| Habermas, the German philosopher, holds the idea that human beings live in a’life world’ and the existence of the life world is based on human communication with dialogical understanding, i.e., communication is human nature and mutual understanding is a fundamental human requirement. In the process of human communication and mutual understanding, various kinds of distance relations, either close or far, come into being between humans. When we feel that human communication and mutual understanding between us are relatively smooth and share many common grounds, we may naturally or consciously shorten the distance between us; However, when we feel that human communication and mutual understanding between us are relatively tough, we have big differences in personality and we cannot accept these differences, we may increase the distance between us on our own. Therefore, to achieve good human communication and mutual understanding needs to maintain an optimum distance that is appropriate to each other and can be accepted by both parties. As a result, how to define the norm and standard of distance in human communication, especially the question of pragma-proxemics(pragmatic distance) in verbal communication, is increasingly becoming a significant topic or objective of linguistic study.For the time being, foreign scholars mainly concentrate on the study of proxemics in non-verbal communication, while Chinese scholars chiefly focus on interpersonal distance in trans-cultural communication. And yet, the study aiming at the pragma-proxemics in verbal communication is relatively few and the forensic study of prama-proxemics in courtroom discourse remains empty. Based on the real courtroom discourse corpora, taking courtroom discourse as the study objective and Xinjiang’s courtroom discourse as an example, this paper aims at conducting a tentative study on prama-proxemics in courtroom discourse. This paper can be summarized as seven parts:Chapter One is the introduction, making a brief introduction on the origin of thesis topic, research scenario (research objective, research content, key questions to be tackled, research methods and theoretical basis), research innovation, research significance and descriptions of research corpora.Chapter Two is the literature review, making a review on the research status quo of courtroom discourse and pragma-proxemics at home and abroad, finding out the limitations of relevant study and advancing the new study perspective and train of thought of pragma-proxemics in courtroom discourse.Chapter Three constructs the theoretical framework of this study and puts forward the Goal Pragma-Proxemics Theory. First, it discusses the Goal Theory, including the definition of goal, the Principle of Goal Direction and goal relations; then, it explores the Pragma-Proxemics Theory, involving the definition, classification and function of pragama-proxemics; at last, based on the Goal Theory and the Prama-Proxemics Theory, it systematically advances the Goal Prama-Proxemics Theory, describes the total framework of the Goal Prama-Proxemics Theory and further sub-divides the Goal Prama-Proxemics Theory into the Positive Prama-Proxemics Theory, the Neutral Prama-Proxemics Theory and the Negative Prama-Proxemics Theory respectively.Chapter Four conducts a detailed analysis on positive prama-proxemics. It explains the definition and features of positive prama-proxemics and demonstratively analyzes the discourse practice of positive prama-proxemics, i.e., shortening prama-proxemics, including discourse strategies for positive prama-proxemics implemented by different court roles, especially by judges in warm courtroom trial.Chapter Five explicates neutral prama-proxemics. It describes the definition and features of neutral prama-proxemics and makes a demonstrative analysis on the discourse practice of neutral prama-proxemics, i.e., maintaining prama-proxemics, including judges’discourse strategies for neutral prama-proxemics and court interpreters’ interpreting strategies for neutral prama-proxemics.Chapter Six makes a detailed analysis of negative prama-proxemics. It describes the definition and features of negative prama-proxemics and focuses on illustrating the discourse practice of negative prama-proxemics, i.e., increasing prama-proxemics, involving the relatively comprehensive discussion on the relations of negative prama-proxemics between various court participants and the discourse strategies for negative prama-proxemics adopted by different court roles.Chapter Seven is the conclusion, summarizing some major research findings, offering some revelations on promoting and strengthening judicial construction in Xinjiang, explaining the research limitations and looking to the future of the study on prama-proxemics in courtroom discourse.This study has some major findings as follows:Firstly, to define the concept of prama-proxemics and classify prama-proxemics. Prama-proxemics is defined as a mental space distance state describing the relational closeness or farness between discourse actors. Prama-proxemics can be classified into pro-prama-proxemics and interactional prama-proxemics. Interactional prama-proxemics can be sub-divided into positive prama-proxemics, neutral prama-proxemics and negative prama-proxemics.Secondly, to theoretically construct the Goal Prama-Proxemics Theory. Under the spur and drive of goals, through overt and covert discourse negotiation, discourse actors will make a corresponding feeling, deduction and choice about the mental space distance state describing relational closeness or farness between each other, thus forming three relations and three spaces of positive prama-proxemics, neutral prama-proxemics and negative prama-proxemics in accordance with goal convergence, goal neutrality and goal conflict and giving rise to such three pragmatic effects as prama-proxemics being reduced, maintained and enlarged respectively.Thirdly, to construct the space model of prama-proxemics. The space model of prama-proxemics can be described as follows:prama-proxemics space consists of three parts-positive prama-proxemics space, neutral prama-proxemics space and negative prama-proxemics space and each part is made up of three elements:1. outmost cell membrane-S(prama-proxemics space marker);2.cytoplasm-IPP(interactional prama-proxemics);3. cell nucleus-PPP(pro-prama-proxemics or institutional pragma-proxemics).Fourthly, major findings in terms of positive prama-proxemics. Positive prama-proxemics can be described as the mathematic coordinate formula-D(P1,P2)<0.The relations of positive prama-proxemics are mainly manifested between such discourse communicators with converging goals as judges and prosecutors, plaintiff lawyers and plaintiffs, defence lawyers and defendants, judges and other roles in warm courtroom trial.Discourse strategies for positive prama-proxemics chiefly include deixis, addressing terms, hedges, dirty language, reformulation, contrast, code-switching, agreement, compromise and sympathy, etc.Fifthly, major findings in terms of neutral prama-proxemics. Neutral prama-proxemics can be described as the mathematic coordinate formula-D(P1, P2)=0. The relations of neutral prama-proxemics are mostly mirrored in such two roles as judges and court interpreters. The relations of Neutral Prama-Proxemics between judges and other roles are mainly shown in procedural discourse. Discourse strategies for neutral prama-proxemics include institutional language, repetition, interruption, questioning and controlling topic. The judge controls topic and maintains neutral prama-proxemics chiefly by implementing the following three discourse rules:1.P'NP;2.P'P;3.P'NP'NP. Under the government of the Principle of Neutral Prama-proxemics, court interpreters will depend on various contexts and stages of courtroom trials to adopt such seven interpreting strategies for neutral prama-proxemics as full translation, translation with formulation, division translation, synthesization translation, abridged translation, translation with editing and adaptation translation respectively.Sixthly, major findings in terms of negative prama-proxemics. Negative prama-proxemics can be described as the mathematic coordinate formula-D(P1, P2)>0. The relations of negative prama-proxemics are mostly reflected between two parties with conflictive goals such as prosecutors and defence lawyers, plaintiff lawyers and defence lawyers, plaintiff lawyers and defendant, defence lawyers and plaintiffs. It is found out that discourse strategies for negative prama-proxemics mainly include presupposition, refutation, interruption, denial, questioning with scolding, reformulation, confession of guilt, protest, warning, irony, deixis, addressing terms, repetition, criticism, contrast, weakening, derogatory words, code-switching, hedges, self-repair, dirty language and answering beside the point respectively. |
PDF Full Text Request