（英语语言文学专业论文）对法庭辩论中模糊限制语的语用分析.pdf

重庆大学硕士学位论文 中文摘要 i 摘 要 本文以模糊限制语及其功能为基础并借用 hyland1998提出的用于分析 学术写作模糊限制语和模糊限制现象的分类模式运用描述和定性分析的方法研 究模糊限制语的语言实现方式和不同语用功能对汉英法庭语言材料中模糊限制 语进行了辨认从而分析了语用功能虽然语言的不同会对模糊限制语的语言实 现方式有所影响但总体而言两种语言中的模糊限制语存在很大的相似性 通过对法庭辩论中模糊限制语的语用分析结果表明模糊限制语存在于汉 英法庭辩论中并都可大致分为准确性指向类说者指向类听者指向类在汉 英两类法庭辩论中以听者指向类的模糊限制语使用频率最高原因在于无论是 在哪种法律体系下听者法官审判团的意见对于案子的发展和审判都有直 接的权力影响本文研究表明模糊限制语在汉英法庭辩论中的使用具有明确律 师语言的准确性保护律师的辩论立场表明对听者在辩论中的积极作用所持态 度三大语用功能 本文通过对法庭辩论中模糊限制语和模糊限制现象的探讨能丰富现在的模 糊限制语研究尤其丰富了中文法庭辩论的模糊限制语和模糊限制现象的研究 帮助了解法庭语言的特性进一步加深对律师的语言策略使用的认识 关键词法庭辩论模糊限制语模糊限制现象语言形式语用功能 重庆大学硕士学位论文 abstract ii abstract this thesis elaborates on the phenomenon of hedges and hedging in courtroom arguments, especially the arguments made by authorized lawyers. both english and chinese data are used in the analysis. a qualitative analysis and descriptive analysis are conducted in the study, hoping to reveal the major linguistic realizations, the aims and frequency of using hedges and hedging and their pragmatic functions. by analyzing the courtroom arguments, and following the modal proposed by hyland, we identify 3 categories in hedges and hedging both in english and chinese data. it is demonstrated that hearer-oriented hedges are used as the most high frequency both in english and chinese data. it discovers the hedging of chinese courts share lots of similarities in hedging with those of american courts despite the different legal systems the thesis also shows that accuracy-oriented hedges indicate the lawyers concern of precision; speaker-oriented hedges serve as the lawyers self-protection; and hearer-oriented hedges reveal the lawyers attitude towards the hearers active role in the courtroom arguments. the present study may contribute to the hedges and hedging study, and shed light on the hedges and hedging research of the courtroom arguments in chinese and may help to understand the strategies adopted by lawyers in courtroom arguments. key words: courtroom arguments, hedges, hedging, linguistic realizations, pragmatic functions 重庆大学硕士学位论文 chapter one introduction 1 chapter one introduction 1.1 general introduction arguments permeate the whole process of courtroom interactions. the basic and unavoidable role of courtroom is to decide on an issue brought before it concerning the legality of social behavior (maley, 1994). courtroom is a kind of context full of procedures that govern the final trial. the context is always a fighting arena where people struggle to establish what is believed true and what is believed false, gaining power through their ability to evoke and use relevant domains of knowledge to attain an authoritative voice (foucault, 1981). hierarchical power is one of the strongest meanings communicated by the physical setting of the room and the behavior of those in it. lawyers argument is one of the procedures that disputants deploy. argument plays an important role in the courtroom. using the argument, the counsels present their opinions in the courtroom to persuade the judge and the jury (if there is). the argument may make or break the case, so lawyers take pains to phrase their words properly. in order to conduct a solid argument, lawyers must know the rules of the game, the best strategy and the art of war. generally speaking, there are three kinds of arguments, including the opening argument, the closing argument and the oral argument. (gibbons, 1994) opening argument is, as much as any other part of a trial, about persuading the hearers. the purpose of the opening statement is to give the judge and the jury an overview of the case and evidence expected to be produced at trial from the lawyers viewpoint. well know that facts are not easy to dig out, so both sides try to attach the judge and the jury to their stories and to provide a framework for viewing the evidence from their point of view. and also it is time to lay seeds of doubt about the other side. both have provided the judge and the jury with a perspective from which to view the evidence in a manner that makes sense. at the same time, both try to prove that from their perspectives, the other sides case does not make sense. closing argument should incorporate the facts developed at trial and the law as given by the court into a persuasive argument. the lawyers are entitled to argue the evidence presented and any reasonable inferences that flow from there as well as the law set forth in the courts instructions. both sides will argue why they are right and their opponent is wrong. they will discuss logical, legal, ethical, and common sense 重庆大学硕士学位论文 chapter one introduction 2 reasons why they should prevail. oral argument is the argument between the lawyer and the judge, and between the lawyers themselves. through the oral argument, the judge and the lawyer question his or her doubt of the case. its an important part to win the hearers support. we know that ordinary language leaves room for people to speak in a vague way, to avoid precision and the commitment associated with it. yet when it comes to the languages related to legal activities, especially the lawyers argument, we will, in our mind, think that lawyers certainly use the precise, clear words to argue. despite the widely held belief that professional lawyers argument is always full of impersonal statements of evidence, which add up to the fact, it is found that hedging is frequently used in lawyers argument. the present study aims at investigating hedges and hedging in courtroom arguments. it is hoped that by providing a pragmatic analysis of hedges and hedging existing in courtroom arguments, we may discover how hedging functions to achieve lawyers communicative purposes. 