【作者】 施光；

【导师】 辛斌；

【作者基本信息】 南京师范大学 ， 英语语言文学， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 本文对中国法庭审判话语进行批评性分析,目的是描述并揭示该话语的形式结构特征及其与法庭审判各主体(法官、检察官、原告、被告等)的意识形态和权力关系之间的互动关系。本文运用费尔克劳的批评性语篇分析三维框架(语篇、话语实践、社会实践)分析了作者旁听的八场法庭审判(四场刑事、三场民事、一场行政)近二十万字的录音转写材料。上述三维框架中的“语篇”这一维度描述了分类、及物、情态和话语互动控制等四个方面的特征并试图揭示其背后的深层意义,发现:1)由于目的和意识形态的不同,法庭审判各主体倾向于使用意义不同甚至相反的词、短语或小句来指代或描述同一事物或事件;2)物质和言语过程句的使用最频繁,而存在过程句的使用最少;3)法官所使用的情态表达式有助于实现明确权利、义务,对诉讼参与人做出规约、许可、授权、禁止等功能。相比之下,各诉讼参与人使用的情态表达式虽然在某些情况下能够显示其态度和信心,但总体上对他们所陈述内容的可信度、意思表达的准确性等方面具有消极的影响:4)法庭话语互动总体上是由权势者控制(所有审判主要由法官控制;刑事审判由法官和检察官共同控制)。非权势者偶尔试图挑战权势者的权威,在这种情况下,后者将采用多种方式“维护其权威和控制权”。通过对语力、连贯和互文性的分析,“话语实践”这一维度阐释了法庭审判话语与生成、传播和接受它的交际过程的关系。对语力的分析主要包括对“言语行为”和“礼貌行为”的分析。在舍尔(1965)所划分的五类言语行为中,描述性和指示性这两种言语行为在法庭中的使用最为频繁。与日常生活相比,法庭审判各主体的礼貌行为明显偏少,而且权势越大的主体越不礼貌,也就是说他/她倾向于做出更多“面子威胁行为”。法庭中最有权势的主体——法官所做出的威胁他人面子的行为最多。第二个方面是连贯,通过对两个案例的分析,笔者发现法庭审判话语在语义、话题和语境等三个层面上都具有连贯性。第三个方面是互文性,本文按照辛斌教授(2000a,2005)的分类将其分为具体互文性和语篇互文性。对具体互文性的分析发现:1)在“具体确切的消息来源”、“含蓄不露的消息来源”和“似真非真的消息来源”这三种交代消息来源的主要方式当中,只有前两者被法庭审判各主体所采用,第三种未出现在语料中;2)在四种主要的转述形式(“直接报道”、“间接报道”、“自由间接报道”和“言语行为的叙述性转述”)当中,第三种,即“自由间接报道”,在语料中没有出现。这里需要指出的是消息来源和转述形式的选择是与法庭各主体的目的和利益相一致的。对体裁互文性的分析表明法庭审判话语,尤其是“举证”这一子体裁,不仅是不同体裁的混合,而且也是不同风格的交融,这一方面可能是由于司法改革的影响,另一方面也是当代社会公共语篇“会话式非正式化”的一个例证。“社会实践”这一维度解释了权力关系是如何通过那些控制法庭审判话语的人的具有意识形态意义的常识性假定而得以维持、遭到挑战或进行调整的。分析发现:法庭审判各主体的意识形态有趋同和冲突两大趋势。前者主要存在于法官和检察官之间,因为在法庭上,他们都是特定国家机关的化身:法官代表法院(审判机关),检察官代表检察院(法律监督机关)。意识形态的冲突则主要存在于刑事审判中的检察官(法官)与被告之间,民事和行政审判中各对立方(原告与被告,上诉人/被上诉人等)之间。总的来说,各对立方意识形态的冲突的根源是各自目的和利益的不同。法庭中的权力关系呈现出如下三大特点:1)各主体之间的权力关系具有等级性和不对称性;2)权力关系在很大程度上决定于法庭所具有的机构本质;3)权力关系一方面反映在各主体话语的语言特征当中,另一方面也影响甚至强化各主体话语的语言特征。更多还原

