国外法庭话语研究综述
A Review of Foreign Courtroom Discourse Studies
DOI: 10.12677/ML.2023.115311, PDF,    科研立项经费支持
作者: 李 静, 罗桂花：中南林业科技大学外国语学院，湖南 长沙
关键词: 法庭话语；国外；热点；可视化分析；Courtroom Discourse； Foreign； Hotspots； Visual Analysis
摘要: 通过对Scopus数据库1966~2022年间法庭话语研究文献进行科学计量可视化分析，研究发现：Chaemsaithong发文量最高；Eades成为最高影响力作者。发文量前三为美国、英国和中国，仅美国具有强中介中心性。发文机构多样性充分体现了法庭话语研究的多学科交叉特点。语言与权力、互动角色、法庭口译、历史法庭话语、互文性和(不)礼貌现象是热点话题；语言与权力研究关注权力如何通过语言实施，以及专业背景、语言能力、种族和性别等因素如何导致权力的差异；互动角色研究突出法官角色多样性、律师的提问技巧和说服策略、被告的有限话语权与不利地位、证人可信度等话题；法庭口译研究关注译者角色、口译影响因素和口译对法庭影响等话题；历史法庭话语包括17世纪法庭话语特征和早期法庭话语演变；法庭互动互文性研究突出科学引用、书面文件引用等跨文本资源借用、混合和嵌入现象、转述言语和互话语分析。(不)礼貌研究包括幽默等常用礼貌策略，以及打断、模糊语、禁忌语和冒犯等不礼貌策略。
Abstract: Based on the Scopus database of courtroom discourse research literature from 1966 to 2022, this study conducted a scientometric visual analysis and revealed that Chaemsaithong is the author with the most publications; Eades has become the most influential scholar; the United States, the United Kingdom, and China are the top 3 productive countries, but only the United States has a strong betweenness centrality. The diversity of publishing institutions fully reflects the multidisciplinary of courtroom discourse research. Language and power, interactive roles, courtroom interpreting, historical courtroom discourse, intertextuality, and (im)politeness are hot topics in courtroom discourse research. Language and power studies focus on how power is enacted through language and how factors such as professional background, language ability, race, and gender contribute to power differences. Interactive roles highlight the diverse roles of judges, questioning techniques and persuasive strategies of lawyers’ discourse, the limited power and disadvantage of defendants, and the credibility of witnesses. Courtroom interpretation research covers topics such as the role of the interpreter, factors influencing interpretation, and the impact of interpretation on the courtroom. Historical courtroom discourse includes the characteristics of 17th-century courtroom discourse and the evolution of early courtroom discourse. Intertextuality in courtroom interaction focuses on cross-textual resource borrowings such as scientific citations and written document citations, hybrid and embedding characteristics, reported speech, and interdiscursivity analysis. (Im)politeness in the courtroom includes common politeness strategies such as humor and impoliteness strategies such as interruption, hedge, taboo language, and offense.
文章引用：李静, 罗桂花. 国外法庭话语研究综述[J]. 现代语言学, 2023, 11(5): 2311-2324. https://doi.org/10.12677/ML.2023.115311

参考文献

[1] 廖美珍. 法庭问答及其互动研究[M]. 北京: 法律出版社, 2003.
[2] Tiersma, P. (1999) Legal Language. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[3] Coulthard, M., Johnson, A. and Wright, D. (2017) An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. Routledge, London.
[4] 胡海娟. 法庭话语研究综论[J]. 广东外语外贸大学学报, 2004, 15(1): 8-11.
[5] 江铃. 国内外法庭话语研究述评[J]. 学术探索, 2013(3): 71-74.
[6] 肖洒, 黄曼. 法庭话语性别研究述评[J]. 东岳论丛, 2019, 40(8): 183-190.
[7] 罗桂花. 审判话语立场研究[M]. 合肥: 黄山书社, 2019: 16.
[8] Chen, C.M. (2006) CiteSpace II: Detecting and Visualizing Emerging Trends and Transient Patterns in Scientific Literature. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57, 359-377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[9] 李杰, 陈超美. CiteSpace: 科技文本挖掘及可视化[M]. 北京: 首都经济贸易大学出版社, 2016.
