| The study of forensic linguistics has been on the rise both at home and abroad. In China, the scholars who are engaged in the research of this field are mainly the scholars of law, Chinese language and foreign language study. Recently, many scholars begin to pay attention to the dynamic study on the courtroom discourse. More and more scholars are focusing on the language activities taking place in the courtroom. However, so far there are no thorough researches available describing the discourse features, speech acts and goals of judges in the courtroom from linguistic perspectives. Internationally there is The Language of Judges by Laurence M. Solan, and domestically A Study on Courtroom Questions, Responses and Their Interaction: a Linguistic Perspective by Professor Liao Meizhen. However, the former covers the study on judicial opinions, i.e., how judges make use of linguistic knowledge in making decisions, which is a kind of legal interpretation study, and the latter is not enough in dealing with the language study of judges in the courtroom though the whole book is devoted to the study on the courtroom discourse. This paper aims at the study on the discourse features, speech acts and goal analysis of judges'courtroom discourse from the perspectives of discourse analysis, speech act theory and the principle of goals together with the analysis of 25 transcripts of courtroom trials so as to give a general description of judges'courtroom discourse and attempt to provide some proposals which may contribute to make judges'courtroom discourse normative. It is hoped that the study may give some hints to the judicial practice and judicial reforms in China.The whole paper is composed of six chapters. As an introduction to the paper, the first chapter intends to introduce the theoretical background and the overall framework of the whole dissertation. Firstly, it briefly examines the academic history of language and law study which proves later to have laid a solid foundation for the forensic linguistics coming into being as a formal subject, and reviews the recent developments and accomplishments of forensic linguistic studies both at home and abroad. And then it provides a survey of the present paper, including its main contents, research value and significance, and the academic theory and study methods to be employed.Chapter Two is a quantitative description of 9 trials in terms of discourse analysis theory, such as adjacency pair, conversational structure, turn-taking, topics and classification of discourse, etc. aiming to uncover the features and status of judges'courtroom discourse. We have discovered that judges still assume the supreme power in the whole courtroom discourse activities, and it is so even in the criminal trail after the judicial reform. However, we also find out that the procedural discourse of judges in criminal trials takes predominance, whereas by contrast, the substantive discourse in civil and administrative trials is the dominate discourse, where judges are still the leading role on the trial stage. Hopefully the leading role of judges in criminal trials is diminishing. Besides, the pattern of question-response is still the major structure of the court trial, so is the judge's discourse with other participants in the trial.In Chapter Three, the speech act theory is adopted to analyze the judge's courtroom discourse. It is obvious that the courtroom trial is conducted through discourse, in which the judge's courtroom discourse is also performing speech acts. The speech act theory by Austin provides us with a pattern of analysis of judges'courtroom discourse. The speech act theory deals with the illocutionary act of discourse generally, in which saying is doing. According to the distinctions of illocutionary acts by Austin, we find that judges'courtroom discourse is actually performing the trial act. The courtroom discourse is a kind of institutional discourse, which is restricted strictly by the rules of institutions though, and the general speech act still plays a role in it. The judge's courtroom discourse is not only a locutionary act, but also an illocutionary act and perlocutionary act. By analyzing the sentence pattern of“consideratum est per curiam”when judges pronounce a judgment, we may clearly notice the aim and functions of speech acts of judges'courtroom discourse.Chapter Four aims to employ the principle of goal analysis in pragmatics so as to describe and discover the judge's courtroom discourse. According to the system of goals theory, goals are a system with structures, layers and organic parts. Under the principle of goal analysis, we find that the judge's courtroom discourse is such a system of goals with structures and layers, in which the judge's discourse is guided by the goals, and in order to realize his/her discourse goals, so as to realize the aim of the whole trial, the judge may have adopted many goal-oriented discourse strategies, such as interruptions, which are closely related with power.In Chapter Five, it is devoted to the standardization of judges'courtroom discourse. In real life trial practice, it is unavoidable that judges may make some errors in their courtroom discourse. However, due to their special status and positions, such discourse errors may cause disastrous results. Therefore, in order to guarantee a just trial, it is a must for judges to make their courtroom discourse normatvive. Under the adversarial system of trial, judges should remain passive in the trial as possible as they can. In terms of discourse, under the premises of speaking within norms and accurately, judges should produce more procedural discourse rather than substantive one, which is in conformity with the spirits of procedure laws.Finally, the last chapter, Chapter Six, as the conclusion part of the dissertation, summarizes the main points and important findings of this study. In addition, it highlights its significance, makes some explanations over its limits and shortcomings, and indicates the possible improvements and further researches in this field in the future. |
PDF Full Text Request