The structural format and rhetorical variation of writing Chinese judicial opinions
A genre analytical approach
As Chinese legal system follows a statutory tradition, the writing of Chinese judicial opinions is normally considered as an
invariant sequential process of stating the law, presenting the fact, and finally providing the conclusion. The official ideology
is further reinforced by the fact that Chinese judges need to follow various authoritative writing guidelines and templates
prescribed by the official bodies of legal profession. This paper examines to what extent this ideology is a trustworthy
description, and to what extent it is only an imagined myth related to the rhetorical practices of Chinese legal profession.
Theoretical constructs employed in the study are genre, text type, and rhetorical modes, and analytical data include exemplar
judicial opinions, intertextual legislative documents, and insiders’ accounts. According to the research findings, while the
official ideology remains a strong shaping force in the composing of Chinese judicial opinions, Chinese judges do take compelling
moves to add dialogic elements to the traditionally monologue-dominated discursive sphere of legal writing.
Article outline
- 1.The unchangeable deductive format of judicial opinions
- 2.The ideology and reality of judicial opinions
- 3.A genre analytical approach to judicial opinions
- 3.1Genre and text type
- 3.2Data and analysis
- 4.The rhetorical variations beyond the deductive writing format
- 4.1Argumentation
- 4.2Narration
- 4.3Exposition
- 4.4Instruction
- 5.Conclusion
- Acknowledgements
- Note
-
References
References (42)
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y.
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Archer, Dawn
2011 “
Cross-examining Lawyers, Facework and the Adversarial Courtroom.”
Journal of Pragmatics 43 (13): 3216–3230.
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1975/1981 The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Bhatia, Vijay K.
1993 Aanalysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, Vijay K.
1997 “
Genre Analysis Today.”
Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 75 (3): 629–652.
Bhatia, Vijay K.
2008 “
Creativity and Accessibility in Written Professional Discourse.”
World Englishes 27 (3/4): 319–326.
Blitvich, Pilar
2010 “
A Genre Approach to the Study of Im-politeness.”
International Review of Pragmatics 2 (1): 46–94.
Cheng, Le, King Kui Sin, and Ying-Long Zheng
2008 “
Contrastive Analysis of Chinese and American Court Judgments.”
Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2 (1): 49–58.
Conley, John M., and William M. O’Barr
1990 Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Duke, Nell K., Samantha Caughlan, Mary Juzwik, and Nicole Martin
2012 Reading and Writing Genre with Purpose in K-8 Classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Goffman, Erving
1959 The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.
Hafner, Chris A.
2013 “
The Discursive Construction of Professional Expertise: Appeals to Authority in Barrister’s Opinions.”
English for Specific Purposes 32 (3): 131–143.
Han, Zhengrui
2011 “
The Discursive Construction of Civil Judgments in Mainland China.”
Discourse & Society 22 (6): 743–765.
Han, Zhengrui
2012 Legal Communication of Chinese Judiciary: A Discourse-based View. Bern: Peter Lang.
Han, Zhengrui
2016 “
The Mediatisation of Chinese Corporate Communication: A Linguistic Approach.”
East Asian Pragmatics 1 (1): 127–147.
Han, Zhengrui, and Li Xiaoyu
2011 “
Discourse of International Commercial Arbitration: The Case of Mainland China.”
Journal of Pragmatics 43 (5): 1380–1391.
Harris, Sandra
1995 “
Pragmatics and Power.”
Journal of Pragmatics 23 (2): 117–135.
Heffer, Chris
2005 The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hubbard, Frances K., and Lauren Spencer
2012 Write to Inform. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.
Hyland, Ken
2004 Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.
Johnstone, Barbara
2001 “
Discourse Analysis and Narrative.” In
The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by
D. Schiffrin,
D. Tannen, and
H. E. Hamilton, 635–649. Oxford: Blackwell.
Kádár, Daniel
2013 Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kalscheur, Heidi A.
2012 “
About ‘Face’: Using Moral Rights to Increase Copyright Enforcement in China.”
Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 39 (2): 513–538.
Kennedy, George A.
1991 Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Labov, William
2011 “
Oral Narratives of Personal Experience.” In
Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, ed. by
P. C. Hogan, 546–548. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Labov, William, and Joshua Waletzky
1967 “
Narrative Analysis.” In
Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, ed. by
J. Helm, 12–44. Seattle: U. of Washington Press. Reprinted in
Journal of Narrative and Life History 71: 3–38.
Leflar, Robert A.
1961 “
Some Observations Concerning Judicial Opinions.”
Columbia Law Review 61(5): 810–820.
Leung, Janny H. C.
2012 “
Judicial Discourse in Cantonese Courtrooms in Postcolonial Hong Kong: The Judge as a Godfather, Scholar, Educator and Scolding Parent.”
The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 19 (2): 239–261.
Liang, Huixing
2011 A General Introduction to Civil Law. Beijing: Law Press.
Maley, Yon
1985 “
Judicial Discourse: The Case of Legal Judgment.” In
The Cultivated Australian, ed. by
J. E. Clark, 159–175. Hamburg: Buske.
Mao, Luming R.
1993 “
I Conclude Not: Toward a Pragmatic Account of Metadiscourse.”
Rhetoric Review 11 (2): 265–289.
Martin, J. R., and David Rose
2009 Genre Relations: Mapping Cultures. London: Equinox.
Merry, Sally E.
1990 Getting Justice and Getting Even. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Paltridge, Brian
2002 “
Genre, Text type, and the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Classrooms.” In
Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspective, ed. by
Ann M. Jones, 73–90. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Purcell-Gates, Victoria, Nell K. Duke, and Joseph A. Martineau
2007 “
Learning to Read and Write Genre-specific Text: Roles of Authentic Experience and Explicit Teaching.”
Reading Research Quarterly 42 (1): 8–45.
Simons, Herbert W., and Jean G. Jones
2011 Persuasion in Society (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.
Stevenson, Drury
2003 “
To Whom is the Law Addressed.”
Yale Law & Policy Review 21 (1): 105–167.
Van Den Hoven, Paul
2011 “
The Unchangeable Judicial Formats.”
Argumentation 451: 499–511.
Van Leeuwen, Theo J.
2008 Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Vázquez-Orta, Ignacio
2013 “
Authoritative Intervention in Legal Discourse: A Genre-based Study of Judgments and Arbitration Awards.”
Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada 261: 91–103.
Wells, Michael
1994 “
French and American Judicial Opinions.”
Yale Journal of International Law 191: 81–133.
Zhang, Liping
2007 “
Evaluation in the Language of Law: Appraisal and Its Linguistic Realizations in Chinese Courtroom Discourse (以“评”说“法”: 法庭辩论中的评价资源与实现手段).”
Foreign Language Teaching (
外语教学) 61: 29–33.
Cited by (1)
Cited by 1 other publications
Liu, Wenjie, Zhengrui Han, Haiqing Chen & Wei Ren
2021.
Discursive practice of Chinese criminal adjudication: A genre perspective.
Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 86
► pp. 69 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 15 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers.
Any errors therein should be reported to them.