Courtroom discourse is a typical institutional discourse, which reflects the complicated discourse purpose among the participants in courtroom, with several characteristics such as: asymmetry of power relation, comple...Courtroom discourse is a typical institutional discourse, which reflects the complicated discourse purpose among the participants in courtroom, with several characteristics such as: asymmetry of power relation, complex directions of communication and complex meaning of utterance. Although courtroom discourse is restricted by special procedures or rules, it is still under the control of the cooperative principle and politeness principle. In order to achieve goals, the participants are bound to obey or violate the cooperative principle and politeness principle. This paper is based on the pragmatic theory, switching trial audio into words, trying to find out the purposes why the participants are liable to flout cooperative principle and use politeness and impoliteness strategies, in order to further explore the discourse power in courtroom. This essay not only broaden the perspective of pragmatic research, but reveal the communicative goal in terms of power relation. It will conducive to grasp the interaction conversation, so as to guarantee the fairness of court trial.展开更多
The paper,based on the concept of FOOTING,makes a multimodal discourse analysis of the relationship between the judge’s discourse and his footing shifts in a criminal courtroom.The results show that in the interactio...The paper,based on the concept of FOOTING,makes a multimodal discourse analysis of the relationship between the judge’s discourse and his footing shifts in a criminal courtroom.The results show that in the interaction,multimodal resources in judges’discourse include conversational features(prolonging keywords,interrupting,repeating,taking turns,etc.),acoustic ones(ascending F0 for pitches and d B for intensity,transition tracks between consonants and formants of vowels,duration of some keywords in important sentences,etc.),and visual ones(facing other parties,facing the materials,etc.).The multimodal resources activate different judges’footings,including ANIMATOR,ANIMATOR+AUTHOR and ANIMATOR+AUTHOR+PRINCIPAL,and identify the judge’s footing shifts in the courtroom.The results also demonstrate that the judge’s footing shifts perform the functions of trial organizing,information confirming,fact investigating,spokesperson of the collegial panel,law educating and so on in criminal trials.展开更多
Courtroom interpreting has now attracted more attentions due to the fast growth of interpreting as a profession and the development of globalization. Courtroom interpreting is different from other interpreting modes i...Courtroom interpreting has now attracted more attentions due to the fast growth of interpreting as a profession and the development of globalization. Courtroom interpreting is different from other interpreting modes in that it involves both legal knowledge and interpreting capability. Misinterpreting in courtroom can pose a threat to the human rights and sometimes can be a matter of life and death. This paper discusses some common challenges faced by courtroom interpreters and proposes coping tactics guided by ethical principles展开更多
文摘Courtroom discourse is a typical institutional discourse, which reflects the complicated discourse purpose among the participants in courtroom, with several characteristics such as: asymmetry of power relation, complex directions of communication and complex meaning of utterance. Although courtroom discourse is restricted by special procedures or rules, it is still under the control of the cooperative principle and politeness principle. In order to achieve goals, the participants are bound to obey or violate the cooperative principle and politeness principle. This paper is based on the pragmatic theory, switching trial audio into words, trying to find out the purposes why the participants are liable to flout cooperative principle and use politeness and impoliteness strategies, in order to further explore the discourse power in courtroom. This essay not only broaden the perspective of pragmatic research, but reveal the communicative goal in terms of power relation. It will conducive to grasp the interaction conversation, so as to guarantee the fairness of court trial.
基金This paper is funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China[Project No.:18BYY073].
文摘The paper,based on the concept of FOOTING,makes a multimodal discourse analysis of the relationship between the judge’s discourse and his footing shifts in a criminal courtroom.The results show that in the interaction,multimodal resources in judges’discourse include conversational features(prolonging keywords,interrupting,repeating,taking turns,etc.),acoustic ones(ascending F0 for pitches and d B for intensity,transition tracks between consonants and formants of vowels,duration of some keywords in important sentences,etc.),and visual ones(facing other parties,facing the materials,etc.).The multimodal resources activate different judges’footings,including ANIMATOR,ANIMATOR+AUTHOR and ANIMATOR+AUTHOR+PRINCIPAL,and identify the judge’s footing shifts in the courtroom.The results also demonstrate that the judge’s footing shifts perform the functions of trial organizing,information confirming,fact investigating,spokesperson of the collegial panel,law educating and so on in criminal trials.
文摘Courtroom interpreting has now attracted more attentions due to the fast growth of interpreting as a profession and the development of globalization. Courtroom interpreting is different from other interpreting modes in that it involves both legal knowledge and interpreting capability. Misinterpreting in courtroom can pose a threat to the human rights and sometimes can be a matter of life and death. This paper discusses some common challenges faced by courtroom interpreters and proposes coping tactics guided by ethical principles
