本文關(guān)鍵詞： 法庭 互動(dòng) 立場(chǎng) 主體性 交互主體性　出處：《華中師范大學(xué)》2013年博士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：隨著語(yǔ)言學(xué)研究人文主義傾向的復(fù)蘇,近年來(lái)話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng)已成為國(guó)內(nèi)外研究的熱點(diǎn)議題,備受學(xué)界重視。但無(wú)論國(guó)內(nèi)還是國(guó)外,對(duì)于法庭互動(dòng)這一重要功能語(yǔ)域中的話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng),目前尚未有專門、系統(tǒng)的研究。法庭互動(dòng)中,無(wú)論是對(duì)法律事實(shí)的闡述與調(diào)查,還是對(duì)法律法規(guī)的解釋與適用,都蘊(yùn)含著參與者的主觀認(rèn)識(shí)、價(jià)值判斷與個(gè)人情感,都離不開話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng)的建構(gòu)和話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng)之間的互動(dòng)。 本文以真實(shí)、自然的法庭審判話語(yǔ)為語(yǔ)料,以目的導(dǎo)向的話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng)分析模式為分析框架,系統(tǒng)探索法庭互動(dòng)中的立場(chǎng)言語(yǔ)行為。目的導(dǎo)向的立場(chǎng)分析模式以互動(dòng)語(yǔ)言學(xué)理論和目的原則為理論基礎(chǔ),提出話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng)是互動(dòng)參與雙方共同協(xié)作進(jìn)行的一種目的性、建構(gòu)性和策略性的行為,是立場(chǎng)主體追求特定目的的結(jié)果。法庭互動(dòng)中的目的導(dǎo)向立場(chǎng)分析模式包括評(píng)價(jià)立場(chǎng)、情感立場(chǎng)、認(rèn)識(shí)立場(chǎng)和(不)一致性立場(chǎng)四個(gè)次類。本文重點(diǎn)分析法庭互動(dòng)中評(píng)價(jià)立場(chǎng)、情感立場(chǎng)、認(rèn)識(shí)立場(chǎng)和(不)一致性立場(chǎng)的表達(dá)手段、語(yǔ)用功能、互動(dòng)機(jī)制以及角色分布,揭示法庭互動(dòng)中各方訴訟主體如何在交際目的導(dǎo)向下,充分運(yùn)用各種話語(yǔ)資源,表達(dá)各自的內(nèi)在情感、對(duì)事實(shí)的評(píng)價(jià)、對(duì)命題的認(rèn)識(shí),以及彼此之間的一致性與不一致性定位。 本文研究發(fā)現(xiàn)：(一)法庭互動(dòng)中的評(píng)價(jià)立場(chǎng)以形容詞、動(dòng)詞和副詞等顯性表達(dá)為主,也包括轉(zhuǎn)述這種重要的隱性表達(dá)手段,呈現(xiàn)出預(yù)設(shè)性、強(qiáng)化性、歸他/歸己性,以及對(duì)話性特征；在不同訴訟目的導(dǎo)向下,各訴訟主體的評(píng)價(jià)立場(chǎng)呈現(xiàn)出顯著差異,法官的評(píng)價(jià)立場(chǎng)頻率最低,具有中立性；公訴人的評(píng)價(jià)立場(chǎng)頻率最高,對(duì)當(dāng)事人的預(yù)設(shè)性評(píng)價(jià)非常突出；辯護(hù)人的評(píng)價(jià)立場(chǎng)以對(duì)當(dāng)事人的肯定評(píng)價(jià)和對(duì)公訴方及其證據(jù)的否定評(píng)價(jià)為主,具有較強(qiáng)的策略性；當(dāng)事人的評(píng)價(jià)立場(chǎng)則以對(duì)公訴方及其證據(jù)的否定評(píng)價(jià)為主,具有強(qiáng)化性甚至是侮辱性。(二)法庭互動(dòng)中的情感立場(chǎng)包括愛、同情、感激等正面情感,以及悲、懼、悔、愧、憤等負(fù)面情感,具有情感描述、情感表達(dá)、情感喚起三個(gè)重疊性的情感元功能,以情感喚起為最終目的。因此,公訴方通過(guò)負(fù)面情感描述、正面情感表達(dá)以喚起法庭對(duì)當(dāng)事人的負(fù)面情感；辯護(hù)人通過(guò)負(fù)面情感描述、正面情感表達(dá)以喚起法庭對(duì)當(dāng)事人的正面情感；當(dāng)事人以負(fù)面情感描述、負(fù)面情感表達(dá)以喚起法庭對(duì)他們的正面情感；而法官則僅在出于教育當(dāng)事人目的考慮下,選擇為數(shù)極少的情感表達(dá)。(三)法庭互動(dòng)中的認(rèn)識(shí)立場(chǎng)包括信息來(lái)源類和命題評(píng)價(jià)類兩個(gè)方面,前者又可分為感官型、轉(zhuǎn)述型、引證型和推斷型四種類型,形成“引證型感官型推斷型轉(zhuǎn)述型”的信度連續(xù)統(tǒng),間接反映立場(chǎng)主體對(duì)于命題可靠性和確定性的認(rèn)識(shí)。后者的表達(dá)手段主要包括情態(tài)詞、語(yǔ)氣詞、心理動(dòng)詞等。轉(zhuǎn)述言語(yǔ)行為兼具表達(dá)信息來(lái)源類和命題評(píng)價(jià)類兩種認(rèn)識(shí)立場(chǎng)的功能,是一種非常重要的認(rèn)識(shí)立場(chǎng)手段。命題評(píng)價(jià)類認(rèn)識(shí)立場(chǎng)標(biāo)記的使用直接反映立場(chǎng)主體對(duì)命題信息確定性和可靠性的認(rèn)識(shí),可區(qū)分為高、中、低三種量值。在訴訟主體的分布上,當(dāng)事人的認(rèn)識(shí)立場(chǎng)行為最頻繁,大量使用轉(zhuǎn)述型據(jù)素和低量值標(biāo)記,呈“無(wú)力型”話語(yǔ)風(fēng)格；詢問(wèn)筆錄的舉證方式使得公訴人話語(yǔ)中包含大量轉(zhuǎn)述型和嵌套型言據(jù),極大影響公訴人話語(yǔ)的可靠性；辯護(hù)人的認(rèn)識(shí)立場(chǎng)行為較少,以引證型據(jù)素為主；法官很少使用認(rèn)識(shí)立場(chǎng)標(biāo)記,頻率最低。(四)法庭互動(dòng)中的(不)一致性立場(chǎng)表達(dá)具有豐富的語(yǔ)言表達(dá)手段,包括語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)、動(dòng)詞、副詞、話語(yǔ)重疊、話語(yǔ)打斷、話語(yǔ)重復(fù)、話語(yǔ)修正、回聲問(wèn)、反問(wèn)等。一致性話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng)包括同意型、增進(jìn)型和推衍型三種；不一致性話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng)則可概括為否定型、擱置型和挑戰(zhàn)型三種,并構(gòu)成法庭互動(dòng)中(不)一致性立場(chǎng)的一致性連續(xù)統(tǒng)。在目的和目的關(guān)系的導(dǎo)向下,辯護(hù)人與當(dāng)事人之間以一致性立場(chǎng)為主；公訴人對(duì)當(dāng)事人多不一致性立場(chǎng)表達(dá),而由于公訴人對(duì)案情等的掌握,當(dāng)事人對(duì)公訴人的立場(chǎng)表達(dá)中存在一定量的一致性話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng),但一致性程度偏低；當(dāng)事人對(duì)法官多一致性立場(chǎng)表達(dá),法官對(duì)當(dāng)事人多不一致性立場(chǎng)表達(dá),總體較少。 本文研究展現(xiàn)了法庭互動(dòng)中話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng)建構(gòu)的整體面貌,不僅有利于深化我們對(duì)法庭語(yǔ)言的認(rèn)識(shí),同時(shí)有助于拓展話語(yǔ)立場(chǎng)的研究領(lǐng)域,相關(guān)結(jié)論對(duì)司法實(shí)踐也具有一定啟示作用。
[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.

