法庭审判话语的批评性分析
|
摘要
本文对中国法庭审判话语进行批评性分析,目的是描述并揭示该话语的形式结构特征及其与法庭审判各主体(法官、检察官、原告、被告等)的意识形态和权力关系之间的互动关系。本文运用费尔克劳的批评性语篇分析三维框架(语篇、话语实践、社会实践)分析了作者旁听的八场法庭审判(四场刑事、三场民事、一场行政)近二十万字的录音转写材料。上述三维框架中的“语篇”这一维度描述了分类、及物、情态和话语互动控制等四个方面的特征并试图揭示其背后的深层意义,发现:1)由于目的和意识形态的不同,法庭审判各主体倾向于使用意义不同甚至相反的词、短语或小句来指代或描述同一事物或事件;2)物质和言语过程句的使用最频繁,而存在过程句的使用最少;3)法官所使用的情态表达式有助于实现明确权利、义务,对诉讼参与人做出规约、许可、授权、禁止等功能。相比之下,各诉讼参与人使用的情态表达式虽然在某些情况下能够显示其态度和信心,但总体上对他们所陈述内容的可信度、意思表达的准确性等方面具有消极的影响:4)法庭话语互动总体上是由权势者控制(所有审判主要由法官控制;刑事审判由法官和检察官共同控制)。非权势者偶尔试图挑战权势者的权威,在这种情况下,后者将采用多种方式“维护其权威和控制权”。
通过对语力、连贯和互文性的分析,“话语实践”这一维度阐释了法庭审判话语与生成、传播和接受它的交际过程的关系。对语力的分析主要包括对“言语行为”和“礼貌行为”的分析。在舍尔(1965)所划分的五类言语行为中,描述性和指示性这两种言语行为在法庭中的使用最为频繁。与日常生活相比,法庭审判各主体的礼貌行为明显偏少,而且权势越大的主体越不礼貌,也就是说他/她倾向于做出更多“面子威胁行为”。法庭中最有权势的主体——法官所做出的威胁他人面子的行为最多。第二个方面是连贯,通过对两个案例的分析,笔者发现法庭审判话语在语义、话题和语境等三个层面上都具有连贯性。第三个方面是互文性,本文按照辛斌教授(2000a,2005)的分类将其分为具体互文性和语篇互文性。对具体互文性的分析发现:1)在“具体确切的消息来源”、“含蓄不露的消息来源”和“似真非真的消息来源”这三种交代消息来源的主要方式当中,只有前两者被法庭审判各主体所采用,第三种未出现在语料中;2)在四种主要的转述形式(“直接报道”、“间接报道”、“自由间接报道”和“言语行为的叙述性转述”)当中,第三种,即“自由间接报道”,在语料中没有出现。这里需要指出的是消息来源和转述形式的选择是与法庭各主体的目的和利益相一致的。对体裁互文性的分析表明法庭审判话语,尤其是“举证”这一子体裁,不仅是不同体裁的混合,而且也是不同风格的交融,这一方面可能是由于司法改革的影响,另一方面也是当代社会公共语篇“会话式非正式化”的一个例证。
“社会实践”这一维度解释了权力关系是如何通过那些控制法庭审判话语的人的具有意识形态意义的常识性假定而得以维持、遭到挑战或进行调整的。分析发现:法庭审判各主体的意识形态有趋同和冲突两大趋势。前者主要存在于法官和检察官之间,因为在法庭上,他们都是特定国家机关的化身:法官代表法院(审判机关),检察官代表检察院(法律监督机关)。意识形态的冲突则主要存在于刑事审判中的检察官(法官)与被告之间,民事和行政审判中各对立方(原告与被告,上诉人/被上诉人等)之间。总的来说,各对立方意识形态的冲突的根源是各自目的和利益的不同。法庭中的权力关系呈现出如下三大特点:1)各主体之间的权力关系具有等级性和不对称性;2)权力关系在很大程度上决定于法庭所具有的机构本质;3)权力关系一方面反映在各主体话语的语言特征当中,另一方面也影响甚至强化各主体话语的语言特征。
This thesis analyzes Chinese courtroom discourse from the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis for the purpose of describing the formal features of Chinese courtroom discourse and revealing their interaction with the ideologies of and power relations between the subjects in the courtroom (i.e., the judge, the public prosecutor, the plaintiff, and the defendant, etc.). Fairclough's three-dimensional framework for Critical Discourse Analysis is employed to analyze the audio recording transcripts of eight court trials (four criminal, three civil, and one administrative), which amount to more than 200,000 words. The first dimension "Discourse as text" describes features and underlying meanings of the following aspects: classification, transitivity, modality and interactional control features. It is found that 1) in the courtroom, due to different purposes and ideologies of the subjects, words and expressions that have different and even opposite meanings are used to describe or refer to the same thing or incident, 2) material and verbal processes appear by far most frequently, while the number of existential processes is the smallest, 3) generally speaking, those expressions of modality employed by the judges help to clarify rights and duties and realize the functions of regulation, permission, authorization and prohibition, while those employed by other subjects generally have a negative effect on the reliability of their statements and the accuracy of the meanings they want to express; 4) courtroom interaction is generally controlled by the powerful (the judge in all trials, the judge and the public prosecutor in criminal ones). Occasionally, the non-powerful tries to challenge the authority of the powerful, but in such cases, the powerful will try to reassert his/her control' in various ways.
The second dimension "Discursive Practice" interprets courtroom discourse in relation to its production, distribution, and consumption through the analysis of force, coherence and intertextuality. Under the rubric of force, "speech acts" and "politeness" are analyzed. Among the five-part classification of speech acts established by Searle (1965), representative and directive speech acts are most frequently used. With regard to politeness, generally speaking, less politeness strategies are adopted by the subjects in the courtroom than in daily conversations. The more powerful a subject is, the more "impolite" s/he tends to be, that is, s/he tends to do more FTAs (Face-Threatening Acts). As the most powerful subject in the courtroom, the judge does FTAs most frequently. The second aspect is coherence. The analysis of two cases shows that courtroom discourse is coherent semantically, topically, and contextually. Following professor Xin Bin (2000a, 2005), the third aspect "intertextuality" is classified into specific and generic intertextuality. In the analysis of specific intertextuality, it is found that 1) among the three ways of showing news source: specific and exact news source, implicit news source, and seemingly real news source, only the first two are used by the subjects in the court trials, while the third is not found and 2) among the four major modes of speech reporting: Direct Reporting (DR), Indirect Reporting (IR), Free Indirect Reporting (FIR), and Narrative Report of Speech Act (NRSA), only DR, IR, NRSA appear in the eight cases. It should be pointed out that the choice of ways of showing news source and modes of speech reporting is in accordance with the purposes and interests of the subjects in the courtroom. The analysis of generic intertextuality shows that courtroom discourse, especially the sub-genre of "evidence-producing", is not only the mixture of different genres but also that of different modes (styles), which may be the result of the judicial reform and a manifestation of the trend of 'conversationalization' in contemporary society.
