法庭互动中的立场研究

发布时间：2018-01-31 22:27

本文关键词： 法庭互动立场主体性交互主体性　出处：《华中师范大学》2013年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：随着语言学研究人文主义倾向的复苏,近年来话语立场已成为国内外研究的热点议题,备受学界重视。但无论国内还是国外,对于法庭互动这一重要功能语域中的话语立场,目前尚未有专门、系统的研究。法庭互动中,无论是对法律事实的阐述与调查,还是对法律法规的解释与适用,都蕴含着参与者的主观认识、价值判断与个人情感,都离不开话语立场的建构和话语立场之间的互动。本文以真实、自然的法庭审判话语为语料,以目的导向的话语立场分析模式为分析框架,系统探索法庭互动中的立场言语行为。目的导向的立场分析模式以互动语言学理论和目的原则为理论基础,提出话语立场是互动参与双方共同协作进行的一种目的性、建构性和策略性的行为,是立场主体追求特定目的的结果。法庭互动中的目的导向立场分析模式包括评价立场、情感立场、认识立场和(不)一致性立场四个次类。本文重点分析法庭互动中评价立场、情感立场、认识立场和(不)一致性立场的表达手段、语用功能、互动机制以及角色分布,揭示法庭互动中各方诉讼主体如何在交际目的导向下,充分运用各种话语资源,表达各自的内在情感、对事实的评价、对命题的认识,以及彼此之间的一致性与不一致性定位。本文研究发现：(一)法庭互动中的评价立场以形容词、动词和副词等显性表达为主,也包括转述这种重要的隐性表达手段,呈现出预设性、强化性、归他/归己性,以及对话性特征；在不同诉讼目的导向下,各诉讼主体的评价立场呈现出显著差异,法官的评价立场频率最低,具有中立性；公诉人的评价立场频率最高,对当事人的预设性评价非常突出；辩护人的评价立场以对当事人的肯定评价和对公诉方及其证据的否定评价为主,具有较强的策略性；当事人的评价立场则以对公诉方及其证据的否定评价为主,具有强化性甚至是侮辱性。(二)法庭互动中的情感立场包括爱、同情、感激等正面情感,以及悲、惧、悔、愧、愤等负面情感,具有情感描述、情感表达、情感唤起三个重叠性的情感元功能,以情感唤起为最终目的。因此,公诉方通过负面情感描述、正面情感表达以唤起法庭对当事人的负面情感；辩护人通过负面情感描述、正面情感表达以唤起法庭对当事人的正面情感；当事人以负面情感描述、负面情感表达以唤起法庭对他们的正面情感；而法官则仅在出于教育当事人目的考虑下,选择为数极少的情感表达。(三)法庭互动中的认识立场包括信息来源类和命题评价类两个方面,前者又可分为感官型、转述型、引证型和推断型四种类型,形成“引证型感官型推断型转述型”的信度连续统,间接反映立场主体对于命题可靠性和确定性的认识。后者的表达手段主要包括情态词、语气词、心理动词等。转述言语行为兼具表达信息来源类和命题评价类两种认识立场的功能,是一种非常重要的认识立场手段。命题评价类认识立场标记的使用直接反映立场主体对命题信息确定性和可靠性的认识,可区分为高、中、低三种量值。在诉讼主体的分布上,当事人的认识立场行为最频繁,大量使用转述型据素和低量值标记,呈“无力型”话语风格；询问笔录的举证方式使得公诉人话语中包含大量转述型和嵌套型言据,极大影响公诉人话语的可靠性；辩护人的认识立场行为较少,以引证型据素为主；法官很少使用认识立场标记,频率最低。(四)法庭互动中的(不)一致性立场表达具有丰富的语言表达手段,包括语用标记语、动词、副词、话语重叠、话语打断、话语重复、话语修正、回声问、反问等。一致性话语立场包括同意型、增进型和推衍型三种；不一致性话语立场则可概括为否定型、搁置型和挑战型三种,并构成法庭互动中(不)一致性立场的一致性连续统。在目的和目的关系的导向下,辩护人与当事人之间以一致性立场为主；公诉人对当事人多不一致性立场表达,而由于公诉人对案情等的掌握,当事人对公诉人的立场表达中存在一定量的一致性话语立场,但一致性程度偏低；当事人对法官多一致性立场表达,法官对当事人多不一致性立场表达,总体较少。本文研究展现了法庭互动中话语立场建构的整体面貌,不仅有利于深化我们对法庭语言的认识,同时有助于拓展话语立场的研究领域,相关结论对司法实践也具有一定启示作用。
[Abstract]:With the linguistic study of humanistic tendency of recovery in recent years, the standpoint has become a hot topic of research at home and abroad, has attracted academic attention. However, whether domestic or foreign, for the courtroom this important function in the register of speech standpoint, there is no special and systematic research. The court interaction, whether it is described and investigation on the legal facts, or on the interpretation and application of laws and regulations, which contains the subjective understanding of the participants, value judgment and personal feelings, all cannot do without interaction between the standpoint of discourse construction and discourse stance.
Based on the true nature, courtroom discourse as the corpus to guide discourse position analysis model as the analytical framework, system exploration in courtroom speech acts. To guide the position position analysis mode of interaction in linguistic theory and objective principle, put forward the standpoint is a purposeful interactive participation in mutual cooperation the constructive and strategic behavior, is the main pursuit position specific purpose. Results in the interaction of objective oriented position court analysis model including the evaluation of position, emotional position, standpoint and understanding (not) consistent position four times. This paper focuses on the analysis of the position, emotional position evaluation in courtroom interaction, understanding the position and (no) means of expression consistent position of pragmatic functions, interactive mechanism and role of distribution, revealing the courtroom interaction the parties in under the guidance of communicative purpose We should make full use of all kinds of discourse resources to express their inner emotions, evaluate the facts, understand the proposition, and identify the consistency and inconsistency between them.