[10] Eades, D. (2010) Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process. Multilingual Matters, Bristol. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[11] Eades, D. (2008) Courtroom Talk and Neocolonial Control. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[12] Eades, D. (2006) Lexical Struggle in Court: Aboriginal Australians versus the State. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 10, 153-180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[13] Eades, D. (2003) Participation of Second Language and Second Dialect Speakers in the Legal System. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 113-133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[14] Gibbons, J. (2003) Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Blackwell, Oxford.
[15] Heffer, C. (2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[16] Berk-Seligson, S. (2009) Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[17] Cotterill, J. (2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
[18] Cotterill, J. (2004) Collocation, Connotation, and Courtroom Semantics: Lawyers’ Control of Witness Testimony through Lexical Negotiation. Applied Linguistics, 25, 513-537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[19] Rosulek, L.F. (2015) Dueling Discourses: The Construction of Reality in Closing Arguments. Oxford University Press, New York.
[20] Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (2010) The Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Routledge, London. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[21] Mertz, E. (2007) The Language of Law School: Learning to “Think Like a Lawyer”. Harvard University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[22] Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (2007) An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. Routledge, London.
[23] Archer, D. (2005) Questions and Answers in the English Courtroom (1640-1760): A Sociopragmatic Analysis. John Benjamins, Amsterdam. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[24] Maryns, K. (2006) The Asylum Speaker: Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure. Routledge, London.
[25] Blommaert, J. (2005) Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[26] Rock, F. (2007) Communicating Rights: The Language of Arrest and Detention. Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
[27] Conley, R. (2016) Confronting the Death Penalty: How Language Influences Jurors in Capital Cases. Oxford University Press, Oxford. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[28] Berk-Seligson, S. (1999) The Impact of Court Interpreting on the Coerciveness of Leading Questions. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 6, 30-56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[29] Lee, J. (2009) Interpreting Inexplicit Language during Courtroom Examination. Applied Linguistics, 30, 93-114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[30] Moeketsi, R.H. (1999) Discourse Structure in a Criminal Trial of a Magistrate’s Court. South African Journal of African Languages, 19, 30-38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[31] Ng, E. (2020) Linguistic Disadvantage before the Law: When Non-Native English-Speaking Witnesses Waive Their Right to an Interpreter. In: Ng, E.N.S. and Crezee, I.H.M., Eds., Interpreting in Legal and Healthcare Settings, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 21-44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[32] Ellison, L. (2001) The Mosaic Art? Cross-Examination and the Vulnerable Witness. Legal Studies, 21, 353-375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[33] Prasad, P. (2018) Implicit Racial Biases in Prosecutorial Summations: Proposing an Integrated Response. Fordham Law Review, 86, 3091-3126.
[34] Matoesian, G.M. (1993) Reproducing Rape: Domination through Talk in the Courtroom. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[35] Conley, J.M. and O’Barr, W.M. (1998) Just Words: Law, Language and Power. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[36] Makoni, B. (2014) Feminizing Linguistic Human Rights: Use of Isihlonipho Sabafazi in the Courtroom and Intra-Group Linguistic Differences. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 9, 27-43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[37] Bogoch, B. (1999) Courtroom Discourse and the Gendered Construction of Professional Identity. Law and Social Inquiry, 24, 329-375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[38] Ge, Y.F. and Wang, H. (2019) Understanding the Discourse of Chinese Civil Trials: The Perspective of Critical Genre Analysis. Journal of Pragmatics, 152, 1-12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[39] Liu, X. (2020) Pragmalinguistic Challenges for Trainee Interpreters in Achieving Accuracy: An Analysis of Questions and Their Interpretation in Five Cross-Examinations. Interpreting, 22, 87-116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[40] Hobbs, P. (2011) Judging by What You’re Saying: Judges’ Questioning of Lawyers as Interactive Interpretation. In: Candlin, C.N. and Sarangi, S., Eds., Handbook of Communication in Organisations and Professions, De Gruyter Mouton, Berlin, 299-318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[41] Komter, M.L. (2020) Dilemmas in the Courtroom: A Study of Trials of Violent Crime in the Netherlands. Taylor and Francis, Abingdon. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[42] Henning, T. (1999) Judicial Summation: The Trial Judge’s Version of the Facts or the Chimera of Neutrality. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 12, 171-213.
