英語控辯雙方庭審語篇批評(píng)話語

　　英語畢業(yè)論文主要闡述為了尊重公訴人和被告人在法庭上如何履行其目的，以及他們?nèi)绾尾荒芮‘?dāng)?shù)仃愂鲎约旱恼擖c(diǎn)，本研究從語篇轉(zhuǎn)錄的語言學(xué)分析入手。然后作者將語境考慮進(jìn)去，探討了為什么雙方通過分析語境的原因而呈現(xiàn)出不同的語言行為�！�電子科學(xué)技術(shù)與應(yīng)用》(ISSN刊號(hào)：2251-2608)衷心邀請(qǐng)來自世界各地的學(xué)者們投稿，來稿會(huì)進(jìn)行同行評(píng)審。本刊屬開放獲取刊，可以即時(shí)查看或訪問研究結(jié)果，同時(shí)允許免費(fèi)使用學(xué)者的研究成果。本刊致力于出版電子和電子工程領(lǐng)域全面和最新發(fā)展的高質(zhì)量學(xué)術(shù)論文。我們?yōu)殡娮雍碗娮庸こ填I(lǐng)域廣泛的研究人員和專業(yè)人士提供了一個(gè)交流和信息交換平臺(tái)。

　　1.1 Research Background

　　As a regulation among people in the society, law is of distinct social character. The orientation of the development of legal system strongly represents the advancement of society. Being a product of the social development of certain stage in itshistory, the legal system keeps changing, while its pattern of advancement varies due to respective forms of past societies. Courtroom discourse, as a linguistic presentation of legal practice, reflects the situation that legal system is strongly effected and constructed, by the macro-situation of society, and vice versa. Wu Ying, born at May 20th, 1981, was the former legal representative of Bense Holding Group Co., Ltd. As the Defendant in the People against Wu Ying Case (hereafter WY Case), she was accused of fraudulent fund-raising, and arrested on March 16th, 2007. Based on the revered case facts, the Defendant lured the victims by committing high rates of benefit, raising over 14 million RMB from several victims. Burdened with millions of liability, the Defendant kept illegally raising funds by committing high rates of interest and dividend. Using the unlawful capital, the Defendant registered several companies. To cover up her heavy debt, she made several moves such as acquiring multiple real estates, making investments and donations, launching false sales promotions to create an image of a being an owner of a well-functioned corporation.

　　........

　　1.2 Definition of Courtroom Discourses

　　Courtroom discourse is given different definition by respective researchers, where foreign scholars take a large proportion. According to Atkinson and Drew (1979:8-18), courtroom discourse is a course of linguistic interaction. In comparison to ordinary discourse in daily life, courtroom discourse covers two different sides. Firstly, courtroom discourse is not actual conversation between two persons, or among people. It is so because most of the contents in court were pre-organized statements of courtroom participants, i.e. judge, prosecutor and defendant. Courtroom discourse is a linguistic reproduction of the case-related information, such as fact, course and evidence. This indicates those statements do not generate new information about the case. Any exchange of information that emerges is strictly regulated by procedure. Secondly, during courtroom trial, details such as the person who initiates the question, content of questioning, and in which phase is question allowed should follow Law of Procedure and related interpretation (Atkinson & Drew, 1979:8-18). Maley defines courtroom discourse as “a linguistic progress of spoken language (see Gibbons, 1994:35)”. Confrontation usually embeds in judicial process, especially in courtroom. Discourse generated in courtroom is filled with structural elements, each phase of a trial in court is filled with some obligated structural elements of courtroom discourses. As Conley and O’Barr argued, “the structural element determines that no speaker in court is taken as privileged (Conley & O’Barr, 1998:21).”

　　.......

　　CHAPTER TWO LTERATURE REVIEW

　　2.1 Domestic Researches on This Study

　　Mood analysis has bee

　　n used to discover the linguistic advantage of both sides in the cross-examination. In Wang Zhenhua’ study on the Simpson Case (2008), he discovered the interpersonal relation expressed during cross-examination. Based on the author’s analysis, it is concluded that objective speech with a positive attitude made the speaker stand on a rather advantageous position. On the opposite, subjective speech with an unclear attitude made the speaker stand on a less advantageous position. Systemic-Functional is also a method employed for the analysis of features of English in court debate. Gong Jing’s study took clause as its major unit for analysis, discussing the types of process of verbs as well as lexical choices employed in the transitivity processes (2005). Findings in this study summarized how the ideational functions are realized through the processes and lexical choices. Studies have also been conducted focusing on the realization of persuasive reasoning in courtroom discourse from the perspective of transaction-oriented information processing. Du Jinbang tagged the data from CLIPS to see the distribution pattern of transaction-oriented information in courtroom discourses (2010). Elaboration was conducted on the pattern of information distribution, the linguistic realization of transaction-oriented information and its function and attitudes expressed in information processing. The author believes that proper use of transaction-oriented information can improve the effects of persuasive reasoning.

　　.........

　　2.2 Overseas Researches on This Study

　　The influence imposed by attorney varied with the pattern of questioning. The pattern of questioning showed the character of forcible typology. A specific questioning pattern would lead to a particular response, which is of coerciveness. For example, a declarative question such as tag question (it is you who did this, isn’t it?) is of the strongest coerciveness (meaning strictly limited the possibility of witness’s acceptable response, even pointed out the response), however an open-ended wh-question, such as who, what, where, when and why showed rather light sight of coerciveness. Here what Danet (see Berk-Seligson, 1990) and his colleague chose as the metric to measure the strength of coerciveness is the length of the response. The more coercive is the question, the shorter the response is offered by the witness. A strongly coercive question such as a tag question tended to generate a “yes/no” response, which normally is rather short, while an open-ended wh-question frequently leaded to a rather long response, which is of long sentence or several sentences combined as a narrative discourse.

轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明來自發(fā)表學(xué)術(shù)論文網(wǎng)：http:///ywlw/13040.html