This study found that: (a) in the evaluation of courtroom stance to adjectives, verbs and adverbs such as explicit expression, including reporting this important implicit expression means, presenting presupposition, strengthening of his / their own, and the characteristics of the dialogue; in the different lawsuit purpose, the the subject of litigation position evaluation showed significant difference, the evaluation of the lowest frequency position, is neutral; evaluation of the public prosecutor's highest frequency position, very prominent on the presupposition of the judgment of the party; the main negative evaluation of counsel for the parties to evaluate the position of the prosecution and the positive evaluation and has strong evidence, strategy the party's position in the evaluation; negative evaluation of the prosecution and evidence, has strengthened or even insulting. (two) the court in the interaction of emotional position including love, compassion, gratitude, positive Emotion, and sadness, fear, regret, shame, anger and other negative emotions, emotional description, emotional expression, emotional arousal three overlap of emotional function, the emotional arousal is the ultimate goal. Therefore, the prosecution by negative emotion description, positive emotional expression of negative emotions in order to arouse the court counsel of the parties; through the description of negative emotions, positive emotional expression to evoke positive emotions on the court; the parties described by negative emotion, negative emotion expression to arouse their positive emotions on the court; while the judge only for educational parties to consider, for emotional expression few. (three) in the courtroom understanding the position includes two aspects: information sources and proposition evaluation, the former can be divided into sensory type, type inference and reporting, citation type four types, the formation of "inferred type type type type citation sensory reporting" The reliability of the continuum, understanding indirectly reflects the subjective positions for proposition reliability and uncertainty. The latter mainly includes means of expression of modality, modal words, psychological verbs. Reporting speech act both sources of information and expression of two kinds of propositional evaluation views of cognition function, is a very important position. The proposition evaluation means understanding understanding the use of stance markers directly reflect the position of recogonizing proposition information uncertainty and reliability, can be divided into high, low three value. In the distribution of litigation subject, behavior understanding position parties most frequently used reporting types of evidentials and the low value marker, was "weak" discourse style; record of inquiry proof makes the prosecutor discourse contains a large number of reports and nested words according to the reliability, greatly influence the public prosecutor discourse; counsel for a position of understanding Less by the citation types of evidentials; judges rarely use epistemic stance markers, the lowest frequency. (four) in the courtroom (not) consistent stance with rich linguistic expressions, including pragmatic markers, verbs, adverbs, overlapping words, discourse interruption, repetition, discourse, echo question ask, etc.. The consistency of stance to type, enhancing and inferring the type three; the inconsistency of discourse position can be summarized as not to finalize the design, use and challenge of type three, and a court interaction (not) consistent position to a continuum. In the relationship between the objective and purpose under the guide of between the defender and parties to the consistency of position; the prosecutor of the parties not consistent stance, and because prosecutors grasp on the merits of the parties stand on the public prosecutor's expression of consistency in the presence of a certain amount of stance, but a The degree of sex is on the low side; the parties are more consistent with the judges, and the judge has more inconsistency on the parties.
This study shows the overall appearance of discourse position construction in courtroom interaction, which is conducive not only to deepen our understanding of forensic language, but also to expand the research field of discourse stance, and relevant conclusions also have certain inspiration for judicial practice.

【学位授予单位】：华中师范大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D926.2;H136

【参考文献】