[43] Lee, J.H. and Woo, J. (2016) Judge-Jury Interaction in Deliberation: Enhancement or Obstruction of Independent Jury Decision-Making. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6, 179-196.
[44] Hobbs, P. (2003) Is That What We’re Here about: A Lawyer’s Use of Impression Management in a Closing Argument at Trial. Discourse and Society, 14, 273-290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[45] Frumkin, L. (2007) Influences of Accent and Ethnic Background on Perceptions of Eyewitness Testimony. Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 317-331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[46] Frumkin, L. and Stone, A. (2020) Not All Eyewitnesses Are Equal: Accent Status, Race and Age Interact to Influence Evaluations of Testimony. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 18, 123-145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[47] Tiersma, P.M. and Solan, L. (2002) The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts. Language, 78, 221-239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[48] Krisda, C. (2012) Performing Self on the Witness Stand: Stance and Relational Work in Expert Witness Testimony. Discourse and Society, 23, 465-486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[49] Hewitt, W.E. (1995) Court Interpretation: Model Guides for Policy and Practice in the State Courts. National Center for State Courts, Williamsburg.
[50] Barsky, R.F. (1996) The Interpreter as Intercultural Agent in Convention Refugee Hearings. The Translator, 2, 45-63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[51] Nartowska, K. (2015) The Role of the Court Interpreter: A Powerless or Powerful Participant in Criminal Proceedings. Interpreters Newsletter, 20, 9-32.
[52] Hale, S.B. (1999) Interpreters’ Treatment of Discourse Markers in Courtroom Questions. Speech, Language and the Law, 6, 57-82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[53] Hale, S.B. (2002) How Faithfully Do Court Interpreters Render the Style of Non-English Speaking Witnesses’ Testimonies? A Data-Based Study of Spanish—English Bilingual Proceedings. Discourse Studies, 4, 25-47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[54] Hale, S.B. (2004) The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. John Benjamins Publishing, Amsterdam. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[55] Lee, J.H. (2010) Interpreting Reported Speech in Witnesses’ Evidence. Interpreting, 12, 60-82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[56] Du, J.B. (2021) The Mediated Voice: A Discursive Study of Interpreter-Mediated Closing Statements in Chinese Criminal Trials. Target, 33, 341-367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[57] Vargas-Urpi, M. (2018) Judged in a Foreign Language: A Chinese-Spanish Court Interpreting Case Study. The European Legacy, 23, 787-803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[58] Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2006) Historical Courtroom Discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 7, 163-179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[59] Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2000) Representations of Orality in Early Modern English Trial Records. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1, 201-230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[60] Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2006) Impoliteness in Early Modern English Courtroom Discourse. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 7, 213-243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[61] Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2009) Speech Acts in Early Modern English Court Trials. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 440-457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[62] Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2018) Implicatures in Early Modern English Courtroom Records. Pragmatics and Beyond New Series. In: Kurzon, D. and Kryk-Kastovsk, B., Eds., Legal Pragmatics, John Benjamins, Amsterdam, 65-80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[63] Cecconi, E. (2011) Power Confrontation and Verbal Duelling in the Arraignment Section of XVII Century Trials. Journal of Politeness Research, 7, 101-121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[64] Howell, T.B. and Cobbett, W. (2010) A Complete Collection of State Trials and Proceedings for High Treason and Other Crimes and Misdemeanors from the Earliest Period to the Year 1783. Nabu Press, Charleston.
[65] Cecconi, E. (2012) The Language of Defendants in the 17th-Century English Courtroom: A Socio-Pragmatic Analysis of the Prisoners’ Interactional Role and Representation. Peter Lang Publishing Group, New York.
