庭审话语中的法官身份构建

发布时间：2018-06-10 11:33

本文选题：庭审话语 + 法官　；参考：《上海外国语大学》2012年博士论文

【摘要】：西方哲学的语言学转向促使20世纪的法学研究也转向了语言，越来越多的法律职业人士和法学领域专家纷纷把目光投向了语言，试图通过研究语言来研究法律，解决司法实践中的具体问题，法律语言学作为语言学和法学交叉结合的新学科孕育而生。在法律语言学的诸多研究范畴中，法庭话语由于其语言使用所具有的独特性成为目前法律语言研究的热点。但是综观国内外法庭话语研究，，我们发现目前的法庭话语话语研究由于受传统语言学研究范式的影响，或者只关注法庭话语的词汇、句法特征和语体风格，忽视了法庭话语的即席性和动态性；或者互动话语的研究范围过于狭窄，仅仅囿于律师与被告（证人）之间的互动交际，很少关注法庭话语实践中其他庭审参与者，尤其是法官的言语实践。法官在整个法庭审判中居于核心地位，是法庭审判中各种关系的核心，因此，对法官的言语实践及其角色、身份的考察对于理解法庭互动话语中的相互关系乃至整个庭审制度至关重要。然而，令人遗憾的是，有关法官在法庭审判实践中的言语活动或是身份研究在法庭话语研究的诸多文献中却鲜有涉及。鉴于此，本文基于社会学的身份建构论(identity constructionism)，以庭审话语中的法官身份为研究对象，借鉴系统功能语言学、会话分析以及语用学的理论研究成果，以中国基层法院普通程序审理的民事、刑事以及行政案件为语料，从语法、语篇及语用三个维度，采用以定性分析为主、辅以定量分析的研究方法，着重探讨法官在法庭审判中通过各种话语资源的选择构建身份的过程，具体的分析范畴包括语法层的语气和情态、语篇层的话轮转换以及语用层的（不）礼貌策略。通过分析我们发现，在语法层，法官通过对小句数量的调控以及对陈述、祈使、疑问等语气类型的恰当选择，构建了法庭审判的“组织者”、“倾听者”、“调查者”以及权力“主导者”的身份；同时，法官通过多选用非隐喻式、道义型以及客观的中低量值的情态表达凸显了在庭审中的中立地位，使其在法庭审判中的断言、命令、提议等更加客观化，构建了庭审中保持中立的“裁判者”身份。在语篇层，我们发现庭审话语中的话轮转换机制具有明显的不对称。这种不对称的话轮转换机制表明了法庭审判中的层级关系以及权力不平衡，即法官控制了话题的启动、发展和结束，从而加强和再现了法官在庭审中的权势地位和身份。除此之外，法官还通过策略地调控话轮的长度构建和加强了其在庭审中“倾听者”的身份。在语用层，法官通过对（不）礼貌策略的实施表明了不偏不倚、超然于当事人之外的中立地位，进一步加强了其在法庭审判中的权势地位，构建了法官作为法庭审判的“裁判者”、“主导者”的身份。由此可见，目前中国法庭审判实践中的法官身份具有多重性，即法官除了作为法庭审判的主导者、组织者、调查者以及裁判者之外，法官还是法庭审判的主要“倾听者”。中国法官身份的多重性从一定程度上表明了当前中国法庭审判的诉讼模式是一种职权主义审问式与当事人主义对抗制相结合的混合式审判模式。其中，当事人主义的对抗制诉讼模式为主，职权主义的审问式为辅，即法官对案件事实的调查只是辅助性的，整个法庭审判主要是在法官的主导下通过诉讼双方的举证、质证、辩论来推进，法官在整个庭审中是主要的“倾听者”，通过听取诉讼双方的论辩形成对案件事实的看法，从而做出裁决。从语法、语篇和语用三个层面对庭审话语中的法官身份构建过程进行考察，印证了我们对身份构建理论的初步认识，扩大了身份构建的研究范围和研究对象，探求出了一种比较适合法庭话语类型的身份研究范式。同时，通过对中国庭审话语中法官身份构建过程的考察，我们得以从语言学的角度来审视当前中国的庭审制度和庭审实践，发现当前审判现实中存在的具体问题，并提出相应的对策，因此，对庭审话语中法官身份构建过程的研究不仅具有一定的理论意义，同时也具有重要的现实意义。
[Abstract]:The linguistic turn of western philosophy has prompted the study of law in the twentieth Century to turn to language. More and more legal professionals and experts in the field of law have put their eyes on the language, trying to study the language to study the law and solve the specific problems in the judicial practice. In many fields of study of legal linguistics, the uniqueness of court discourse because of its language use has become a hot spot in the research of legal language. However, in a comprehensive view of the study of court discourse at home and abroad, we find that the present study of discourse discourse is influenced by the paradigm of traditional linguistics, or only. The vocabulary, syntactic features and stylistic styles of court discourse ignore the impromptu and dynamic character of the court's discourse, or the scope of the study of the interactive discourse is too narrow to be confined to the interactive communication between the lawyer and the defendant (witness), and is rarely concerned with the other participants in court discourse practice, especially the speech practice of the judges.
The judge occupies the core position in the trial of the court, and is the core of various relations in the trial of the court. Therefore, the investigation of the judge's speech practice and its role and identity is crucial to understanding the interrelationship and the whole court system in the court's interactive discourse. However, it is regrettable that the judges are in the trial practice of the court. The study of speech activity or identity is rarely involved in the literature of the study of court discourse. In view of this, this article is based on the identity construction theory of Sociology (identity constructionism), taking the identity of the judge in the trial discourse as the research object, drawing on the theoretical research results of the systematic functional linguistics, the speech analysis and the pragmatics, with the Chinese basis. The civil, criminal and administrative cases in the ordinary procedure of the court are corpus, from the three dimensions of grammar, discourse and pragmatics, using qualitative analysis, supplemented by quantitative analysis, and focusing on the process of establishing the identity of judges in the court trial through the choice of various discourse resources, and the specific analysis category includes the grammatical layer. Tone and modality, turn taking in discourse level and politeness strategy in pragmatic level.
