft, and house breaking.
One of the key suggestions of this thesis is that narrative mode is
indispensable in the fact-finding process, which explains why it is favoured
during direct examination. Also, questions that contain propositions and
presuppositions are strong weapons for the lawyers in controlling,
convincing and persuading the witnesses to endorse their ideas. The four
analyses carried out in the thesis suggest the fact that lawyers maintain tight
control of courtroom discourse.