法庭對(duì)話是口頭的互動(dòng)過(guò)程。它的抗辯性質(zhì)貫穿于構(gòu)成庭審的各個(gè)階段：出庭的證人既享有被己方律師提問(wèn)的權(quán)利，又承擔(dān)接受對(duì)方律師質(zhì)證的義務(wù)；任何類(lèi)型的庭審，律師／公訴人都有權(quán)在庭審前申明代理、辯護(hù)意見(jiàn)，并在庭審結(jié)束時(shí)進(jìn)行總結(jié)陳詞；陪審團(tuán)出庭的案件中，法官還要向陪審團(tuán)做出關(guān)于法律適用的指令。雖說(shuō)每個(gè)階段對(duì)庭審都不可或缺，但質(zhì)證辯論還是被認(rèn)為是實(shí)現(xiàn)司法公正的核心之所在。法律語(yǔ)言研究者從權(quán)力分配、庭審技巧等方面對(duì)其作了大量研究。 本文力圖從鄰近應(yīng)對(duì)的角度來(lái)分析庭審中的交叉詢(xún)問(wèn)。交叉詢(xún)問(wèn)中，律師／公訴人可以使用不同的方式質(zhì)疑證人證詞、引導(dǎo)證人／被告作答或?qū)⑺V之罪歸責(zé)于被告。這方面的研究以Drew（1979）和Drew（1990）為代表，其研究多集中于糾錯(cuò)（correction）、改正（repair）和敘事（narrative），筆者將選擇鄰近應(yīng)對(duì)（adjacency pair）作為切入點(diǎn)。關(guān)于鄰近應(yīng)對(duì)，Schegloff,Sacks和Pomerantz提出了不同的特點(diǎn)，如方式條件（conditional relevance）、順序條件（relative ordering）和優(yōu)選條件（prefe... 

【文章來(lái)源】：廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué)廣東省

【文章頁(yè)數(shù)】：82 頁(yè)

【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
Acknowledgments
Abstract
摘要
Contents
Chapter 1 Introduction
    1.1 Introduction
    1.2 Rationale
    1.3 Definitions of terms
    1.4 Research topic: adjacency pairs in turn taking
    1.5 Data and methodology
    1.6 Contents of the remaining chapters
Chapter 2 Review of the Relevant Literature
    2.1 Introduction
    2.2 Conversation Analysis
        2.2.1 Conversation and Conversation Analysis
        2.2.2 Development of CA
        2.2.3 Definition of CA
    2.3 Turn-taking Model
        2.3.1 Some observations about conversation
        2.3.2 Two components of turn-taking model
            2.3.2.1 'Turn construction' component
            2.3.2.2 Turn-allocation component
        2.3.3 Overlap---a sample of orientation to turn-taking rules
    2.4 Adjacency pair
    2.5 Institutional talk
        2.5.1 Institutional talk is task-oriented
        2.5.2 Constraints on contributions in institutional talk
        2.5.3 Inference in institutional contexts
    2.6 Dimensions of research for institutional talk
        2.6.1 Lexical choice
        2.6.2 Turn design
            2.6.2.1 Selecting an action
            2.6.2.2 Selecting the verbal shape of an action
        2.6.3 Sequence organization
    2.7 Summary
Chapter 3 Description of the Theoretical Framework
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 The theoretical framework for the present study
    3.3 Description of the theoretical framework
        3.3.1 Conditional relevance
            3.3.1.1 Overlaps
            3.3.1.2 Pauses
        3.3.2 Relative ordering and preference organization
            3.3.2.1 Relative ordering
            3.3.2.2 Preference organization
    3.4 Summary
Chapter 4 Analysis
    4.1 Introduction
    4.2 Overlaps
        4.2.1 Overlaps resulting from contest in cross-examination
        4.2.2 Overlaps in objection sequences
    4.3 Pauses
        4.3.1 Pause for clarity and audibility
        4.3.2 Pauses conveying impressions about testimony and credibility
        4.3.3 Pauses for counsel/prosecutor's exercise of power of contrast
    4.4 Local management of action sequence
        4.4.1 Blame and challenge in the format of questions
            4.4.1.1 Actions in the format of questions
            4.4.1.2 Interactions between counsel/prosecutor and witness/defendant
        4.4.2 Counsel/prosecutor's dealing with justifications
            4.4.2.1 Side-step the justification
            4.4.2.2 Strike out the 'redundant' element
    4.5 Summary
Chapter 5 Conclusion
    5.1 Introduction
    5.2 Summary of the present study
    5.3 Implications
    5.4 Limitations and suggestions for further research
References



本文編號(hào)：3346910