Functions of Courtroom Responses in Cognitive Context Construction and the Realization of Litigants’ Communicative Aims in Chinese Court Hearing
In Chinese court hearing, litigants usually make responses to the questions of the judge or the public prosecutor on the basis of their communicative aims. However, few studies have been conducted to investigate the process how their communicative aims are realized. This paper, based on the relevant theories on cognitive context construction, aims to reveal the functions of courtroom responses in the construction of cognitive context and how litigants realize their communicative aims thereby. It is found that litigants’ responses in Chinese court hearing usually take four forms: H-Act, S-Act, H+S-Act and E-Act. They participate actively in the construction of such cognitive context as “knowledge script”, “psychological schema” and “socio-psychological representation”. It is through the construction of cognitive context with the different forms of responses that litigants finally realize their communicative aims.
Key words: Courtroom responses; Cognitive context; Communicative aims; Court hearing
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court. London: Macmilian Academic and Professional Ltd..
DU, Jinbang (2008). A Study on Implicit Persuasion in Legal Discourse. Modern Foreign Languages, 31(3), 253-262.
DU, Jinbang (2009). A Study of the Functions of Courtroom Questioning and Answering and Participants’ Communicative Objective Attainment. Modern Foreign Languages, 32(4), 360-368.
Eades, D. (2000). I Do Not Think It Is an Answer to the Question: Silencing Aboriginal Witnesses in Court. Language in Society, 29(2), 161-195.
Edmonson, W. (1981). Spoken Discourse: A Model for Analysis. New York: Longman Group Limited.
Ehrlich, S. (1999). Communities of Practice, Gender, and the Representation of Sexual Assault. Language in Society, 28(2), 239-256.
GE, Yunfeng (2010). A Study on Information Prominence and the Realization of Prosecutorial Function in Courtroom Interaction. Shandong Foreign Language Teaching Journal, 6, 88-95.
Fodor, J. A. (1983). Modularity of Mind. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, Ray (1997). The Architecture of the Human Mind. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1994). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. Edward Arnold Publishers Ltd..
LIAO, Meizhen (2005). Trial Communication Strategies. Beijing: Law Press.
Philips, S. (1998). Ideology in the Language of Judges: How Judges Practice Law, Politics, and Courtroom Control. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. W. (1993). Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986/1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
SUN, Yihua, & ZHOU, Guangran (1997). Forensic Linguistics. Beijing: China University of Politic Science and Law Press.
van Dijk, T. A. (2008). Discourse and Context: A Socio-Cognitive Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Verschueren, Jef. (2000). Understanding Pragmatics. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
WANG, Jie (1999). Legal Language Research. Guangzhou: Guangdong Education Press.
XIONG, Xueliang (1996). Pragmatics and Cognitive Context. Foreign Language Research, 3, 1-7.
XU, Zhanghong, & LI, Bing (2006). A Study on the Adaptation of Over-Informative Courtroom Responses. Foreign Languages Research, 2, 14-18.
- There are currently no refbacks.
If you have already registered in Journal A and plan to submit article(s) to Journal B, please click the CATEGORIES, or JOURNALS A-Z on the right side of the "HOME".
We only use three mailboxes as follows to deal with issues about paper acceptance, payment and submission of electronic versions of our journals to databases: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
Copyright © Canadian Academy of Oriental and Occidental Culture
Address: 730, 77e AV, Laval, Quebec, H7V 4A8, Canada
Telephone: 1-514-558 6138