1887
image of Judges’ reformulations in judicial interpretation in Chinese judgments
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

In hybrid legal contexts in China, judges’ speech acts of reformulating rules serve to demonstrate their ideological and linguistic preferences in law enforcement. A comparative analysis of judges’ reformulations in judgments in the traditional (imperial) and contemporary periods in this study discloses a disparity in their speech style over time. Though judges in the two periods both navigate between the ethical discourse and the legal discourse in the negotiation of meaning in law, traditional judges are found to have reformulated rules from various sources, particularly those of Confucian classics, acting as more of a constructive legal interpreter. In contrast, contemporary judges tend to reformulate rules of the codified law in a more monologic style, thereby displaying greater respect for the autonomy of law in their reformulations. These differences are interpreted from a socio-cultural standpoint.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.21002.zha
2024-08-08
2024-09-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Anthony, Laurence
    2014AntConc 3.2.4. (Computer software.) Tokyo: Waseda University. Available online at: https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Austin, John Langshaw
    1962How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bakhtin, M. Mikhail
    1984Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. 10.5749/j.ctt22727z1
    https://doi.org/10.5749/j.ctt22727z1 [Google Scholar]
  4. Cao, Deborah
    2004Chinese Law: A Language Perspective. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2007 “Legal Speech Acts as Intersubjective Communicative Action”. InAnne Wagner, Wouter Werner and Deborah Cao (eds), Interpretation, Law and the Construction of Meaning, –. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑5320‑7_4
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5320-7_4 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2009 “Illocutionary Acts of Chinese Legislative Language”. Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.08.003 [Google Scholar]
  7. Charnock, Ross
    2009 “Overruling as a Speech Act”. Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.008
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.008 [Google Scholar]
  8. Chen, Chongye
    2010古代判词300篇 (‘300 Selected Chinese Judgments in Ancient Times’). Shanghai: Shanghai Guji Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheng, Shude
    1990论语集释 (‘The Analects: An Interpretation’). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Conte, Maria-Elisabeth
    1985 “Two Types of Performativity and Two Types of Speech Acts”. International Pragmatics Association Conference. September 1985. Viareggio.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Dallmayr, Fred
    1992 “Hermeneutics and the Rule of Law”. InDrucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld and David Gray Carlson (eds), Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Derrida, Jacques
    1986Memoires: For Paul de Man. New York: Columbia University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 1992 “Forces of Law: The ‘Mysterious Foundation of Authority’”. InDrucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld and David Gray Carlson (eds), Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Ferraz de Almeida, Fabio and Paul Drew
    2020 “The Fabric of Law-in-Action: ‘Formulating’ the Suspect’s Account During Police Interviews in England”. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law (): –. 10.1558/ijsll.38527
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.38527 [Google Scholar]
  15. Garfinkel, Harold and Harvey Sacks
    1986 “On Formal Structures of Practical Action”. InHarold Garfinkel (ed.), Ethnomethodological Studies of Work, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Giltrow, Janet and Dieter Stein
    (eds) 2017The Pragmatic Turn in Law: Inference and Interpretation in Legal Discourse. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1515/9781501504723
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504723 [Google Scholar]
  17. Good, Jeffrey
    2015 “Reported and Enacted Actions: Moving beyond Reported Speech and Related Concepts”. Discourse Studies (): –. 10.1177/1461445615602349
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445615602349 [Google Scholar]
  18. Guan, Wei
    2013 “论中国古代判词说理性修辞的意蕴及其价值趋向” (‘On the Connotative Use and Orientations of the Argumentative Rhetoric in Chinese Imperial Judgments’). 法律方法 (‘Journal of Legal Method’) (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, Yong
    2015 “Yin (Nondisclosure/Rectification), Zhi (Fairness/Straightforwardness), and Ren (Responsibility): A New Round of Debate Concerning Analects 13.18.” Contemporary Chinese Thought (): –. 10.1080/10971467.2015.1016792
    https://doi.org/10.1080/10971467.2015.1016792 [Google Scholar]
  20. IBM Corp
    IBM Corp 2013SPSS Statistics for Windows (Version 22.0). New York: IBM Corp.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Jin, Rentan and Guochi Wu
    2003断案精华 (‘A Collection of Classical Lawsuits’). 福州 (Fuzhou): 海峡文艺出版社 (‘Haixia Literature and Art Publishing House’).
