What question did this study set out to answer?

The study aims to identify how conversational maxims are violated in courtroom discourse and the implications of these violations.

May 24, 2026

A Forensic Linguistic Analysis of Courtroom Discourse in the Presidential Impeachment Trial : Focusing on Violations of Grice’s Conversational Maxims and Conversational Implicature

Key Points

The study aims to identify how conversational maxims are violated in courtroom discourse and the implications of these violations.
Analyzed 548 question-answer sequences from two witness examinations during the impeachment trial.
Employed mixed-method design combining quantitative analysis of maxim violations with qualitative case analysis.
Utilized ChatGPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro for preliminary coding, with final interpretation by the researcher.
Violations of quantity, quality, and manner were frequent, while relevance violations were rare.
Maxim non-observance is used strategically for managing credibility and negotiating responsibility.
Flouting maxims serves as a resource for controlling issues and shaping meanings in courtroom contexts.

Abstract

This study examines the pragmatic organization of courtroom discourse in the 5th and 10th witness examinations of Hong Jang-won during the Constitutional Court presidential impeachment trial in South Korea. Drawing on Grice’s Cooperative Principle, the study aims to identify the distribution of maxim non-observance in witness examination discourse and to explain how flouting generates conversational implicatures and strategic discourse functions in an institutional setting. The data consist of 548 question-answer sequences collected from the two hearing sessions. Methodologically, the study adopts a mixed-method design combining descriptive quantitative analysis of maxim violations with qualitative analysis of representative cases. ChatGPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro were used as auxiliary tools for preliminary coding, while final categorization and interpretation were determined through the researcher’s review. The findings show that violations of quantity, quality, and manner were relatively frequent, whereas relevance violations were rare. The results further indicate that maxim non-observance functions not as simple communicative failure but as a strategic resource for credibility management, responsibility negotiation, issue control, and meaning construction in highly institutionalized courtroom discourse.

Ask AI

Helpful

Bookmark