【學(xué)位授予單位】：華中師范大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：博士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：D926.2;H136

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 S.C.Levinson;沈家煊;;語(yǔ)用學(xué)論題之一:預(yù)設(shè)[J];國(guó)外語(yǔ)言學(xué);1986年01期

2 廖美珍;國(guó)外法律語(yǔ)言研究綜述[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);2004年01期

3 牛保義;國(guó)外實(shí)據(jù)性理論研究[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);2005年01期

4 張家驊;;“知道”與“認(rèn)為”句法差異的語(yǔ)義、語(yǔ)用解釋[J];當(dāng)代語(yǔ)言學(xué);2009年03期

5 杜金榜;;庭審交際中法官對(duì)信息流動(dòng)的控制[J];廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2008年02期

6 屈承熹;;關(guān)聯(lián)理論與漢語(yǔ)句末虛詞的語(yǔ)篇功能[J];華東師范大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年03期

7 胡壯麟;漢語(yǔ)的可證性和語(yǔ)篇分析[J];湖北大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);1995年02期

8 姚雙云;;口語(yǔ)中“所以”的語(yǔ)義弱化與功能擴(kuò)展[J];漢語(yǔ)學(xué)報(bào);2009年03期

9 盛麗春;;“大概”、“也許”和“恐怕”的語(yǔ)義、語(yǔ)用分析[J];漢語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí);2008年01期

10 樂(lè)耀;;國(guó)內(nèi)傳信范疇研究綜述[J];漢語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí);2011年01期

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 胡文輝;語(yǔ)言評(píng)價(jià)理論的價(jià)值哲學(xué)研究[D];上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué);2010年

2 肖婭曼;漢語(yǔ)系詞“是”的來(lái)源與成因研究[D];四川大學(xué);2003年

3 劉婭瓊;漢語(yǔ)會(huì)話中的否定反問(wèn)句和特指反問(wèn)句研究[D];復(fù)旦大學(xué);2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 于天昱;典型有標(biāo)記反問(wèn)句研究[D];東北師范大學(xué);2004年

，

本文編號(hào)：1480149