The third dimension "social practice" explains the courtroom discourse from the perspective of how power relations are either reproduced, challenged, or restructured through the ideological common sense assumptions of those controlling the discourse. In the courtroom, the ideologies of the subjects have two major tendencies: convergence and conflict. The convergence of ideologies mainly exists between the judge and the public prosecutor, because in the courtroom both of them are the embodiment of certain institutions: the judge embodies the court (the judicial organ), while the public prosecutor embodies the procuratorate (the organ for legal supervision). Another tendency is the conflict of the ideologies. The major conflicts are those between the public prosecutor (and the judge) and the defendant in criminal trials, and those between opposing parties (the plaintiff and the defendant, the appellant and the appellee, etc.) in civil and administrative ones. Generally speaking, opposing parties in the courtroom tend to have different ideologies due to their different purposes and interests. In the courtroom, power relations have the following three main characteristics: 1) the power relations of the subjects in the courtroom are hierarchical and asymmetrical; 2) the power relations are largely determined by the institutional nature of the court; and 3) the power relations are reflected by and in turn affect the linguistic features of the subject discourse.
通过对语力、连贯和互文性的分析,“话语实践”这一维度阐释了法庭审判话语与生成、传播和接受它的交际过程的关系。对语力的分析主要包括对“言语行为”和“礼貌行为”的分析。在舍尔(1965)所划分的五类言语行为中,描述性和指示性这两种言语行为在法庭中的使用最为频繁。与日常生活相比,法庭审判各主体的礼貌行为明显偏少,而且权势越大的主体越不礼貌,也就是说他/她倾向于做出更多“面子威胁行为”。法庭中最有权势的主体——法官所做出的威胁他人面子的行为最多。第二个方面是连贯,通过对两个案例的分析,笔者发现法庭审判话语在语义、话题和语境等三个层面上都具有连贯性。第三个方面是互文性,本文按照辛斌教授(2000a,2005)的分类将其分为具体互文性和语篇互文性。对具体互文性的分析发现:1)在“具体确切的消息来源”、“含蓄不露的消息来源”和“似真非真的消息来源”这三种交代消息来源的主要方式当中,只有前两者被法庭审判各主体所采用,第三种未出现在语料中;2)在四种主要的转述形式(“直接报道”、“间接报道”、“自由间接报道”和“言语行为的叙述性转述”)当中,第三种,即“自由间接报道”,在语料中没有出现。这里需要指出的是消息来源和转述形式的选择是与法庭各主体的目的和利益相一致的。对体裁互文性的分析表明法庭审判话语,尤其是“举证”这一子体裁,不仅是不同体裁的混合,而且也是不同风格的交融,这一方面可能是由于司法改革的影响,另一方面也是当代社会公共语篇“会话式非正式化”的一个例证。
“社会实践”这一维度解释了权力关系是如何通过那些控制法庭审判话语的人的具有意识形态意义的常识性假定而得以维持、遭到挑战或进行调整的。分析发现:法庭审判各主体的意识形态有趋同和冲突两大趋势。前者主要存在于法官和检察官之间,因为在法庭上,他们都是特定国家机关的化身:法官代表法院(审判机关),检察官代表检察院(法律监督机关)。意识形态的冲突则主要存在于刑事审判中的检察官(法官)与被告之间,民事和行政审判中各对立方(原告与被告,上诉人/被上诉人等)之间。总的来说,各对立方意识形态的冲突的根源是各自目的和利益的不同。法庭中的权力关系呈现出如下三大特点:1)各主体之间的权力关系具有等级性和不对称性;2)权力关系在很大程度上决定于法庭所具有的机构本质;3)权力关系一方面反映在各主体话语的语言特征当中,另一方面也影响甚至强化各主体话语的语言特征。
This thesis analyzes Chinese courtroom discourse from the perspective of Critical Discourse Analysis for the purpose of describing the formal features of Chinese courtroom discourse and revealing their interaction with the ideologies of and power relations between the subjects in the courtroom (i.e., the judge, the public prosecutor, the plaintiff, and the defendant, etc.). Fairclough's three-dimensional framework for Critical Discourse Analysis is employed to analyze the audio recording transcripts of eight court trials (four criminal, three civil, and one administrative), which amount to more than 200,000 words. The first dimension "Discourse as text" describes features and underlying meanings of the following aspects: classification, transitivity, modality and interactional control features. It is found that 1) in the courtroom, due to different purposes and ideologies of the subjects, words and expressions that have different and even opposite meanings are used to describe or refer to the same thing or incident, 2) material and verbal processes appear by far most frequently, while the number of existential processes is the smallest, 3) generally speaking, those expressions of modality employed by the judges help to clarify rights and duties and realize the functions of regulation, permission, authorization and prohibition, while those employed by other subjects generally have a negative effect on the reliability of their statements and the accuracy of the meanings they want to express; 4) courtroom interaction is generally controlled by the powerful (the judge in all trials, the judge and the public prosecutor in criminal ones). Occasionally, the non-powerful tries to challenge the authority of the powerful, but in such cases, the powerful will try to reassert his/her control' in various ways.
The second dimension "Discursive Practice" interprets courtroom discourse in relation to its production, distribution, and consumption through the analysis of force, coherence and intertextuality. Under the rubric of force, "speech acts" and "politeness" are analyzed. Among the five-part classification of speech acts established by Searle (1965), representative and directive speech acts are most frequently used. With regard to politeness, generally speaking, less politeness strategies are adopted by the subjects in the courtroom than in daily conversations. The more powerful a subject is, the more "impolite" s/he tends to be, that is, s/he tends to do more FTAs (Face-Threatening Acts). As the most powerful subject in the courtroom, the judge does FTAs most frequently. The second aspect is coherence. The analysis of two cases shows that courtroom discourse is coherent semantically, topically, and contextually. Following professor Xin Bin (2000a, 2005), the third aspect "intertextuality" is classified into specific and generic intertextuality. In the analysis of specific intertextuality, it is found that 1) among the three ways of showing news source: specific and exact news source, implicit news source, and seemingly real news source, only the first two are used by the subjects in the court trials, while the third is not found and 2) among the four major modes of speech reporting: Direct Reporting (DR), Indirect Reporting (IR), Free Indirect Reporting (FIR), and Narrative Report of Speech Act (NRSA), only DR, IR, NRSA appear in the eight cases. It should be pointed out that the choice of ways of showing news source and modes of speech reporting is in accordance with the purposes and interests of the subjects in the courtroom. The analysis of generic intertextuality shows that courtroom discourse, especially the sub-genre of "evidence-producing", is not only the mixture of different genres but also that of different modes (styles), which may be the result of the judicial reform and a manifestation of the trend of 'conversationalization' in contemporary society.
The third dimension "social practice" explains the courtroom discourse from the perspective of how power relations are either reproduced, challenged, or restructured through the ideological common sense assumptions of those controlling the discourse. In the courtroom, the ideologies of the subjects have two major tendencies: convergence and conflict. The convergence of ideologies mainly exists between the judge and the public prosecutor, because in the courtroom both of them are the embodiment of certain institutions: the judge embodies the court (the judicial organ), while the public prosecutor embodies the procuratorate (the organ for legal supervision). Another tendency is the conflict of the ideologies. The major conflicts are those between the public prosecutor (and the judge) and the defendant in criminal trials, and those between opposing parties (the plaintiff and the defendant, the appellant and the appellee, etc.) in civil and administrative ones. Generally speaking, opposing parties in the courtroom tend to have different ideologies due to their different purposes and interests. In the courtroom, power relations have the following three main characteristics: 1) the power relations of the subjects in the courtroom are hierarchical and asymmetrical; 2) the power relations are largely determined by the institutional nature of the court; and 3) the power relations are reflected by and in turn affect the linguistic features of the subject discourse.