【Abstract】 This thesis analyzes Chinese courtroom discourse from the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis for the purpose of describing the formal features of Chinese courtroom discourse and revealing their interaction with the ideologies of and power relations between the subjects in the courtroom (i.e., the judge, the public prosecutor, the plaintiff, and the defendant, etc.). Fairclough’s three-dimensional framework for Critical Discourse Analysis is employed to analyze the audio recording transcripts of eight court trials (four criminal, three civil, and one administrative), which amount to more than 200,000 words. The first dimension "Discourse as text" describes features and underlying meanings of the following aspects: classification, transitivity, modality and interactional control features. It is found that 1) in the courtroom, due to different purposes and ideologies of the subjects, words and expressions that have different and even opposite meanings are used to describe or refer to the same thing or incident, 2) material and verbal processes appear by far most frequently, while the number of existential processes is the smallest, 3) generally speaking, those expressions of modality employed by the judges help to clarify rights and duties and realize the functions of regulation, permission, authorization and prohibition, while those employed by other subjects generally have a negative effect on the reliability of their statements and the accuracy of the meanings they want to express; 4) courtroom interaction is generally controlled by the powerful (the judge in all trials, the judge and the public prosecutor in criminal ones). Occasionally, the non-powerful tries to challenge the authority of the powerful, but in such cases, the powerful will try to reassert his/her control’ in various ways.The second dimension "Discursive Practice" interprets courtroom discourse in relation to its production, distribution, and consumption through the analysis of force, coherence and intertextuality. Under the rubric of force, "speech acts" and "politeness" are analyzed. Among the five-part classification of speech acts established by Searle (1965), representative and directive speech acts are most frequently used. With regard to politeness, generally speaking, less politeness strategies are adopted by the subjects in the courtroom than in daily conversations. The more powerful a subject is, the more "impolite" s/he tends to be, that is, s/he tends to do more FTAs (Face-Threatening Acts). As the most powerful subject in the courtroom, the judge does FTAs most frequently. The second aspect is coherence. The analysis of two cases shows that courtroom discourse is coherent semantically, topically, and contextually. Following professor Xin Bin (2000a, 2005), the third aspect "intertextuality" is classified into specific and generic intertextuality. In the analysis of specific intertextuality, it is found that 1) among the three ways of showing news source: specific and exact news source, implicit news source, and seemingly real news source, only the first two are used by the subjects in the court trials, while the third is not found and 2) among the four major modes of speech reporting: Direct Reporting (DR), Indirect Reporting (IR), Free Indirect Reporting (FIR), and Narrative Report of Speech Act (NRSA), only DR, IR, NRSA appear in the eight cases. It should be pointed out that the choice of ways of showing news source and modes of speech reporting is in accordance with the purposes and interests of the subjects in the courtroom. The analysis of generic intertextuality shows that courtroom discourse, especially the sub-genre of "evidence-producing", is not only the mixture of different genres but also that of different modes (styles), which may be the result of the judicial reform and a manifestation of the trend of ’conversationalization’ in contemporary society.The third dimension "social practice" explains the courtroom discourse from the perspective of how power relations are either reproduced, challenged, or restructured through the ideological common sense assumptions of those controlling the discourse. In the courtroom, the ideologies of the subjects have two major tendencies: convergence and conflict. The convergence of ideologies mainly exists between the judge and the public prosecutor, because in the courtroom both of them are the embodiment of certain institutions: the judge embodies the court (the judicial organ), while the public prosecutor embodies the procuratorate (the organ for legal supervision). Another tendency is the conflict of the ideologies. The major conflicts are those between the public prosecutor (and the judge) and the defendant in criminal trials, and those between opposing parties (the plaintiff and the defendant, the appellant and the appellee, etc.) in civil and administrative ones. Generally speaking, opposing parties in the courtroom tend to have different ideologies due to their different purposes and interests. In the courtroom, power relations have the following three main characteristics: 1) the power relations of the subjects in the courtroom are hierarchical and asymmetrical; 2) the power relations are largely determined by the institutional nature of the court; and 3) the power relations are reflected by and in turn affect the linguistic features of the subject discourse.更多还原