1.2 objectives and significances with the model proposed by hyland (1998) as the analytical framework, and on the basis of both chinese and english data, the present study endeavors to achieve the following goals: the first goal is to explore the distinctive features of hedging in courtroom arguments. types of hedges are to be identified and will be investigated respectively. this approach is different from most of the previous studies in that most of the previous studies ignore the special features of hedging in certain institutional settings with few exception of the research on academic writing. it is expected that the present study will help to show what influence linguistic realizations of hedging exert. and what types of hedges are frequently employed in courtroom arguments? the second goal is, through careful analysis and elaboration of hedging in legal settings, to reveal the important functions hedging serves in courtroom arguments. it is hoped that the present study will provide some information and suggestions for the legal profession regarding the use of hedging. therefore lawyers involved in courts may make use of various types of hedges to handle their verbal performances properly. the deep exploration of hedges in argument not only may promote the research of pragmatics but also be propitious to correct use of hedges in courtroom. 重庆大学硕士学位论文 chapter one introduction 3 the third goal is, we intend to reveal how hedges operate in chinese other than in english. by looking into courtroom arguments of chinese courts and american courts, we will try to find out the similarities of hedges between chinese courts and american courts, since such courts are under different legal systems. this perspective can hopefully boost the value of hedging research as it may reveal the generality across languages and ideologies. 1.3 methodology the data used in the present study are naturally occurring courtroom interactions collected and transcribed by the author. for the purpose of present study, both chinese and english data are analyzed. a descriptive and analytical approach will be adopted in the present study and the analytical framework of hyland will be introduced as the framework of the present study and modified when necessary. since there are both chinese and english interaction materials to be analyzed, a comparative approach may also be adopted in order to find out the similarities between them. the research process of this study begins with looking for types of hedges from the data on the basis of the model proposed by hyland (1998). data are analyzed and types of hedges are identified in light of the model. the present thesis then carries out a detailed analysis of two courtroom arguments in chinese and in english. and a statistic of different kinds of hedges in the two extracts is presented. in this way, the particular function of hedging is demonstrated clearly. 1.4 organization of the thesis the thesis consists of five chapters. the main contents of the remaining chapters are follows: chapter 2 is a review of the relevant literature on hedging. after the review of the previous studies, different approaches to the research are discussed and the status quo of the hedging research is described. and it provides an analytical framework for the investigation into hedging in lawyers arguments. it distinguishes three types of hedges: accuracy-oriented hedges, speaker-oriented hedges, and hearer-oriented hedges. chapter 3 is a detailed pragmatic analysis of hedging in lawyers arguments. the three types of hedges are probed into pursuant to the established framework. hedges in lawyers arguments are revealed; how hedges play their roles is demonstrated; what the 重庆大学硕士学位论文 chapter one introduction 4 pragmatic functions they play, along with the examples from the arguments for illustration. chapter 4 presents the case analysis of hedges in lawyers arguments. by working into the two courtroom arguments, one in chinese and the other in english, different hedges employed by the lawyers are analyzed specifically in order to find out how hedging helps to accomplish the lawyers communicative goals. and it presents the generalization of major findings, discusses the analysis made in previous two chapters, and answers the three research questions proposed. chapter 5 gives the conclusion and implication. major findings from the present study are summarized, limitations and suggestions for future research are presented. 重庆大学硕士学位论文 chapter two literature review 5 chapter two literature review 2.1 previous studies on the courtroom arguments courtroom argument has been the focus of study in the field of forensic linguistics and is arousing more and more attention of general linguists. in order to have a better understanding of what the analysis of courtroom interaction is like and how the situation of the study is, the review will begin with the studies that have already been made on courtroom arguments and methodologies adopted in the study of this field. historically speaking, studies on language and law began in the 1980s after a conference called “language in the judicial process” was held in 1985 at georgetown university. in earlier time, researchers mainly concentrated on written languages of legislative discourse (maley, 1994) by such approaches as anthropology and ethnography of communication. after that, a large number of studies have been performed in the area of written juridical language. in the first chapter of their influential book with the title “the order in court”, atkinson and drew (1979) complained that sociological and anthropological approaches to the procedures of the legal structure are never oriented towards detailed analysis of court proceedings. however, in the past 20 years, things have changed a lot. the vastly growing sub-field has been spoken language interaction in legal settings. according to du jinbang (2003), there are two aspects of study in this field: study of theories of forensic linguistics and applied study of forensic linguistics, with study of courtroom argument being one subfield of the latter. in the following part, we will make a brief review of the study that has been made and methodologies that have been adopted in courtroom argument. in this way, we may have a better understanding of the work that has been finished and unfinished in studying courtroom arguments. 