引文
1 Althusser,L.1969.For Marx.London:Allen Lane.
2 Althusser,L.1971.Ideology and ideological state apparatuses.In L.Althusser(ed.),Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays,London:New Left Books.
3 Atkinson,J.M.and Drew,P.1979.Order in Court:The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings.London:Macmillan.
4 Austin,J.L.1962/2002.How to Do Things with Words.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
5 Bell,Allen,et al(eds.).1998.Approaches to Media Discourse.Blackwell.
6 Bennett,W.L.and M.S.Feldoman.1981.Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom.New Brunswick,N.J.:Rutgers University Press.
7 Berk-Seligson,S.1990.Bilingual court proceedings:The role of the court interpreter.In Judith N.Levi and Anne G.Walker,eds.pp155-202.
8 Billig,Michael.1991.Ideology and Opinions:Studies in Rhetorical Psychology.London:Sage.
9 Blommaert,J.2005.Discourse:A Critical Introduction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
10 Bolinger,D.1980.Language:The loaded weapon.London/New York:Longman.
11 Boyd-Barrett,O.1994.Language and Media:a Question of Convergence.In David Graddol and Olive Boyd-Barrett(eds.),Media Texts:Authors and Readers.(pp.22-39)Clevendon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
12 Brown,P and Levinson,S.1987:Politeness:some universals in language usage.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
13 Brown,G.and Yule,G.1983/2000.Discourse Analysis.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
14 Chouliaraki,L.and Fairclough,N.1999.Discourse in late Modernity:Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis.Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
15 Coffin,C.2002.The voices of history:theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses.Text,(4).
16 Conley,J.M.,and William M.O'Barr.1998.Just Words.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
17 Eades,Diana.1994.A case of communicative clash:Aboriginal English and the legal system.In J.Gibbons,ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.234-64.
18 Eagleson,Robert.1994.Forensic analysis of personal written texts:A case study,In J. Gibbons,ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.363-73.
19 Fairclough,N.1989.Language and Power.Pearson Education Limited.
20 Fairclough,N.1992.Discourse and Social Change.Polity Press.
21 Fairclough,N.1993.Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse:The universities.Discourse and Society,4(2),133-168.
22 Fairclough,N.1995a.Critical discourse analysis:the critical study of language.Longman,
23 Fairclough,N.1995b.Media Discourse.London:Edward Arnold.
24 Fairclough,N.2003.Analysing Discourse:Textual analysis for social research.London:Routledge.
25 Fairclough,N.2007.Language and Globalization.New York:Routledge.
26 Farringdon,Jill M.et al.1996.Analyzing for Authorship-A Guide to the Cusum Technique.Cardiff:University of Wales Press.
27 Fowler,A.1982.Kinds of Literature:An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
28 Fowler,R.1991.Language in the News:Discourse and Ideology in the Press.London/New York:Routledge.
29 Fowler,R.et al.(eds).1979.Language and Control.London:Routledge.
30 Foucault,M.1972.The Archaeology of Knowledge.London:Tavistock Publications.
31 Foucault,M.1981.History of Sexuality,vol.1.Harmondsworth:Penguin Books.
32 Fraser,N.1989.Unruly Practices:Power,Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory.Cambridge:Polity Press.
33 Gee,J.P.2000.An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:Theory and Method.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
34 Goodrich,P.1987.Legal Discourse:Studies in Linguistics,Rhetoric and Legal Analysis.London:Macmillan.
35 Gramsci,A.1971.Selections from the Prison Notebooks,ed.& trans.Q.Hoare & G.N.Smith.London:Lawrence and Wishart.
36 Grove,Carl D.1999.The Official English Debate in the United States Congress:A Critical Analysis.Doctoral Dissertation of University of Washington.
37 Halliday,M.A.K.1973.Explorations in the Functions of Language.London:Edward Arnold.
38 Halliday,M.A.K.& Hansan,R.1976.Cohesion in English.Longman Group Limited.
39 Halliday,M.A.K.1978.Language as Social Semiotic:The social interpretation of language and meaning.Edward Arnold.
40 Halliday,M.A.K.& Hansan,Ruqaiya.1985.Language,Context,and Text:aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective.Oxford University Press.
41 Halliday,M.A.K.1994.An Introduction to Functional Grammar.Edward Arnold.
42 Hodge,R and Kress,G.1988.Social Semiotics.Cambridge:Polity Press;and Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
43 Jenny,L.1982.The Strategy of Form.In T.Todorov(ed.),R.Carter(trans.),French Literary Theory Today.Cambridge:CUP.
44 Jiang Zemin.1997.Report Delivered at the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China
45 Kress,G.and Hodge,R.1979.Language as ideology.Routledge & Kegan Paul.
46 Kristeva,J.1986.Word,Dialogue and Novel.In T.Moi(ed.),The Kristeva Reader,Oxford:Basil Blackwell,34-61.
47 Labov,William and Fanshel,D.1977.Therapeutic Discourse:Psychotherapy as Conversation.New York:Academic Press.
48 Labov,William and Wendell A.Harris.1994.Addressing social issues through linguistic evidence.In J.Gibbons ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.265-305.
49 Lakoff,R.1975.Language and Women's Place.NewYork:Harper.
50 Law Encyclopedia,2007-12-20,from http://www.answers.com/topic/presumption-of-innocence
51 Lazar,Michelle M.2005.Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis:Gender,Power and Ideology in Discourse.Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
52 Levi,Judith N.and Walker,A.G.1990.Language in the Judicial Process.New York:Plenum Press.
53 Levinson,S.1983.Pragmatics.Cambridge:CUP.
54 Lillian,Donna L.2001.Canadian New Conservative Discourse:A Critical Discourse Analysis.Doctoral Dissertation of York University.
55 Luchjenbroers,J.1997.Barrister talk vs.witness talk:Who's smuggling what? First annual international conference on crime and justice:Email conference.Department of Criminal Justice at University of Arkansas,Little Rock.
56 Martin,J.R.1995.Reading Positions/Positioning Readers:JUDGEMENT in English,Prospect:a Journal of Australian TESOL 10(2):27-37.
57 Martin,J.R.1997.Analysing genre:functional parameters,in Christie,F.& J.R.Martin(eds)Genre and Institutions:social process in the workplace and school London & Washington:Cassell.
58 Martin,J.R.1998.Lectures on Register and Genre.MA course at Sydney University, Australia.
59 Martin,J.R.2000.Beyond exchange:appraisal systems in English.In S.Hunston and G.Thompson(eds.).Evaluation in Text:authorial stance and the construction of discourse.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
60 Matoesian,Gregory M.1993.Reproducing Rape:Domination through Talk in the Courtroom.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
61 Mellinkoff,D.1963.The Language of the Law.Boston:Little,Brown and Company.
62 Mey,J.1993/2001.Pragmatics:An Introduction.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
63 National People's Congress.1982.Constitution of the People's Republic of China.2007-12-28,From http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html.
64 National People's Congress.1999.Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.Beijing:China Legal System Publishing House.
65 National People's Congress.2000.Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.Beijing:China Legal System Publishing House.
66 Nolan,F.1994.Auditory and acoustic analysis in speaker recognition.In J.Gibbons ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.326-45.
