Interpersonal Meaning In Courtroom Discours

This thesis, in the light of theoretical framework of functional linguistics, proposes what is termed the structural-functional model by enlarging the scope of the theory of interpersonal meaning in systemic functional grammar. Based on the expanded model, it makes an analysis of the linguistic data of 14 Chinese criminal cases recorded in courtroom setting and explains descriptively how the interpersonal meaning is realized in courtroom discourse.Chapter One, as an introduction, presents the objectives of the present study, defines courtroom discourse, and characterizes the interpersonal features of courtroom discourse in general. In addition, it also presents the structure and contents of the thesis.Chapter Two first makes an overview of the object, the methodology and the recent development of forensic linguistics as well as differences of forensic linguistic studies both in the west and in China. Then it looks back at the theoretical background and makes comments on different approaches to discourse analysis and different theoretical perspectives on interpersonal meaning.Chapter Three devotes itself to the methodology of this empirical study. It briefly introduces how the data is collected, in what ways these data are analyzed, and the synopsis of Chinese courtroom proceedings in the present study.Chapter Four aims to propose an interpretive model for the analysis of the data available. First, starting from scrutinizing the studies of interpersonal meaning within the theoretical framework of systemic functional grammar, it attempts to integrate the approach of the Birmingham School with that of systemic functional grammar and introduces the concepts'move'and'exchange'into the interpersonal theory of systemic functional grammar so that the interpersonal meaning in courtroom discourse can be analyzed from both an interactive and personal perspectives. Then in the light of the above theoretical assumption, the structural-functional model is finally built up.Chapter Five, starting with the data analysis, focuses on mood in relation to its interpersonal meaning in courtroom discourse. It examines the pattern of mood formation from the interactive perspective by considering the context it occurs. Through the analysis of the number of the use of clauses and types of clauses such as declaratives, interrogatives, imperatives, yes-no questions, it discuses the results of analysis in terms of the mood selection in relation to the construction and negotiation of roles and role relationships. The result shows that there is lack of role reciprocity between interactants in courtroom setting.Chapter Six focuses on modality in relation to its interpersonal meaning from the personal perspective. First, it describes the overall characteristics of modality in the criminal courtroom discourse and then analyzes how the prosecutor and the accused express their respective modality through the choice of various linguistic devices used in criminal courtroom proceedings. Finally, the analysis turns to the realizations of modality encoded in the produced discourse through the verdict phase of courtroom proceeding. The findings indicate that such expressions as'the same court maintains that','the same court confirms that','the same court verifies that', are linguistic resources uniquely employed for realizations of modality in criminal courtroom proceedings.Chapter Seven focuses on the deictic system and'three terminological questions'(interrogation, enquiry, and question) in relation to their interpersonal meaning. In the light of the previous studies on the speaker's attitudinal interpersonal meaning expressed by the'semantic system of involvement', it proposes that in the courtroom settings there are two such semantic subsystems: the deictic system including the use of personal pronouns such as you, I, address forms, and'the same court', and the terminological system including interrogation, enquiry, and question. The results show that the interactants involved in courtroom proceedings tend to express reciprocal attitudes and interpersonal relationships through the choice-making of meaning from the above systems.Chapter Eight focuses on speech functions as a special meaning resource for the expression of interpersonal meaning in courtroom discourse. It first identifies that the structure of the courtroom discourse unit is composed of 3 moves in its organization according to the criminal trial function and presents the network of speech functions in courtroom discourse. Then the analysis is stressed, respectively at the level of moves and the level of exchanges, on the selection of speech functions by the interactants with regard to their interpersonal meaning. The analysis indicates that the unique features of speech function in courtroom discourse are manifested as the structuring move, stating move and restating move, which illustrate how the activity in courtroom discourse is initiated and moreover the interactants involved express their interpersonal meanings mainly through the selection of speech functions. The result shows that there is lack of role reciprocity between the judge and the accused and that their controlling and controlled relationships are pre-determined by Criminal Procedure Law.Chapter Nine, the concluding part, restates the theoretical framework in which the present study is based on and the expanded interpretive model used for the empirical analysis. From the findings of this study, it draws the conclusions that interpersonal meaning in discourse is diversified and that courtroom discourse as a special genre presents its unique features in the realization of interpersonal meaning. It also points out that the revision or amendment of the existing theories of interpersonal meaning will be accordingly necessary.This thesis contributes to the field of study mainly in four aspects: first, the data available in the thesis is authentic, i.e. situated discourse recorded in several criminal trial settings. Second, the thesis enlarges the scope of discourse study by analyzing courtroom discourse as a special genre. It is found that such studies completely based on the linguistic data collected from criminal courtroom trials have ever hardly been conducted. Third,the thesis breaking through the limitation of classic theories of interpersonal meaning formulates the structural-functional theoretical framework which considerably facilitates the study of interpersonal meaning in courtroom discourse. Fourth, the findings in this study bear implications on the professional and moral education for legal professionals in their working practice.