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara
    2009 “Speech Acts in Early English Court Trials”. Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.009
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  23. Körner, Henrike
    2000 Negotiating Authority: The Logogenesis of Dialogue in Common Law Judgements. (Unpublished PhD thesis.) Sydney: Sydney University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Kurzon, Dennis
    1986It is Hereby Promulgated: Explorations into Legal Speech Acts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Liao, Meizhen
    2006 “中国法庭互动话语(re)formulation现象研究” (‘(Re)formulation in Chinese Courtroom Interaction’), 外语研究 (‘Foreign Language Research’) : –.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Liu, Bing
    2008 “‘亲亲相隐’与 ‘大义灭亲’” (‘Mutual Non-disclosure’ and ‘Upholding Justice at the Cost of One’s Blood Relation’). 社会科学论坛 (‘Tribune of Social Sciences’) : –.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Matoesian, Gregory
    2000 “Intertextual Authority in Reported Speech: Production Media in the Kennedy Smith Rape Trial”. Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(99)00080‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00080-6 [Google Scholar]
  28. Olsen, Frances
    2017 “Pragmatic Interpretation by Judges: Constrained Performatives and the Deployment of Gender Bias”. InJanet Giltrow and Dieter Stein (eds), The Pragmatic Turn in Law: Inference and Interpretation in Legal Discourse, –. Boston and Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9781501504723‑009
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781501504723-009 [Google Scholar]
  29. Philips, Susan
    1985 “Strategies of Clarification in Judges’ Use of Language: From the Written to the Spoken”. Discourse Processes (): –. 10.1080/01638538509544625
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538509544625 [Google Scholar]
  30. 1998Ideology in the Language of Judges. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oso/9780195113402.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780195113402.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  31. Rosenfeld, Michel
    1992 “Deconstruction and Legal Interpretation”. InDrucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld and David Gray Carlson (eds), Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Shi, Guangquan
    2006The Comprise of Li and Law and Historical Changes of Chinese Traditional Legal Culture. Beijing: Law Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Solan, Lawrence
    1993The Language of Judges. Chicago: Chicago University Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  34. Su, Li
    2001 “判决的背后” (‘Logic in Judgments’). 法学研究 (‘Chinese Journal of Law’) (): –.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Supreme People’s Court of PRC
    Supreme People’s Court of PRC 2021China Judgement Online. Accessed in 2015 at: wenshu.court.gov.cn/
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Vass, Holly
    2017 “Lexical Verb Hedging in Legal Discourse: the Case of Law Journal Articles and Supreme Court Majority and Dissenting Opinions”. English for Specific Purposes: –. 10.1016/j.esp.2017.07.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2017.07.001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Visconti, Jacqueline
    2009 (Editorial) “Speech Acts in Legal Language: Introduction.” Journal of Pragmatics (): –. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.007 [Google Scholar]
  38. Volosinov, Valentin Nikolaevich
    1973Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. New York: Seminar Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Wagner, Anne, Wouter Werner and Deborah Cao
    (eds) 2007Interpretation, Law and the Construction of Meaning. Dordrecht: Springer. 10.1007/1‑4020‑5320‑7
    https://doi.org/10.1007/1-4020-5320-7 [Google Scholar]
  40. Wang, Shirong
    1997Rhetorical Perspective to Traditional Judgements. Beijing: China University of Politics and Law Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Weber, Samuel
    1992 “In the Name of the Law”. InDrucilla Cornell, Michel Rosenfeld and David Gray Carlson (eds), Deconstruction and the Possibility of Justice, –. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Zhang, Jinfan
    2003中国法制史 (‘History of Chinese Legal Systems’). Beijing: Higher Education Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhang, Zhongqiu
    2006中西法律文化比较研究 (‘Comparative Study of Chinese and Western Legal Cultures’). Beijing: China University of Politics and Law Press.
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.21002.zha
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/jhp.21002.zha
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keywords: reformulation ; dialogism ; judgments ; speech act
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