[66] Archer, D. (2006) (Re)initiating Strategies: Judges and Defendants in Early Modern English Courtrooms. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 7, 181-211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[67] Widlitzki, B. and Huber, M. (2016) Taboo Language and Swearing in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century English: A Diachronic Study Based on the Old Bailey Corpus. In: López-Couso, M.J., Méndez-Naya, B., Núñez-Pertejo, P. and Palacios-Martínez, I.M., Eds., Corpus Linguistics on the Move: Exploring and Understanding English through Corpora, Brill Publishers, Leiden, 313-336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[68] Chaemsaithong, K. (2014) Interactive Patterns of the Opening Statement in Criminal Trials: A Historical Perspective. Discourse Studies, 16, 347-364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[69] Chaemsaithong, K. (2018) Dialogic Features and Interpersonal Management in the Early Courtroom Action Game: The Case of the Opening Statement. Language and Dialogue, 8, 341-362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[70] Archer, D. (2002) “Can Innocent People Be Guilty?” A Sociopragmatic Analysis of Examination Transcripts from the Salem Witchcraft Trials. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 3, 1-30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[71] Leitner, M. (2017) Curses or Threats? Debating the Power of Witches’ Words in 17th-Century Scottish Courtrooms. Nordic Journal of English Studies, 16, 145-170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[72] Kristeva, J. (1986) The Kristeva Reader. Columbia University Press, New York.
[73] Bazerman, C. (2009) How Does Science Come to Speak in the Courts? Citations Intertexts, Expert Witnesses, Consequential Facts, and Reasoning. Law and Contemporary Problems, 72, 91-120.
[74] D’Hondt, S. and Van Der Houwen, F. (2014) Quoting from the Case File: How Intertextual Practices Shape Discourse at Various Stages in the Legal Trajectory. Language and Communication, 36, 1-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[75] Chaemsaithong, K. (2017) Speech Reporting in Courtroom Opening Statements. Journal of Pragmatics, 119, 1-14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[76] Sneijder, P. (2014) The Embedding of Reported Speech in a Rhetorical Structure by Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers in Dutch Trials. Text and Talk, 34, 467-490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[77] Chang, Y.R. (2004) Courtroom Questioning as a Culturally Situated Persuasive Genre of Talk. Discourse and Society, 15, 705-722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[78] Zhang, L.P. (2011) Arguing with Otherness: Intertextual Construction of the Attorney Stance in the Chinese Courtroom. Text and Talk, 31, 753-769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[79] Chaemsaithong, K. and Yoonjeong, K. (2018) From Narration to Argumentation: Intertextuality in Two Courtroom Genres. Lingua, 203, 36-50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[80] Ren, W., Bhatia, V.K. and Han, Z.R. (2020) Analyzing Interdiscursivity in Legal Genres: The Case of Chinese Lawyers’ Written Opinions. Pragmatics and Society, 11, 615-639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[81] Guang, S. (2014) Intertextuality in Chinese Courtroom Discourse: A Critical Perspective. Chinese Semiotic Studies, 10, 427-450. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[82] Lakoff, R.T. (1989) The Limits of Politeness: Therapeutic and Courtroom Discourse. Multilingua, 8, 101-130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[83] Wright, D., Robson, J., Murray-Edwards, H. and Braber, N. (2022) The Pragmatic Functions of ‘Respect’ in Lawyers’ Courtroom Discourse: A Case Study of Brexit Hearings. Journal of Pragmatics, 187, 1-12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[84] Tiersma, P. (1999) Legal Language. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
[85] Hobbs, P. (2007) Lawyers’ Use of Humor as Persuasion. Humor, 20, 123-156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[86] Brown, P. (1990) Gender, Politeness, and Confrontation in Tenejapa. Discourse Processes, 13, 123-141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[87] Mitchell, N. (2022) Duelling Contexts: How Action Misalignment Leads to Impoliteness in a Courtroom. Journal of Politeness Research, 18, 93-120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[88] Liao, M.Z. (2009) A Study of Interruption in Chinese Criminal Courtroom Discourse. Text and Talk, 29, 175-199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[89] Hu, P.C. (2018) An Investigation of Interruption in Courtroom Discourse. International Journal of Legal Discourse, 3, 213-234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[90] Janney, R.W. (2002) Cotext as Context: Vague Answers in Court. Language and Communication, 22, 457-475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] 
[91] Cooper, B. (2007) Taboo Terms in a Sexual Abuse Criminal Trial. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14, 27-50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]