Volume 10, Issue 2
  • ISSN 1877-7031
  • E-ISSN: 1877-8798
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This paper analyzes resistance in the preference organization of criminal trial interaction from a conversation analytic perspective, with examples taken from an 11-hour video corpus of 20 PRC (People’s Republic of China) criminal trials from 2016–2018. Defendants’ dispreferred responses to judges’ questions are then analyzed to determine how resistance is constructed and handled by judges. Defendants are found to construct resistance implicitly and orient to out-of-courtroom stance, objects and topics, while judges respond by reorienting to broader legal matters of guilt and in-court actions. Previous research on PRC criminal trials has focused mainly on questions and turn formulation by judges and procurators (Liao, 20032012Gao, 2003Zhang and Jin, 2004Meng, 2009); this study complements existing research by analyzing defendants’ speech in its interactional context.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Paul Drew
    1979Order in court. Oxford Socio-Legal Studies. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities. 10.1007/978‑1‑349‑04057‑5
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5 [Google Scholar]
  2. Chang, Yanrong
    (2004) “Courtroom questioning as a culturally situated persuasive genre of talk.” Discourse & Society, 15(6), 705–722. 10.1177/0957926504046501
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504046501 [Google Scholar]
  3. Chen, Jianfu
    2013Criminal law and criminal procedure law in the People’s Republic of China: Commentary and legislation, trans. bySuiwa Ke. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. 10.1163/9789004234451
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004234451 [Google Scholar]
  4. Clayman, Steven E.
    2001 “Answers and Evasions.” Language in Society, 30(3): 403–442. 10.1017/S0047404501003037
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404501003037 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2013 “Agency in response: The role of prefatory address terms.” Journal of Pragmatics, 57, 290–302. 10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.12.001 [Google Scholar]
  6. Comrie, Bernard; Haspelmath, Martin and Bickel, Balthasar
    2008 “The Leipzig glossing rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses.” Retrieved fromhttps://www.eva.mpg.de/lingua/pdf/Glossing-Rules.pdf
  7. Congressional-Executive Commission on China
    Congressional-Executive Commission on China 2016 “Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.” Retrieved fromhttps://www.cecc.gov/resources/legal-provisions/criminal-procedure-law-of-the-peoples-republic-of-china
  8. Conley, John and William O’Barr
    1990Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Drew, Paul
    1992 “Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape.” InTalk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. byPaul Drew and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Foucault, Michel
    1977Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Alan Sheridan, trans.New York: Vintage Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Jefferson, Gail
    2004 “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” InConversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. byG. H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
    https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef [Google Scholar]
  12. Liao, Meizhen
    2012 “Courtroom discourse in China.” InThe Oxford handbook of language and law, ed. byPeter M. Tiersma and Lawrence M. Solan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Matoesian, Gregory
    2008 “You Might Win the Battle but Lose the War: Multimodal, Interactive, and Extralinguistic Aspects of Witness Resistance.” Journal of English Linguistics, 36(3), 195–219. doi:  10.1177/0075424208321202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424208321202 [Google Scholar]
  14. McConville, Mike and S. Choongh
    2011Criminal justice in China: An empirical inquiry. Edward Elgar. 10.4337/9780857931917
    https://doi.org/10.4337/9780857931917 [Google Scholar]
  15. Pomerantz, Anita
    1984 “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, eds.57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Stivers, Tanya and Makoto Hayashi
    2010 “Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints.” Language in Society, 39, 1–25. 10.1017/S0047404509990637
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404509990637 [Google Scholar]
  17. 中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法 [Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Xingshi Susong Fa) Amended 2012) Promulgated by the National People’s Congress, March14 2012)] Retrieved fromwww.gov.cn/flfg/2012-03/17/content_2094354.htm
  18. 中国庭审公开网 [China Open Trial Proceedings Online (Zhongguo Tingshen Gongkai Wang), Accessed2016 December 6.] Retrieved fromtingshen.court.gov.cn/
  19. 最高人民法院工作报告 (2018) [The Supreme People’s Court Work Report (Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Gongzuo Baogao) 2018.] Retrieved fromwww.court.gov.cn/zixun-xiangqing-87832.html
  20. 北京高级人民法院工作报告 (2018) [Beijing Gaoji Renmin Fayuan Gongzuo Baogao (Beijing Supreme People’s Court Work Report) (2018).] Retrieved fromzhengwu.beijing.gov.cn/jh/t1508582.htm
  21. 孟新爱:法庭问话中合作原则违反与信息获取《怀化学院学报》。 2010年10期1–3页[Meng, Xin’ai. 2009. “The violation of the cooperation principle and information access in court questioning.” Journal of Huaihua University, 10: 1–3.]
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 廖美珍:中国法庭互动话语对应结构研究。《语言科学》 2003 年9 月第 2 卷第5期(总第6期) 77 一 89 页。 [Liao, Meizhen. 2003. “Research on the structure of exchange in interactive discourse in Chinese courts.” Yuyan Kexue. 2(5): 77–89.]
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 廖美珍:中国法庭互动话语formulation现象研究 《外语研究》Foreign Languages Research 2006 年第 2 期总第 96 期 [Liao, Meizhen. 2006. “Research on the phenomenon of formulation in Chinese courtroom interaction.” Foreign Languages Research 96.]
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 廖美珍. 答话研究——法庭答话的启示[J]. 修辞学习 2004(05):29–34. [Liao, Meizhen. 2004. “Research on Response: Lesson on Courtroom Response.” Xiuci Xuexi. 5: 29–34.]
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 孙亚迪与廖美珍:法庭解述话语现象的生成机制研究。《湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》 2017年04期。 [Sun, Yadi and Meizhen Liao. 2017. “Research on the generation mechanism for the phenomenon of courtroom formulation.” Hubei University Bulletin (Philosophy and Social Sciences Version), 4.]
    [Google Scholar]
  26. 张丽萍与金孝柏:刑事法庭上的合作交际研究:法官一被告人庭审会话分析。《广东外语外贸大学学报》 2004 年7月第15卷第3期。 [Zhang, Liping and Xiaobo Jin. 2004. “Research on cooperative exchange in criminal court: courtroom conversation analysis of the judge and defendant.” Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. 15(3) 43–46.]
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 张志铭:审判方式改革再思考。《法学研究》 1995 第四期。 [Zhang, Zhiming. 1995. “A Further Thought on the Reform of the Trial Process.” Studies in Law (Faxue Yanjiu) 4: 93–96.]
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 高 华:刑事法庭调查中的填表式问句初探《语言教学与研究》 2003 年第4 期37–44页。 [Gao, Hua. 2003. A preliminary exploration of fill-in-the-blank style questions in criminal trial investigation. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu. Vol.4, 37–44.] 10.1258/002367703762226755
    https://doi.org/10.1258/002367703762226755 [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): courtroom interaction; implicit resistance; preference organization
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error