英语毕业论文主要阐述为了尊重公诉人和被告人在法庭上如何履行其目的，以及他们如何不能恰当地陈述自己的论点，本研究从语篇转录的语言学分析入手。然后作者将语境考虑进去，探讨了为什么双方通过分析语境的原因而呈现出不同的语言行为。《电子科学技术与应用》(ISSN刊号：2251-2608)衷心邀请来自世界各地的学者们投稿，来稿会进行同行评审。本刊属开放获取刊，可以即时查看或访问研究结果，同时允许免费使用学者的研究成果。本刊致力于出版电子和电子工程领域全面和最新发展的高质量学术论文。我们为电子和电子工程领域广泛的研究人员和专业人士提供了一个交流和信息交换平台。
1.1 Research Background
As a regulation among people in the society, law is of distinct social character. The orientation of the development of legal system strongly represents the advancement of society. Being a product of the social development of certain stage in itshistory, the legal system keeps changing, while its pattern of advancement varies due to respective forms of past societies. Courtroom discourse, as a linguistic presentation of legal practice, reflects the situation that legal system is strongly effected and constructed, by the macro-situation of society, and vice versa. Wu Ying, born at May 20th, 1981, was the former legal representative of Bense Holding Group Co., Ltd. As the Defendant in the People against Wu Ying Case (hereafter WY Case), she was accused of fraudulent fund-raising, and arrested on March 16th, 2007. Based on the revered case facts, the Defendant lured the victims by committing high rates of benefit, raising over 14 million RMB from several victims. Burdened with millions of liability, the Defendant kept illegally raising funds by committing high rates of interest and dividend. Using the unlawful capital, the Defendant registered several companies. To cover up her heavy debt, she made several moves such as acquiring multiple real estates, making investments and donations, launching false sales promotions to create an image of a being an owner of a well-functioned corporation.
........
1.2 Definition of Courtroom Discourses
Courtroom discourse is given different definition by respective researchers, where foreign scholars take a large proportion. According to Atkinson and Drew (1979:8-18), courtroom discourse is a course of linguistic interaction. In comparison to ordinary discourse in daily life, courtroom discourse covers two different sides. Firstly, courtroom discourse is not actual conversation between two persons, or among people. It is so because most of the contents in court were pre-organized statements of courtroom participants, i.e. judge, prosecutor and defendant. Courtroom discourse is a linguistic reproduction of the case-related information, such as fact, course and evidence. This indicates those statements do not generate new information about the case. Any exchange of information that emerges is strictly regulated by procedure. Secondly, during courtroom trial, details such as the person who initiates the question, content of questioning, and in which phase is question allowed should follow Law of Procedure and related interpretation (Atkinson & Drew, 1979:8-18). Maley defines courtroom discourse as “a linguistic progress of spoken language (see Gibbons, 1994:35)”. Confrontation usually embeds in judicial process, especially in courtroom. Discourse generated in courtroom is filled with structural elements, each phase of a trial in court is filled with some obligated structural elements of courtroom discourses. As Conley and O’Barr argued, “the structural element determines that no speaker in court is taken as privileged (Conley & O’Barr, 1998:21).”
.......
CHAPTER TWO LTERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Domestic Researches on This Study
Mood analysis has bee
n used to discover the linguistic advantage of both sides in the cross-examination. In Wang Zhenhua’ study on the Simpson Case (2008), he discovered the interpersonal relation expressed during cross-examination. Based on the author’s analysis, it is concluded that objective speech with a positive attitude made the speaker stand on a rather advantageous position. On the opposite, subjective speech with an unclear attitude made the speaker stand on a less advantageous position. Systemic-Functional is also a method employed for the analysis of features of English in court debate. Gong Jing’s study took clause as its major unit for analysis, discussing the types of process of verbs as well as lexical choices employed in the transitivity processes (2005). Findings in this study summarized how the ideational functions are realized through the processes and lexical choices. Studies have also been conducted focusing on the realization of persuasive reasoning in courtroom discourse from the perspective of transaction-oriented information processing. Du Jinbang tagged the data from CLIPS to see the distribution pattern of transaction-oriented information in courtroom discourses (2010). Elaboration was conducted on the pattern of information distribution, the linguistic realization of transaction-oriented information and its function and attitudes expressed in information processing. The author believes that proper use of transaction-oriented information can improve the effects of persuasive reasoning.
.........
2.2 Overseas Researches on This Study
The influence imposed by attorney varied with the pattern of questioning. The pattern of questioning showed the character of forcible typology. A specific questioning pattern would lead to a particular response, which is of coerciveness. For example, a declarative question such as tag question (it is you who did this, isn’t it?) is of the strongest coerciveness (meaning strictly limited the possibility of witness’s acceptable response, even pointed out the response), however an open-ended wh-question, such as who, what, where, when and why showed rather light sight of coerciveness. Here what Danet (see Berk-Seligson, 1990) and his colleague chose as the metric to measure the strength of coerciveness is the length of the response. The more coercive is the question, the shorter the response is offered by the witness. A strongly coercive question such as a tag question tended to generate a “yes/no” response, which normally is rather short, while an open-ended wh-question frequently leaded to a rather long response, which is of long sentence or several sentences combined as a narrative discourse.