67 O'Barr,W.1982.Linguistic Evidence:Language,Power and Strategy in the Courtroom.NewYork:Academic Press.
68 O'Halloran,K.2003.Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition.Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
69 Pecheux,M.1982:Language,Semantics and Ideology.London:Maclillan.
70 Pennycook,A.2001.Critical Applied Linguistics:a Critical Introduction.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.,Publishers.
71 Phillipson,R.1992.Linguistic Imperialism.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
72 Potter,J and Wetherell,M.1987.Discourse and Social Psychology:beyond attitudes and behaviour.London:Saga Publications.
73 Rieber,Robert W.and William A.Stewart.1990.The Language Scientist as Expert in the Legal Setting:Issues in Forensic Linguistics.New York:The New York Academy of Sciences.
74 Richards,Jack C,Platt,J & Platt,H.2000.Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &Applied Linguistics.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
75 Sacks,H.,Schegloff,E.and Jefferson,G.1974.A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation.Language,50,695-735.
76 Scollon,R & Levine,P.2004.Multimodal Discourse Analysis as the Confluence of Discourse and Technology.Washington DC.:Georgetown University Press.
77 Searle,J.R.1965.What is a speech act? In M.Black(ed)Philosophy in America.London:Allen and Unwin.
78 Schegloff,E.1968.Sequencing in conversational openings.The American Anthropologist,70(6),1075-1095.
79 Schegloff,E and Sacks,H.1973.Opening up closings.Semiotica,8,289-327.
80 Sheyholislamy,J.2001."Yesterday's "Separatists" are today's "Resistance Fighters:" A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Representations of Iraqi Kurbs in The Globe and Mail and The New York Times.Unpublished MA Thesis,Carleton Univcrsity,Canada.
81 Shi Guang.2004.Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake:the Case of EFL Middle School Classrooms.M.A.Graduation Thesis of Nanjing Normal University.
82 Simpson,P.1993.Language,Ideology and Point of View.New York:Routledge.
83 Sinclair,J.and Coulthard,M.1975.Towards an Analysis of Discourse:the English used by Teachers and Pupils.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
84 Solan,Lawrence M.1993.The Language of Judges.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
85 Stygall,G.1994.Trial Language:Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation.Philadelphia,PA:John Benjamins.
86 Shuy,Roger W.1987.The Language of Confession,Interrogation and Deception.Thousand Oaks CA:Sage.
87 Thomas,L.Wareing,S.Singh,I.Peccei,J.S.Thornborrow,J & Jones J.2004.Language,Society and Power.London:Routledge.
88 Thompson,G.1996.Introducing Functional Grammar.London:Arnold.
89 Thompson,J,B.1990.Ideology and Modern Culture.Cambridge:Polity Press.
90 Tiersma,Peter M.1999.Legal Language.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
91 Tollefson,J.1991.Planning Language,Planning Inequality:Language Policy in the Community.New York:Longman.
92 Toolan,M.2002.Critical Discourse Analysis:Critical Concepts in Linguistics.London &New York:Routledge.
93 Trew,T.1979.'What the papers say':Linguistic variation and ideological difference.In Fowler,R.et al.(eds).Language and Control(pp.117-156).London:Routledge.
94 van Dijk,T.1995.Discourse Semantics and Ideology.Discourse and Society,Vol(6)2:243-289
95 van Dijk,T.1998.Ideology.London:Sage.
96 van Dijk,T.2001.Critical Discourse Analysis.In D.Tannen,D.Schiffrin & H.Hamilton (Eds.),Handbook of Discourse Analysis.(pp.352-371).Oxford:Blackwell.
97 Walsh,M.1994.Interactional styles in the courtroom.In J.Gibbons ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.217-33.
98 Wang Zhenghua.2003.Engagement in Interaction:an Appraisal Approach.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation of Henan Universtiy.
99 White,P.R.2007-12-18 from AppraisalAnalysis@yahoogroups.com.
100 Widdowson,H.G.2004.Text,Context,Pretext:Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis.Blackwell Publishing.
101 Wodak,R.& Chilton,P.2005.A New Agenda in(Critical)Discourse Analysis:Theory,Methodology and Interdisciplinarity.John Benjamins B.V.
102 Woolark,Kathryn A.1998.Introduction:Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry.in Language Ideologies:Practice and Theory.Ed.Bambi B.Schieffelin,Kathryn A.Woolark,and Paul V,Kroskrity.Oxford:Oxford University Press.pp.3-47
103 Wu Peng.2007.A Study on the Interruption in Chinese Courtroom Discourse--Goal,Power,and Interruption.Unpublished MA Thesis of Jiangsu University.
104 Xin Bin.2000a.Intertextuality from a Critical Perspective,Suzhou:Suzhou University Press.
105 Zhu Laoshi.2007-09-06,2007-12-19 from http://legalsystem.iblog.com/
106 曹广涛,2003,汉英对比研究中的权力话语,《四川外语学院学报》第5期:130-156。
