中国刑事法庭审判话语中的修正特点及成因研究

发布时间：2018-05-27 09:03

本文选题：刑事审判话语 + 修正　；参考：《华中师范大学》2014年硕士论文

【摘要】：本文运用会话分析的方法,对中国刑事审判话语中修正现象的特点及成因进行了分析。重点剖析了修正与刑事法庭参与者(法官,公诉人,被告,辩护律师)之间的关系以及不同修正类型在庭审各阶段的分布情况,并对修正成因提供了语言学解释。为了契合对于庭审语篇中修正现象的研究,我们将Schegloff, Jefferson和Sacks (SJS)基于日常会话提出的理论框架做了些许调整。根据新调整的修正模式,我们在搜集到的刑事审判话语语料中共识别出六种修正类型,包括四种成功修正类型(自我引导自我修正,自我引导他人修正,他人引导自我修正和他人引导他人修正),修正失败以及修正搁置。分析还发现,不同庭审参与者运用修正实现的功能也各有不同：法官运用修正策略实现的功能最多,如向被告解释法律术语和讯问意义,确认自身以及被告对于案件细节描述的准确性以及保证庭审环节的秩序。公诉人和辩护律师主要运用修正策略确保自身以及被告描述案件的准确性。而被告将修正多用于为自己辩护或询问讯问意义。另外,法庭参与者的修正特色也各有不同：法官和公诉人时常会打断被告人以发起修正；律师运用修正通常是为了补充对被告有利的信息；被告在听到对自己不利的案情描述时也会通过打断来引发修正；所有庭审参与者中,只有被告会使用沉默来引发修正。此外,我们还尝试用Grice的合作原则对修正现象的成因进行了一些探讨。我们发现大部分所列举的法庭修正现象的产生都是为了遵循方式准则以及质量准则,而其中也有少部分违背了合作原则,并产生出一定的会话含义。我们希望这次对法庭修正的研究,能对其他特定场合的交际语境中的修正现象研究提供一点理论上的借鉴,也希望通过这次研究,为提高中国刑事审判效率有所启示。
[Abstract]:Using conversational analysis, this paper analyzes the characteristics and causes of correction in Chinese criminal trial discourse. The relationship between the amendment and the participants in the criminal court (judges, prosecutors, defendants, defense lawyers) and the distribution of different revision types in different stages of the trial are analyzed, and the linguistic explanation of the causes of the amendments is provided. In order to fit the research on the phenomenon of revision in court discourse, we have adjusted the theoretical framework proposed by Schegloff, Jefferson and Sacks SJS on the basis of daily conversation. According to the newly adjusted revision model, we have identified six types of correction in the collected criminal trial discourse data, including four types of successful correction (self-guiding self-correction, self-guiding others correction). Others guide self-correction and others guide others to fix, fix failure, and modify shelving. It is also found that different trial participants have different functions using the amendment: judges use the correction strategy to achieve the most functions, such as explaining the legal terms to the defendant and the significance of interrogation. Confirm the accuracy of the details of the case and ensure the order of the trial. Prosecutors and defense lawyers mainly use corrective strategies to ensure the accuracy of their own and defendants' description of the case. The defendant will use the correction to defend himself or to question the significance of the interrogation. In addition, the Tribunal participants have different characteristics of amendments: judges and prosecutors often interrupt the accused to initiate amendments; lawyers usually use amendments to supplement information in favour of the accused; When the defendant hears a description of the case against him, he will interrupt to trigger the correction; of all the participants in the trial, only the defendant will use silence to trigger the correction. In addition, we also try to use Grice's principle of cooperation to explore the causes of the correction phenomenon. We find that most of the listed court correction phenomena are produced in order to follow the rules of manner and quality, and a few of them violate the principle of cooperation and produce a certain conversational implicature. We hope that this research on the revision of the court can provide some theoretical reference for the study of the phenomenon of correction in the communicative context of other specific situations, and also hope that this study can provide some enlightenment for improving the efficiency of criminal trial in China.
【学位授予单位】：华中师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：H15

【参考文献】