控制与抗争：庭审互动中的权力与话语策略研究

发布时间：2018-04-03 15:10

本文选题：权力　切入点：言语策略　出处：《湖北工业大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：法庭话语作为国内语言学交叉研究领域来说是一个新课题，而庭审互动研究又属于法庭话语分析的一个动态研究，作者研究本课题的原因主要是以下几个方面：1.从理论方面来说，它属于是语言学和社会学的交叉学科，它把主要的庭审参与者作为研究对象，更具体的分析辩护律师、公诉人以及被告人三者之前的关系；2.从实践的角度来看，本文对法庭语料的研究对法庭参与者和工作者带来了启示；3.从语料来看，，本文提供了一些相关的语料，为构建法庭语料库略献绵薄之力。本文以目的原则为理论框架，用收集的语料:作者亲自转写的两场10万字的新疆乌市中级人民法院刑事案件的法庭录音进行定性分析，把参与者作为研究对象，旨在围绕三个研究问题：1.目的原则理论能否有力的解释参与者公诉人、辩护律师和被告人三者的关系以及三者存在什么样的关系？2.他们都采取了哪些策略来实现自身的目的？3.在庭审互动中，说话者和答话者使用策略的目的与动机是什么？通过分析，本文得出三个结论：1.目的原则能够解释参与者三者之间的关系，他们是既对立又一致，控制与抗争的关系；2.庭审问答互动中，三者之间采取了问话策略与答话策略来实现自身的目的；3.通过分析，律师和被告人是合作关系，他们的目的一致，都希望案件胜利被告减轻罪责，而公诉人是对立关系，他的目的与被告、律师相反。本文主要是五部分，第一部分主要介绍了研究目的、意义与研究问题、方法和语料来源。第二部分是文献综述，作者通过对国内外学者对法庭话语、权力与话语策略的研究进行了综述，并通过定性分析,从语用研究和话语策略这两个维度来探讨权力的实现方式和话语权的控制.并指出了话语策略可以从答话策略和问话策略两个方面来研究。第三部分是理论框架，目的原则是参与者遵循的语用原则。第四部分是本文的主体部分，作者通过语料从目的原则对三个参与者进行分析，我们可以看出参与者之间是合作与对抗、控制与对抗的关系。第五部分是结论，提出了新发现、不足和展望。本文的创新点在于：1.在阅读的基础上，再次梳理、归纳了话语策略的分类，从两个维度上对话语策略进行分类：答话策略和问话策略，探讨了各参与者实现权力控制或权力抗争的有效话语策略。2.我们用目的原则对语料进行分析可以发现，在刑事庭审中我们可以发现三者之间的关系是目的一致或者目的对抗的关系，但是我们却看不到目的中立，所以说目的原则在应用在刑事庭审时，主要是目的一致关系和目的对立关系在起作用。
[Abstract]:As a new topic in the field of cross-study of linguistics in China, the study of court discourse is a dynamic study in the field of forensic discourse analysis. The main reasons for the study are as follows: 1.Theoretically, it belongs to the interdiscipline of linguistics and sociology. It takes the main participants in the trial as the object of study, and more specifically analyzes the relationship between defense counsel, public prosecutor and defendant.From a practical point of view, the study of the forensic corpus has brought enlightenment to court participants and workers.From the point of view of the corpus, this paper provides some relevant data to construct the court corpus.This paper, based on the theory frame of the principle of purpose, uses the collected corpus: two court recordings of 100000 words of Xinjiang Intermediate people's Court, which are written by the author in person, are qualitatively analyzed, and the participants are taken as the objects of study.Designed around three research questions: 1.Whether the principle theory can explain the relationship among the public prosecutor, defense lawyer and defendant and what kind of relationship exist among them?What strategies have they adopted to achieve their goals?What is the purpose and motivation of the speakers and respondents to use strategies during the trial interaction?Through analysis, this paper draws three conclusions: 1.The objective principle can explain the relationship among the participants, they are both opposite and consistent, the relationship between control and resistance is 2. 5%.In the interaction of trial questions and answers, the three adopted questioning strategy and answering strategy to achieve their own purpose.Through the analysis, the lawyer and the defendant are cooperative relations, their purpose is the same, all hope the case wins the defendant to alleviate the crime responsibility, and the public prosecutor is the opposite relation, his purpose is opposite to the defendant, the lawyer.This paper consists of five parts. The first part introduces the research purpose, significance and problems, methods and sources of corpus.The second part is a literature review. The author summarizes the research on court discourse, power and discourse strategy by domestic and foreign scholars, and through qualitative analysis.This paper discusses the realization of power and the control of discourse power from the perspectives of pragmatic study and discourse strategy.It also points out that utterance strategies can be studied from two aspects: answering strategies and questioning strategies.The third part is the theoretical framework and the Skopos principle is the pragmatic principle followed by the participants.The fourth part is the main part of this paper. The author analyzes the three participants from the objective principle through the corpus. We can see the relationship between the participants is cooperation and confrontation, control and confrontation.The fifth part is the conclusion, proposes the new discovery, the insufficiency and the prospect.The innovation of this paper lies in 1: 1.On the basis of reading, this paper summarizes the classification of discourse strategies, classifies them from two dimensions: answering strategies and questioning strategies, and probes into effective discourse strategies of power control or power struggle among participants.When we analyze the corpus with the aim principle, we can find that in the criminal trial, the relationship between the three is the same purpose or the goal confrontation, but we do not see the goal neutral.Therefore, when the purpose principle is applied in the criminal trial, the aim consistent relation and the purpose opposition relation play a role.
【学位授予单位】：湖北工业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：H15

【参考文献】