ON JUDGE’S TRIAL DISCOURSE IN CHINESE COURTROOM FROM GOAL-DRIVEN PERSPECTIVE

Main Article Content

Qing ZHANG

Abstract

Any act has certain goal, and the judge’s trial discourse is a structured and layered goal system. Judges normally adopt some discourse strategies to reach their trial goals. Based on our trial corpora, we find judges commonly adopt some strong goal-driven discourse strategies, such as question-answer strategy, power control strategy, presupposition strategy, repetition strategy, and interruption strategy, etc., in order to realize their trial goals as well as discourse goals. Strategy in effect refers to means, with which the goal of discourse is to be achieved. As words are intended for both the expression and the achievement of goals, the choice of a means or a strategy relies on the decision of the goal. Only from this perspective is the link between strategy and goal meaningful, and in this sense, strategy means rhetoric. This paper aims to study the judge’s discourse strategies adopted in trials in Chinese courtrooms from the perspective of the goal principle.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
ZHANG, Q. (2019). ON JUDGE’S TRIAL DISCOURSE IN CHINESE COURTROOM FROM GOAL-DRIVEN PERSPECTIVE. Comparative Legilinguistics, 38, 65-82. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2019.38.3
Section
Articles
Author Biography

Qing ZHANG, China University of Political Science and Law

School of Foreign Languages, Dean

References

  1. Brown, Gillian, and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  2. Cheng, Le. 2012. Attribution and judicial control in Chinese court judgments: a corpus-based study. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 19: 27-49.
  3. Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  4. Givón, Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.
  5. Hansell, Mark, and Cheryl S. Ajirotutu. 1982. Negotiating interpretations in interethnic settings. In Language and Social Identity, ed. John Gumperz, 85-95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.
  7. Li, Yuee, and Fan Hongya. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
  8. Liao, Meizhen. 2006. A study on “formulation” in Chinese courtroom interaction. Foreign Language Research 2: 1-8+13+80.
  9. Liao, Meizhen. 2005. Goal principle and goal analysis – exploration on new approaches to pragmatic study (part 2). Rhetoric Learning 4: 5-11.
  10. Liao, Meizhen. 2003. A Study on Courtroom Questions, Responses and Their Interaction. Beijing: Law Press.
  11. Lv, Wanying. 2006. Power Control in the Judge’s Discourse. Foreign Language Research 2: 9-13.
  12. O’Barr, William M. 1982. Linguistic Evidence: Language Power and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
  13. Roger W. Shuy. 2005. Creating Language Crimes: How Law Enforcement Uses (and Misuses) Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  14. Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meanings: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Stalnaker, Robert C. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9: 78-95.
  16. Thomas, Jenny. 1985. The Language of Power: Towards a Dynamic Pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 765-783.
  17. Tian Hailong and Zhang Maizeng. 2006. Pragmatic and Societal Approaches to the Asymmetry of Power. Foreign Language and Research 2: 7-13.
  18. Wu, Tieping. 1993. Summary of General Linguistics. Higher Education Press.
  19. Yule, George. 2000. Pragmatics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.
  20. Zhao, Junfeng. 2007. Speech acts in courtroom and linguistic strategies. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies 2: 90-93.