On Judge’s Trial Discourse in Chinese Courtroom from Goal-Driven Perspective

Open access


Any action has a certain goal, and the judge’s trial discourse is a system of goal with structure and level. Judges usually adopt some discourse strategies to achieve the goal of trial. Based on the court trial corpus collected by us, we find that judges often adopt purposeful discourse strategies to achieve the trial goal and discourse goal, such as question-and-answer strategy, power control strategy, presupposition strategy, repetition strategy and interruption strategy. Strategies actually refer to the means by which to achieve the goal of discourse. Because words are used to express and achieve the goal, the choice of means or strategies depends on the choice of the goal. From this perspective, we can see the relationship between strategy and goal. In a sense, strategy is rhetoric. The purpose of this paper is to study the discourse strategies adopted by judges in Chinese courts from the perspective of the goal principle.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Brown Gillian and George Yule. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Cheng Le. 2012. Attribution and judicial control in Chinese court judgments: a corpus-based study. The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 19: 27-49.

  • Gibbons John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

  • Givón Talmy. 1979. On Understanding Grammar. New York: Academic Press.

  • Hansell Mark and Cheryl S. Ajirotutu. 1982. Negotiating interpretations in interethnic settings. In Language and Social Identity ed. John Gumperz 85-95. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.

  • Li Yuee and Fan Hongya. 2002. Discourse Analysis. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

  • Liao Meizhen. 2006. A study on “formulation” in Chinese courtroom interaction. Foreign Language Research 2: 1-8+13+80.

  • Liao Meizhen. 2005. Goal principle and goal analysis – exploration on new approaches to pragmatic study (part 2). Rhetoric Learning 4: 5-11.

  • Liao Meizhen. 2003. A Study on Courtroom Questions Responses and Their Interaction. Beijing: Law Press

  • Lv Wanying. 2006. Power Control in the Judge’s Discourse. Foreign Language Research 2: 9-13.

  • O’Barr William M. 1982. Linguistic Evidence: Language Power and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.

  • Roger W. Shuy. 2005. Creating Language Crimes: How Law Enforcement Uses (and Misuses) Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  • Searle John R. 1979. Expression and Meanings: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Stalnaker Robert C. 1978. Assertion. Syntax and Semantics 9: 78-95.

  • Thomas Jenny. 1985. The Language of Power: Towards a Dynamic Pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics 9: 765-783.

  • Tian Hailong and Zhang Maizeng. 2006. Pragmatic and Societal Approaches to the Asymmetry of Power. Foreign Language and Research 2: 7-13.

  • Wu Tieping. 1993. Summary of General Linguistics. Higher Education Press.

  • Yule George. 2000. Pragmatics. Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.

  • Zhao Junfeng. 2007. Speech acts in courtroom and linguistic strategies. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies 2: 90-93.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 9 9 5
PDF Downloads 9 9 4