107 陈炯,1998,法律语言学概论,西安:陕西人民教育出版社。
108 陈腾澜,2000,西方法律语言研究方法刍议,《复旦学报》第2期。
109 陈忠华、杨春苑、赵明炜,2002,批评性话语分析述评,《外语学刊》第1期:82-86。
110 陈中竺,1995a,批评语言学述评,《外语教学与研究》第1期:21-27。
111 陈中竺,1995b,语篇与意识形态:批评性语篇分析《外国语》第3期。
112 程汉大,2004,本是同根生 相去何其远——英国陪审制与欧陆纠问制探源,《美中法律评论》第1期。
113 戴炜华、陈宁韵,2004,批评语篇分析的理论和方法,《外语研究》第4期:12-16。
114 戴炜华、高军,2002,批评语篇分析:理论述评与实例分析,《外国语》第6期。
115 丁建新、廖益清,2001,批评话语分析述评,《当代语言学》第4期:305-310。
116 董晓波,2006,语言与法律——谈西方法律语言研究方法的嬗变,《社会科学战线》第2期。
117 杜金榜,2000,从目前的研究看法律语言学学科体系的构建,《现代外语》第1期。
118 杜金榜,2001,从法律语言的模糊性到司法结果的确定性,《现代外语》第3期。
119 杜金榜,2002,法律语言心理学的定位及研究现状,《现代外语》第1期。
120 杜金榜,2003,论法律语言学研究及其发展,《广东外语外贸大学学报》第1期。
121 杜金榜,2004a,法律语言学,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
122 杜金榜,2004b,中国法律法规英译的问题和解决,《中国翻译》第3期。
123 杜金榜,2004c,中文文本累积和分析技术,《修辞学习》第6期。
124 杜金榜,2005,法律交流原则与法律翻译,《广东外语外贸大学学报》第4期。
125 葛云锋、杜金榜,2005,法庭问话中的话题控制与信息获取,《山东外语教学》第6期。
126 公静、方琰,2005,英语法庭辩论语篇的概念功能分析,《外语研究》第3期:11-16。
127 胡壮麟,2007,社会符号学研究中的多模态化,《语言教学与研究》第1期:1-10。
128 胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子,2005,《系统功能语言学概论》,北京:北京大学出版社。
129 李发根,2004,小句经验功能与翻译,《外语与外语教学》第7期:46-50。
130 李杰,2005,情态的表达与意识形态的体现,《外语学刊》第4期:49-55。
131 李丽生,2003,从阅读理论的发展看培养批评性阅读能力的重要性,《四川外语学院学报》第1期:147-149。
132 李丽生,2005,应用语言学研究的新路径,《四川外语学院学报》第2期:78-83。
133 李诗芳,2005,中文民事判决书的情态意义分析,《现代外语》第3期。
134 李曙光,2006,新闻语篇对话性初探-情态语言资源视角,《外语与外语教学》第4期:60-63。
135 李素玲,2004,批评性语篇分析:发展概况与应用前景,《山东外语教学》第5期:23-26。
136 李战子,2004,评价理论:在话语分析中的应用和问题,《外语研究》第5期:1-6。
137 李战子、高一虹,2002,功能语法与批评性话语分析的结合点,《外语研究》第3期:78-79。
138 廖美珍,2002a,从问答行为看中国法庭审判现状,《语言文字应用》第4期。
139 廖美珍,2002b,《问答:法庭话语互动研究》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文。
140 廖美珍,2003a,《法庭问答及其互动研究》,北京:法律出版社。
141 廖美珍,2003b,法庭语言实证报告,《Law and Life》第6期。
142 廖美珍,2004a,国外法律语言研究综述,《当代语言学》第1期:66-76。
143 廖美珍,2004b,法庭语言技巧,北京:法律出版社。
144 廖美珍,2004c,答话研究——法庭答话的启示,《修辞学习》第5期。
145 廖美珍,2004d,目的原则与法庭互动话语合作问题研究,《外语学刊》第5期。
146 廖美珍,2005a,“目的原则”与目的分析(上)——语用研究新途径探索,《修辞学习》第3期。
147 廖美珍,2005b,“目的原则”与目的分析(下)——语用话语分析新途径,《修辞学习》 第4期。
148 廖美珍,2005c,目的原则与语篇连贯分析,《外语教学与研究》第5期。
149 廖美珍,2006a,中国法庭互动话语formulation现象研究,《外语研究》第2期。
150 廖美珍,2006b,论法学的语言转向,《社会科学战线》第2期。
151 刘红婴,2003,《法律语言学》,北京:北京大学出版社。
152 刘蔚铭,2003a,《法律语言学研究》,北京:中国经济出版社。
153 刘蔚铭,2003b,关于Forensic Linguistics的中文名称问题,《外语教学》第5期。
154 吕万英,2005a,《法庭问答及其互动研究》评介,《现代外语》第2期。
155 吕万英,2005b,英语新闻标题批评性分析,《广东外语外贸大学学报》第2期:49-52。
156 吕万英,2006,法官话语的权力支配,《外语研究》第2期:10-13。
157 马煜,2005,国内法律语言学研究状况分析综述,《山东外语教学》第6期:34-37。
158 潘庆云,1997,《跨世纪的中国法律语言》,上海:华东理工大学出版社。
159 潘庆云,2004,西方法律语言学初探,《修辞学习》第1期。
160 彭建武、郭秀珍,2005,两篇新闻报道的批评性分析,《外国语言文学研究》第3期:16-22。
161 任芳,2002,新闻语篇句式模型的批评性分析,《解放军外国语学院学报》第5期:19-23。
162 施光,2007,批评话语分析研究综述,《学术论坛》第4期。
163 施光,法庭审判话语中的情态系统——以一场民事诉讼案为例,(待发表)。
164 孙懿华,周广然,1997,《法律语言学》,北京:中国政法大学出版社。
165 田海龙,2002,政治语言研究:述评与思考,《外语教学》第1期:23-29。
166 田海龙,2004,病历报告:抗击非典的话语实践,《中国社会语言学》第1期:113-124。
167 田海龙,2006,语篇研究的批评视角:从批评语言学到批评话语分析,《山东外语教学》第2期:40-48。
168 王建,2005,法律英语中的名物化结构及其汉译探析,《山东外语教学》第6期。
169 王洁,1996,《法律语言学教程》,北京:法律出版社。
170 王洁,1999,《法律语言研究》,广州:广东教育出版社。
171 王洁,2005,依法治国语境下法律语言研究的科学发展观,《语言文字应用》第3期。
172 王晋军,2002,CDA与SFL关系分析,《山东外语教学》第6期:10-13。
173 王晋军,2002,医生和病人会话中的问句与权势关系,《解放军外国语学院学报》第5期:10-14。
174 王振华,2001,评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展,《外国语》第6期:13-20。
175 王振华,2006,“自首”的系统功能语言学视角,《现代外语》第1期。
176 吴伟平,2002,《语言与法律——司法领域的语言学研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
177 项蕴华,2004,简述Fairclough的语篇分析观,《山东外语教学》第5期:19-22。
178 项蕴华,2006,政治语篇中全路不对称性的批评性分析,《外语学刊》第2期:25-28。
179 辛斌,1996,语言、权力与意识形态:批评语言学,《现代外语》第1期。
180 辛斌,1997,英语语篇的批评性分析刍议,《四川外语学院学报》第4期:43-49。
181 辛斌、陈腾澜,1999,语篇的对话性分析初探,《外国语》第5期:8-13。
182 辛斌,2000b,语篇互文性的语用分析,《外语研究》第3期:14-16。
183 辛斌,2001,体裁互文性与主体位置的语用分析,《外语教学与研究》第5期:348-352。
184 辛斌,2002a,体裁互文性的社会语用学分析,《外语学刊》第2期:15-21。
185 辛斌,2002b,批评性语篇分析方法论,《外国语》第6期:34-41。
186 辛斌,2005,《批评语言学:理论与应用》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
187 辛斌,2006a,《中国日报》和《纽约时报》中转述方式和消息来源的比较分析,《外语与外语教学》第3期:1-4。
188 辛斌,2006b,福柯的权力论与批评话语分析,《外语学刊》第2期。
189 邢欣,2004,国内法律语言学研究述评,《语言文字应用》第4期。
190 徐涛,2006,机构话语的“越界”,《外语教学》第3期:28-31。
191 徐涛、张迈曾,2004,高等教育话语的新变迁-机构身份再构建的跨学科研究,《河北大学学报》第3期:107-109。
192 杨敏,2004,法律语篇权力意志剖析,《外语与外语教学》第5期。
193 余致纯,1990,《法律语言学》,西安:陕西人民教育出版社。
194 苑春鸣,田海龙,2001,英汉政治语篇的对比分析与批判分析,《天津商学院学报》第5期:53-60。
195 张德禄,刘汝山,2003,《语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展与应用》,上海外语教育出版社。
196 张敏,2002,论英语面试语境与批评话语意识,《西安外国语学院学报》第3期:31-33。
197 张明杰,2005,《改革司法—中国司法改革的回顾与前瞻》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
198 张荣建,2005,批评理论与英语语言教学,《重庆师范大学学报》第5期:114-118。
199 张新红,2001,文本类型与法律文本,《现代外语》第2期。
200 张延续,1998,批评语言学与大众语篇,《解放军外国语学院学报》第6期:24-27。
201 朱嫣然,2001,及物性分析与批评性阅读,《浙江师范大学学报》第3期:101-104。
2 Althusser,L.1971.Ideology and ideological state apparatuses.In L.Althusser(ed.),Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays,London:New Left Books.
3 Atkinson,J.M.and Drew,P.1979.Order in Court:The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings.London:Macmillan.