Through the analysis, we found that in the grammatical layer, the judge constructed the "organizer", "the listener", "the investigator" and the power "leader" by the proper selection of the number of sentences, the statement, the imperative, the question and other types of mood. At the same time, the judge chose the non metaphorical and moral type by more choice of the non metaphorical type. The modal expression of the objective low and middle value highlights the neutral position in the court trial, and makes it more objective in the court trial, such as the assertion, the order, the proposal and so on. The "referee", which remains neutral in the court trial, is constructed. In the discourse layer, we find that the switch mechanism in the trial discourse has a clear asymmetry. This asymmetry is unsymmetrical. The switch mechanism shows the hierarchy and power imbalance in court trial, that is, the judge controls the start, development and end of the topic, and thus strengthens and reproduces the power status and identity of the judge in the trial. In addition, the judge also constructs and strengthens the hearing "listening" through the strategy of regulating the length of the talk. In pragmatics, the judge, through the implementation of the politeness strategy, shows the impartiality and the neutrality beyond the parties. It further strengthens the power status of the judge in court trial, and constructs the identity of the judge as the "referee" and the "leader" of the court trial. The judge's identity in practice is multiplicity, that is, the judge is the main "listener" of the court, except as the leader of the court trial, the organizer, the investigator and the referee. The multiplicity of the Chinese judge's identity shows that the litigation mode of the Chinese court trial is to a certain extent a kind of authority trial. The mixed trial mode is combined with the adversary system of the adversary system. Among them, the adversary system of the litigant is mainly the mode of the adversary system, the interrogation of the authority doctrine is supplemented, that is, the judge's investigation of the facts of the case is only auxiliary. The trial of the whole court is mainly based on the proof, evidence and debate of the two parties in the main guide of the judge. In the whole court, the judge is the main "listener", and through hearing the arguments between the two sides of the court, he can form a view on the facts of the case and make a ruling.
From the three layers of grammar, discourse and pragmatics, we examine the process of the judge's identity construction in the trial discourse, confirm our preliminary understanding of the theory of identity construction, expand the scope and research object of the identity construction, and explore a kind of identity research paradigm that is suitable for the type of court discourse. In the study of the process of building the judge's identity in the discourse, we can examine the current Chinese trial system and trial practice from the perspective of linguistics, find out the specific problems existing in the current trial reality and put forward the corresponding countermeasures. Therefore, the study of the process of the judge's identity construction in the trial discourse not only has a certain theoretical significance, but also has a certain theoretical significance. It also has important practical significance.
【学位授予单位】：上海外国语大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：D90-055

【相似文献】