In the strategic world of a courtroom, the way a fact is presented can be as important as the fact itself. Lawyers do not just inform; they aim to persuade, and one of their most powerful tools is the presupposition.
Within the LISP project (Implicit Linguistic Devices in Italian Court Proceedings), we specifically analyze a strategic category of these devices: Non-Bona Fide True (NBFV) presuppositions.
What is a Presupposition?
A presupposition is a linguistic device that presents information as if it were already known or shared by everyone involved—placing it in the "Common Ground". Unlike an assertion, which proposes new information for the judge to evaluate, a presupposition instructs the receiver to take the truth of the statement for granted.
The "Bona Fide" vs. "Non-Bona Fide" Distinction
To understand the research, one must distinguish between "honest" (Bona Fide) and "strategic" (Non-Bona Fide) communication:
- Bona Fide (Honest): These are used for textual economy. For example, a lawyer might presuppose that months exist or that a client has a job. These are objectively true, undisputed facts that save time by not being explicitly stated.
- Non-Bona Fide True (Strategic): A content is "Non-Bona Fide" when its effectiveness depends on being hidden behind a linguistic strategy.
These are used to "smuggle" controversial, weak, or unproven information into the discourse to avoid the judge noticing its flaws.
Why It Works: The Science of "Shallow Processing"
Why would a lawyer "hide" a message instead of stating it clearly? The reason is cognitive. Direct statements (assertions) trigger epistemic vigilance—our natural critical defense that makes us look for evidence before believing a claim.
Presuppositions, however, place information in the "background". This leads to shallow processing, where the judge’s brain processes the information less attentively or in a "good enough" way. This gives the information a quality of "unchallengeability," making it significantly harder for a judge or an opponent to question. By the time the judge realizes the claim is controversial, they have already subconsciously accepted it as a premise of the argument.
The NBFV Spectrum in Lawyers' Pleadings
In legal acts (atti di parte), NBFV presuppositions generally fall into three categories:
- Unfounded Facts: Presenting a fact that has not yet been proven as if it were a certainty. For example, referring to "the fraudulent behavior of the counterparty" before a fraud has been established.
- Exaggerations: Using hyperbolic language like "the unprecedented gravity of the damage" to influence the judge's emotions without providing a strict critical analysis of whether the gravity is indeed "unprecedented".
- Weak or Vague Arguments: Keeping an argument vague (e.g., "on several occasions the counterparty...") to protect it from direct rebuttal. If the lawyer were specific, the weakness of the evidence might emerge.
The Role of the LISP Tagset
Our research employs a specialized tagset to identify the triggers of these NBFV presuppositions—such as definite descriptions, factive verbs (like "to realize"), or relative clauses. By identifying these devices, we can observe how lawyers "boost" their own clients or "criticize" the opposition using hidden language.
Understanding NBFV presuppositions is about more than just linguistics; it is about legal transparency. By "unmasking" these devices, we can foster a more conscious use of language in the justice system and protect the critical scrutiny that is essential for a fair trial.
Scientific Background: The LISP project draws on the theoretical frameworks of Lombardi Vallauri (2019), Masia (2021), and Sbisà (2007) regarding implicit communication and its role in human cognition and persuasion