4 Austin,J.L.1962/2002.How to Do Things with Words.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
5 Bell,Allen,et al(eds.).1998.Approaches to Media Discourse.Blackwell.
6 Bennett,W.L.and M.S.Feldoman.1981.Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom.New Brunswick,N.J.:Rutgers University Press.
7 Berk-Seligson,S.1990.Bilingual court proceedings:The role of the court interpreter.In Judith N.Levi and Anne G.Walker,eds.pp155-202.
8 Billig,Michael.1991.Ideology and Opinions:Studies in Rhetorical Psychology.London:Sage.
9 Blommaert,J.2005.Discourse:A Critical Introduction.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
10 Bolinger,D.1980.Language:The loaded weapon.London/New York:Longman.
11 Boyd-Barrett,O.1994.Language and Media:a Question of Convergence.In David Graddol and Olive Boyd-Barrett(eds.),Media Texts:Authors and Readers.(pp.22-39)Clevendon:Multilingual Matters Ltd.
12 Brown,P and Levinson,S.1987:Politeness:some universals in language usage.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
13 Brown,G.and Yule,G.1983/2000.Discourse Analysis.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
14 Chouliaraki,L.and Fairclough,N.1999.Discourse in late Modernity:Rethinking Critical Discourse Analysis.Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press.
15 Coffin,C.2002.The voices of history:theorizing the interpersonal semantics of historical discourses.Text,(4).
16 Conley,J.M.,and William M.O'Barr.1998.Just Words.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
17 Eades,Diana.1994.A case of communicative clash:Aboriginal English and the legal system.In J.Gibbons,ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.234-64.
18 Eagleson,Robert.1994.Forensic analysis of personal written texts:A case study,In J. Gibbons,ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.363-73.
19 Fairclough,N.1989.Language and Power.Pearson Education Limited.
20 Fairclough,N.1992.Discourse and Social Change.Polity Press.
21 Fairclough,N.1993.Critical Discourse Analysis and the Marketization of Public Discourse:The universities.Discourse and Society,4(2),133-168.
22 Fairclough,N.1995a.Critical discourse analysis:the critical study of language.Longman,
23 Fairclough,N.1995b.Media Discourse.London:Edward Arnold.
24 Fairclough,N.2003.Analysing Discourse:Textual analysis for social research.London:Routledge.
25 Fairclough,N.2007.Language and Globalization.New York:Routledge.
26 Farringdon,Jill M.et al.1996.Analyzing for Authorship-A Guide to the Cusum Technique.Cardiff:University of Wales Press.
27 Fowler,A.1982.Kinds of Literature:An Introduction to the Theory of Genres and Modes.Oxford:Clarendon Press.
28 Fowler,R.1991.Language in the News:Discourse and Ideology in the Press.London/New York:Routledge.
29 Fowler,R.et al.(eds).1979.Language and Control.London:Routledge.
30 Foucault,M.1972.The Archaeology of Knowledge.London:Tavistock Publications.
31 Foucault,M.1981.History of Sexuality,vol.1.Harmondsworth:Penguin Books.
32 Fraser,N.1989.Unruly Practices:Power,Discourse and Gender in Contemporary Social Theory.Cambridge:Polity Press.
33 Gee,J.P.2000.An Introduction to Discourse Analysis:Theory and Method.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
34 Goodrich,P.1987.Legal Discourse:Studies in Linguistics,Rhetoric and Legal Analysis.London:Macmillan.
35 Gramsci,A.1971.Selections from the Prison Notebooks,ed.& trans.Q.Hoare & G.N.Smith.London:Lawrence and Wishart.
36 Grove,Carl D.1999.The Official English Debate in the United States Congress:A Critical Analysis.Doctoral Dissertation of University of Washington.
37 Halliday,M.A.K.1973.Explorations in the Functions of Language.London:Edward Arnold.
38 Halliday,M.A.K.& Hansan,R.1976.Cohesion in English.Longman Group Limited.
39 Halliday,M.A.K.1978.Language as Social Semiotic:The social interpretation of language and meaning.Edward Arnold.
40 Halliday,M.A.K.& Hansan,Ruqaiya.1985.Language,Context,and Text:aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective.Oxford University Press.
41 Halliday,M.A.K.1994.An Introduction to Functional Grammar.Edward Arnold.
42 Hodge,R and Kress,G.1988.Social Semiotics.Cambridge:Polity Press;and Ithaca:Cornell University Press.
43 Jenny,L.1982.The Strategy of Form.In T.Todorov(ed.),R.Carter(trans.),French Literary Theory Today.Cambridge:CUP.
44 Jiang Zemin.1997.Report Delivered at the 15th National Congress of the Communist Party of China
45 Kress,G.and Hodge,R.1979.Language as ideology.Routledge & Kegan Paul.
46 Kristeva,J.1986.Word,Dialogue and Novel.In T.Moi(ed.),The Kristeva Reader,Oxford:Basil Blackwell,34-61.
47 Labov,William and Fanshel,D.1977.Therapeutic Discourse:Psychotherapy as Conversation.New York:Academic Press.
48 Labov,William and Wendell A.Harris.1994.Addressing social issues through linguistic evidence.In J.Gibbons ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.265-305.
49 Lakoff,R.1975.Language and Women's Place.NewYork:Harper.
50 Law Encyclopedia,2007-12-20,from http://www.answers.com/topic/presumption-of-innocence
51 Lazar,Michelle M.2005.Feminist Critical Discourse Analysis:Gender,Power and Ideology in Discourse.Palgrave Macmillan Ltd.
52 Levi,Judith N.and Walker,A.G.1990.Language in the Judicial Process.New York:Plenum Press.
53 Levinson,S.1983.Pragmatics.Cambridge:CUP.
54 Lillian,Donna L.2001.Canadian New Conservative Discourse:A Critical Discourse Analysis.Doctoral Dissertation of York University.
55 Luchjenbroers,J.1997.Barrister talk vs.witness talk:Who's smuggling what? First annual international conference on crime and justice:Email conference.Department of Criminal Justice at University of Arkansas,Little Rock.
56 Martin,J.R.1995.Reading Positions/Positioning Readers:JUDGEMENT in English,Prospect:a Journal of Australian TESOL 10(2):27-37.
57 Martin,J.R.1997.Analysing genre:functional parameters,in Christie,F.& J.R.Martin(eds)Genre and Institutions:social process in the workplace and school London & Washington:Cassell.
58 Martin,J.R.1998.Lectures on Register and Genre.MA course at Sydney University, Australia.
59 Martin,J.R.2000.Beyond exchange:appraisal systems in English.In S.Hunston and G.Thompson(eds.).Evaluation in Text:authorial stance and the construction of discourse.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
60 Matoesian,Gregory M.1993.Reproducing Rape:Domination through Talk in the Courtroom.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
61 Mellinkoff,D.1963.The Language of the Law.Boston:Little,Brown and Company.
62 Mey,J.1993/2001.Pragmatics:An Introduction.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
63 National People's Congress.1982.Constitution of the People's Republic of China.2007-12-28,From http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html.
64 National People's Congress.1999.Criminal Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.Beijing:China Legal System Publishing House.
65 National People's Congress.2000.Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China.Beijing:China Legal System Publishing House.
66 Nolan,F.1994.Auditory and acoustic analysis in speaker recognition.In J.Gibbons ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.326-45.