2.1.1 studies on narration in courtroom arguments having studies the various forms of questioning and their functions in courtroom argument, forensic linguists begin to notice the content of the interaction. they find that narration of a story affects the questioners understanding of a case. so in order to get their desired narration, questioners usually use strategies to control what the narrators say about the case. the styles and lexical choices used by questioners in courtrooms can also function as devices to solicit information by influencing and manipulating hearers 重庆大学硕士学位论文 chapter two literature review 6 (witnesses or defendants). this point has been made clear by loftus (1975, 1979). in her research she makes a demonstration that even small changes in the wording of questions can change eyewitnesses memories. since witnesses memory of certain events is of great importance in trials, these finding point out that not only is the form of the questions of interest, the reformulations and paraphrases occurring in courtroom questioning can also be strategies by which a witnesses memory is manipulated. therefore, to solicit desired information questioners not only pay attention to the question forms, but try to control the narration of persons being questioned. 2.1.2 studies on questioning and answering strategies in courtroom interaction, questioners usually adopt various kinds of strategies to solicit information. therefore, questioning and answering strategies during courtroom argument are always the focus of linguists (linell et al., 1988; komter, 1994, 1995; gibbons, 2003). the questioning format is often related to the expression of communicative acts and strategies of accusation, excuse, defense, etc. one example of the first kind of studies is the work of komter (1994, 1995). the content in which she is interested is the types of knowledge used in courtrooms or the strategies of accusation and defense used by different actors in the dutch legal system. komter (1995) studies judges strategies of questioning where the focus is the defendants confession and the implications of these questions. although the questions may have factual content, they are often blame-implicative. similar perspectives and results are found in linell et al. (1998) and gibbons (2003). gibbons propose three main types of attack used by lawyers: (1) an attack on the credibility of the person; (2) pressure on the person to agree; and (3) control of the information. according to linell et al. (1998), judges usually offer mitigated versions of accusations which may be more agreeable to the defendants. in this sense, the mitigated format of the accusations of the judges is aimed at “mobilizing the cooperation of the defendants and is an expression of the inquisitorial elements of the dutch trials” (komter, 1994). the goal of the judge is to get a confession, while the goal of the defendant is to escape accusation. however, the judges do not seem to be concerned with accusations but with verification or recapitulation of “facts”. the defendant must be cooperative as well as defensive, and these two behaviors are often contradictory. 重庆大学硕士学位论文 chapter two literature review 7 2.1.3 research methods used in the analysis of courtroom arguments the past three decades have seen the development of studies on courtroom argument from different perspectives. however, with more and more researchers realizing the importance context plays in analyzing conversations, context is regarded as a dynamic process rather than a state. so approaches that are more dynamic and communicative are more preferred by researchers. one of those approaches is conversation analysis (drew it says of that membership that is partial or true only in certain respects, or that is more true and complete than perhaps might be expected.” however, many users of the term limit it only to express that “the match between a piece of knowledge and a category that is less than perfect” (chafe, 1986). hedges also have been referred to as compromisers (james, 1983) and back grounding terms (low, 1996). zadeh (1972) follows lakoffs definition of hedge. he analyzes simple hedges like very, much, more or less, essentially, and slightly and more complex ones like 重庆大学硕士学位论文 chapter two literature review 9 technically and practically from the point of semantics and logic. zadeh assumes that hedges are operators that act on the fuzzy set, representing the meaning of their operands. hedges vary in their dependency on context. furthermore, fundamental contributions are also made again by g. lakoff (1972) with the focus on lexicography, and by rosch (1978) from the point of cognitive psychology. rosch (1978) deals with semantic prototypes from the point of cognition and argues that “natural languages themselves possess linguistic mechanisms for coding and coping with its gradients of category membership”. in roschs opinion, hedges belong to those mechanisms. since the early 1970s, the concept of hedge has moved far from its original meaning, particularly since adopted by pragmatics and discourse analysis. the term is no longer used only for expressions that modify the category membership of a predicate or noun phrase. early in the 1970s, robin lackoff observes that certain verbs and syntactic constructions convey hedged performatives (e.g. i suppose / guess / think that harry is coming; wont you open the door?). the idea of hedged performatives become then one way of widening the concept of hedges. frazer (1975) analyzes modal verbs from the point of pragmatics. he considers the effec