法庭交叉询问的邻近应对分析

发布时间：2021-08-17 02:51

　　法庭对话是口头的互动过程。它的抗辩性质贯穿于构成庭审的各个阶段：出庭的证人既享有被己方律师提问的权利，又承担接受对方律师质证的义务；任何类型的庭审，律师／公诉人都有权在庭审前申明代理、辩护意见，并在庭审结束时进行总结陈词；陪审团出庭的案件中，法官还要向陪审团做出关于法律适用的指令。虽说每个阶段对庭审都不可或缺，但质证辩论还是被认为是实现司法公正的核心之所在。法律语言研究者从权力分配、庭审技巧等方面对其作了大量研究。 本文力图从邻近应对的角度来分析庭审中的交叉询问。交叉询问中，律师／公诉人可以使用不同的方式质疑证人证词、引导证人／被告作答或将所诉之罪归责于被告。这方面的研究以Drew（1979）和Drew（1990）为代表，其研究多集中于纠错（correction）、改正（repair）和叙事（narrative），笔者将选择邻近应对（adjacency pair）作为切入点。关于邻近应对，Schegloff,Sacks和Pomerantz提出了不同的特点，如方式条件（conditional relevance）、顺序条件（relative ordering）和优选条件（prefe... 

【文章来源】：广东外语外贸大学广东省

【文章页数】：82 页

【学位级别】：硕士

【文章目录】：
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



本文编号：3346910