67 O'Barr,W.1982.Linguistic Evidence:Language,Power and Strategy in the Courtroom.NewYork:Academic Press.
68 O'Halloran,K.2003.Critical Discourse Analysis and Language Cognition.Edinburgh:Edinburgh University Press Ltd.
69 Pecheux,M.1982:Language,Semantics and Ideology.London:Maclillan.
70 Pennycook,A.2001.Critical Applied Linguistics:a Critical Introduction.Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.,Publishers.
71 Phillipson,R.1992.Linguistic Imperialism.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
72 Potter,J and Wetherell,M.1987.Discourse and Social Psychology:beyond attitudes and behaviour.London:Saga Publications.
73 Rieber,Robert W.and William A.Stewart.1990.The Language Scientist as Expert in the Legal Setting:Issues in Forensic Linguistics.New York:The New York Academy of Sciences.
74 Richards,Jack C,Platt,J & Platt,H.2000.Longman Dictionary of Language Teaching &Applied Linguistics.Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
75 Sacks,H.,Schegloff,E.and Jefferson,G.1974.A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking in Conversation.Language,50,695-735.
76 Scollon,R & Levine,P.2004.Multimodal Discourse Analysis as the Confluence of Discourse and Technology.Washington DC.:Georgetown University Press.
77 Searle,J.R.1965.What is a speech act? In M.Black(ed)Philosophy in America.London:Allen and Unwin.
78 Schegloff,E.1968.Sequencing in conversational openings.The American Anthropologist,70(6),1075-1095.
79 Schegloff,E and Sacks,H.1973.Opening up closings.Semiotica,8,289-327.
80 Sheyholislamy,J.2001."Yesterday's "Separatists" are today's "Resistance Fighters:" A Critical Discourse Analysis of the Representations of Iraqi Kurbs in The Globe and Mail and The New York Times.Unpublished MA Thesis,Carleton Univcrsity,Canada.
81 Shi Guang.2004.Corrective Feedback and Learner Uptake:the Case of EFL Middle School Classrooms.M.A.Graduation Thesis of Nanjing Normal University.
82 Simpson,P.1993.Language,Ideology and Point of View.New York:Routledge.
83 Sinclair,J.and Coulthard,M.1975.Towards an Analysis of Discourse:the English used by Teachers and Pupils.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
84 Solan,Lawrence M.1993.The Language of Judges.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
85 Stygall,G.1994.Trial Language:Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation.Philadelphia,PA:John Benjamins.
86 Shuy,Roger W.1987.The Language of Confession,Interrogation and Deception.Thousand Oaks CA:Sage.
87 Thomas,L.Wareing,S.Singh,I.Peccei,J.S.Thornborrow,J & Jones J.2004.Language,Society and Power.London:Routledge.
88 Thompson,G.1996.Introducing Functional Grammar.London:Arnold.
89 Thompson,J,B.1990.Ideology and Modern Culture.Cambridge:Polity Press.
90 Tiersma,Peter M.1999.Legal Language.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
91 Tollefson,J.1991.Planning Language,Planning Inequality:Language Policy in the Community.New York:Longman.
92 Toolan,M.2002.Critical Discourse Analysis:Critical Concepts in Linguistics.London &New York:Routledge.
93 Trew,T.1979.'What the papers say':Linguistic variation and ideological difference.In Fowler,R.et al.(eds).Language and Control(pp.117-156).London:Routledge.
94 van Dijk,T.1995.Discourse Semantics and Ideology.Discourse and Society,Vol(6)2:243-289
95 van Dijk,T.1998.Ideology.London:Sage.
96 van Dijk,T.2001.Critical Discourse Analysis.In D.Tannen,D.Schiffrin & H.Hamilton (Eds.),Handbook of Discourse Analysis.(pp.352-371).Oxford:Blackwell.
97 Walsh,M.1994.Interactional styles in the courtroom.In J.Gibbons ed.,Language and Law.Harlow:Longman.217-33.
98 Wang Zhenghua.2003.Engagement in Interaction:an Appraisal Approach.Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation of Henan Universtiy.
99 White,P.R.2007-12-18 from AppraisalAnalysis@yahoogroups.com.
100 Widdowson,H.G.2004.Text,Context,Pretext:Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis.Blackwell Publishing.
101 Wodak,R.& Chilton,P.2005.A New Agenda in(Critical)Discourse Analysis:Theory,Methodology and Interdisciplinarity.John Benjamins B.V.
102 Woolark,Kathryn A.1998.Introduction:Language Ideology as a Field of Inquiry.in Language Ideologies:Practice and Theory.Ed.Bambi B.Schieffelin,Kathryn A.Woolark,and Paul V,Kroskrity.Oxford:Oxford University Press.pp.3-47
103 Wu Peng.2007.A Study on the Interruption in Chinese Courtroom Discourse--Goal,Power,and Interruption.Unpublished MA Thesis of Jiangsu University.
104 Xin Bin.2000a.Intertextuality from a Critical Perspective,Suzhou:Suzhou University Press.
105 Zhu Laoshi.2007-09-06,2007-12-19 from http://legalsystem.iblog.com/
106 曹广涛,2003,汉英对比研究中的权力话语,《四川外语学院学报》第5期:130-156。
107 陈炯,1998,法律语言学概论,西安:陕西人民教育出版社。
108 陈腾澜,2000,西方法律语言研究方法刍议,《复旦学报》第2期。
109 陈忠华、杨春苑、赵明炜,2002,批评性话语分析述评,《外语学刊》第1期:82-86。
110 陈中竺,1995a,批评语言学述评,《外语教学与研究》第1期:21-27。
111 陈中竺,1995b,语篇与意识形态:批评性语篇分析《外国语》第3期。
112 程汉大,2004,本是同根生 相去何其远——英国陪审制与欧陆纠问制探源,《美中法律评论》第1期。
113 戴炜华、陈宁韵,2004,批评语篇分析的理论和方法,《外语研究》第4期:12-16。
114 戴炜华、高军,2002,批评语篇分析:理论述评与实例分析,《外国语》第6期。
115 丁建新、廖益清,2001,批评话语分析述评,《当代语言学》第4期:305-310。
116 董晓波,2006,语言与法律——谈西方法律语言研究方法的嬗变,《社会科学战线》第2期。
117 杜金榜,2000,从目前的研究看法律语言学学科体系的构建,《现代外语》第1期。
118 杜金榜,2001,从法律语言的模糊性到司法结果的确定性,《现代外语》第3期。
119 杜金榜,2002,法律语言心理学的定位及研究现状,《现代外语》第1期。
120 杜金榜,2003,论法律语言学研究及其发展,《广东外语外贸大学学报》第1期。
121 杜金榜,2004a,法律语言学,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
122 杜金榜,2004b,中国法律法规英译的问题和解决,《中国翻译》第3期。
123 杜金榜,2004c,中文文本累积和分析技术,《修辞学习》第6期。
124 杜金榜,2005,法律交流原则与法律翻译,《广东外语外贸大学学报》第4期。
125 葛云锋、杜金榜,2005,法庭问话中的话题控制与信息获取,《山东外语教学》第6期。
126 公静、方琰,2005,英语法庭辩论语篇的概念功能分析,《外语研究》第3期:11-16。
127 胡壮麟,2007,社会符号学研究中的多模态化,《语言教学与研究》第1期:1-10。
128 胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子,2005,《系统功能语言学概论》,北京:北京大学出版社。
129 李发根,2004,小句经验功能与翻译,《外语与外语教学》第7期:46-50。
130 李杰,2005,情态的表达与意识形态的体现,《外语学刊》第4期:49-55。
131 李丽生,2003,从阅读理论的发展看培养批评性阅读能力的重要性,《四川外语学院学报》第1期:147-149。
132 李丽生,2005,应用语言学研究的新路径,《四川外语学院学报》第2期:78-83。
133 李诗芳,2005,中文民事判决书的情态意义分析,《现代外语》第3期。
134 李曙光,2006,新闻语篇对话性初探-情态语言资源视角,《外语与外语教学》第4期:60-63。
135 李素玲,2004,批评性语篇分析:发展概况与应用前景,《山东外语教学》第5期:23-26。
136 李战子,2004,评价理论:在话语分析中的应用和问题,《外语研究》第5期:1-6。
137 李战子、高一虹,2002,功能语法与批评性话语分析的结合点,《外语研究》第3期:78-79。
138 廖美珍,2002a,从问答行为看中国法庭审判现状,《语言文字应用》第4期。
139 廖美珍,2002b,《问答:法庭话语互动研究》,中国社会科学院研究生院博士论文。
140 廖美珍,2003a,《法庭问答及其互动研究》,北京:法律出版社。
141 廖美珍,2003b,法庭语言实证报告,《Law and Life》第6期。
142 廖美珍,2004a,国外法律语言研究综述,《当代语言学》第1期:66-76。
143 廖美珍,2004b,法庭语言技巧,北京:法律出版社。
144 廖美珍,2004c,答话研究——法庭答话的启示,《修辞学习》第5期。
145 廖美珍,2004d,目的原则与法庭互动话语合作问题研究,《外语学刊》第5期。
146 廖美珍,2005a,“目的原则”与目的分析(上)——语用研究新途径探索,《修辞学习》第3期。
147 廖美珍,2005b,“目的原则”与目的分析(下)——语用话语分析新途径,《修辞学习》 第4期。
148 廖美珍,2005c,目的原则与语篇连贯分析,《外语教学与研究》第5期。
149 廖美珍,2006a,中国法庭互动话语formulation现象研究,《外语研究》第2期。
150 廖美珍,2006b,论法学的语言转向,《社会科学战线》第2期。
151 刘红婴,2003,《法律语言学》,北京:北京大学出版社。
152 刘蔚铭,2003a,《法律语言学研究》,北京:中国经济出版社。
153 刘蔚铭,2003b,关于Forensic Linguistics的中文名称问题,《外语教学》第5期。
154 吕万英,2005a,《法庭问答及其互动研究》评介,《现代外语》第2期。
155 吕万英,2005b,英语新闻标题批评性分析,《广东外语外贸大学学报》第2期:49-52。
156 吕万英,2006,法官话语的权力支配,《外语研究》第2期:10-13。
157 马煜,2005,国内法律语言学研究状况分析综述,《山东外语教学》第6期:34-37。
158 潘庆云,1997,《跨世纪的中国法律语言》,上海:华东理工大学出版社。
159 潘庆云,2004,西方法律语言学初探,《修辞学习》第1期。
160 彭建武、郭秀珍,2005,两篇新闻报道的批评性分析,《外国语言文学研究》第3期:16-22。
161 任芳,2002,新闻语篇句式模型的批评性分析,《解放军外国语学院学报》第5期:19-23。
162 施光,2007,批评话语分析研究综述,《学术论坛》第4期。
163 施光,法庭审判话语中的情态系统——以一场民事诉讼案为例,(待发表)。
164 孙懿华,周广然,1997,《法律语言学》,北京:中国政法大学出版社。
165 田海龙,2002,政治语言研究:述评与思考,《外语教学》第1期:23-29。
166 田海龙,2004,病历报告:抗击非典的话语实践,《中国社会语言学》第1期:113-124。
167 田海龙,2006,语篇研究的批评视角:从批评语言学到批评话语分析,《山东外语教学》第2期:40-48。
168 王建,2005,法律英语中的名物化结构及其汉译探析,《山东外语教学》第6期。
169 王洁,1996,《法律语言学教程》,北京:法律出版社。
170 王洁,1999,《法律语言研究》,广州:广东教育出版社。
171 王洁,2005,依法治国语境下法律语言研究的科学发展观,《语言文字应用》第3期。
172 王晋军,2002,CDA与SFL关系分析,《山东外语教学》第6期:10-13。
173 王晋军,2002,医生和病人会话中的问句与权势关系,《解放军外国语学院学报》第5期:10-14。
174 王振华,2001,评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展,《外国语》第6期:13-20。
175 王振华,2006,“自首”的系统功能语言学视角,《现代外语》第1期。
176 吴伟平,2002,《语言与法律——司法领域的语言学研究》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
177 项蕴华,2004,简述Fairclough的语篇分析观,《山东外语教学》第5期:19-22。
178 项蕴华,2006,政治语篇中全路不对称性的批评性分析,《外语学刊》第2期:25-28。
179 辛斌,1996,语言、权力与意识形态:批评语言学,《现代外语》第1期。
180 辛斌,1997,英语语篇的批评性分析刍议,《四川外语学院学报》第4期:43-49。
181 辛斌、陈腾澜,1999,语篇的对话性分析初探,《外国语》第5期:8-13。
182 辛斌,2000b,语篇互文性的语用分析,《外语研究》第3期:14-16。
183 辛斌,2001,体裁互文性与主体位置的语用分析,《外语教学与研究》第5期:348-352。
184 辛斌,2002a,体裁互文性的社会语用学分析,《外语学刊》第2期:15-21。
185 辛斌,2002b,批评性语篇分析方法论,《外国语》第6期:34-41。
186 辛斌,2005,《批评语言学:理论与应用》,上海:上海外语教育出版社。
187 辛斌,2006a,《中国日报》和《纽约时报》中转述方式和消息来源的比较分析,《外语与外语教学》第3期:1-4。
188 辛斌,2006b,福柯的权力论与批评话语分析,《外语学刊》第2期。
189 邢欣,2004,国内法律语言学研究述评,《语言文字应用》第4期。
190 徐涛,2006,机构话语的“越界”,《外语教学》第3期:28-31。
191 徐涛、张迈曾,2004,高等教育话语的新变迁-机构身份再构建的跨学科研究,《河北大学学报》第3期:107-109。
192 杨敏,2004,法律语篇权力意志剖析,《外语与外语教学》第5期。
193 余致纯,1990,《法律语言学》,西安:陕西人民教育出版社。
194 苑春鸣,田海龙,2001,英汉政治语篇的对比分析与批判分析,《天津商学院学报》第5期:53-60。
195 张德禄,刘汝山,2003,《语篇连贯与衔接理论的发展与应用》,上海外语教育出版社。
196 张敏,2002,论英语面试语境与批评话语意识,《西安外国语学院学报》第3期:31-33。
197 张明杰,2005,《改革司法—中国司法改革的回顾与前瞻》,北京:社会科学文献出版社。
198 张荣建,2005,批评理论与英语语言教学,《重庆师范大学学报》第5期:114-118。
199 张新红,2001,文本类型与法律文本,《现代外语》第2期。
200 张延续,1998,批评语言学与大众语篇,《解放军外国语学院学报》第6期:24-27。
201 朱嫣然,2001,及物性分析与批评性阅读,《浙江师范大学学报》第3期:101-104。