1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Pragmatics and Society
  4. Volume 11, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 11, Issue 4
  • ISSN 1878-9714
  • E-ISSN: 1878-9722
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The traditional simplistic understanding of legal genre as homogeneous texts of legalese is recently confronted by researches focusing on the contextual aspects of legal communication, i.e. the production, circulation, and consumption of legal genres in diverse institutional contexts (Candlin and Maley 1997D’hondt and Van Der Houwen 2014). It is, according to these researches, more reasonable to think of legal genres as a hybrid combining the operation of different heterogeneous discourses. This article takes the broad contextual perspective, draws on the theory of critical genre analysis (Bhatia 2016) and attempts to explore the discursive heterogeneity in one of the Chinese legal genres – the lawyers’ defense opinions. Both textual and interpretative analysis are conducted in order to identify specific discourses that underline Chinese lawyers’ preparation of defense opinions, and to look at how Chinese lawyers linguistically construct the different discourses to fulfill the ultimate purpose of justifying the defendant’s actions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/ps.17030.han
2020-11-20
2025-02-13

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/ps.17030.han
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bagguley, Paul
    1991 “Post-Fordism and enterprise culture: Flexibility, autonomy and changes in economic organization.” InEnterprise Culture, ed. by Russell Keat and Nicholas Abercrombie . 151–170. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1981 The Dialogic Imagination (trans. by M. Holquist , and C. Emerson ; ed. by M. Holquist ). Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. 1986 Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (trans. by V. McGee ; ed. by C. Emerson and M. Holquist ). Austin: University of Texas Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca , and Catherine Nickerson
    (eds.) 2014 Writing Business: Genres, Media and Discourses. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315840246
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315840246 [Google Scholar]
  5. Bateman, John A.
    2008 Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230582323
     https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230582323 [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazerman, Charles
    2004 “Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts.” inWhat Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices, ed. by Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior . 83–96. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. Bazerman, Charles , and Paul Prior
    (eds.) 2004 What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. Bhatia, Vijay K.
    1993 Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Harlow: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. 2004 Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. 2008 “Towards critical genre analysis.” inAdvances in Discourse Studies, ed. by Vijay Bhatia , John Flowerdew , and Rodney Jones . 166–177. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9780203892299
     https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203892299 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2015 “Critical genre analysis: Theoretical preliminaries”. Hermes54: 9–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. 2017 Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Practice. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. Biber, Douglas , Stig Johansson , Geoffrey Leech , Susan Conrad , and Edward Finegan
    1999 Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. Breeze, Ruth
    2013 “Lexical bundles across four legal genres”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics18(2): 229–253. 10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre [Google Scholar]
  15. Bremner, Stephen
    2014 “Genres and processes in the PR industry: Behind the scenes with an intern writer”. International Journal of Business Communication51(3): 259–278. 10.1177/2329488414525398
     https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488414525398 [Google Scholar]
  16. Candlin, Christopher N. , and Ken Hyland
    (eds.) 1999 Writing: Texts, Processes, and Practices. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. Candlin, Christopher N. , and Yon Maley
    1997 “Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the discourse of alternative dispute resolution.” inThe Construction of Professional Discourse, ed. by L. Gunnarsson , P. Linell , and B. Nordberg . 201–222. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Cheng, Le
    2010 “A semiotic interpretation of genre: court judgments as an example”. Semiotica182: 89–113.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Cheng, Le , and K. K. Sin
    2008 “A court judgment as dialogue.” InDialogue and Rhetoric, ed. by Edda Weigand . 267–281. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 10.1075/ds.2.21che
     https://doi.org/10.1075/ds.2.21che [Google Scholar]
  20. Conley, John M. , and William M. O’Barr
    1990 Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. Davies, Sarah R.
    2009 “Doing dialogue: Genre and flexibility in public engagement with science.” Science as Culture18(4): 397–416. 10.1080/09505430902870591
     https://doi.org/10.1080/09505430902870591 [Google Scholar]
  22. Devitt, Amy J.
    1991 “Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential and functional.” inTextual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities, ed. by Charles Bazerman and James Paradis . 336–355. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. D’hondt, Sigurd , and Fleur van der Houwen
    2014 “Quoting from the case file: How intertextual practices shape discourse at various stages in the legal trajectory”. Language & Communication36(2): 1–6. 10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.008
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2013.12.008 [Google Scholar]
  24. Elkins, James R.
    1982 “Moral discourse and legalism in legal education”. Journal of Legal Education32(1): 11–52.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. Fairclough, Norman
    1992 Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. 1994 “Technologisation of discourse.” inTexts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard . 71–83. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. Fineman, Martha
    1988 “Dominant discourse, professional language, and legal change in child custody decision making.” Harvard Law Review101: 272–774. 10.2307/1341172
     https://doi.org/10.2307/1341172 [Google Scholar]
  28. Fishelov, David
    1993 Metaphors of Genre: The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. Frow, John
    2006 Genre. London: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. Giltrow, Janet , and Dieter Stein
    (eds.) 2008 Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
     [Google Scholar]
  31. Goffman, Erving
    1981 Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  32. Hafner, Christoph A.
    2010 “A multi-perspective genre analysis of the Barrister’s Opinion: Writing context, generic structure, and textualization.” Written Communication27(4): 410–441. 10.1177/0741088310377272
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088310377272 [Google Scholar]
  33. 2013 “The discursive construction of professional expertise: Appeals to authority in barrister’s opinions.” English for Specific Purposes32(3): 131–143. 10.1016/j.esp.2013.01.003
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2013.01.003 [Google Scholar]
  34. Halliday, M. A. K.
    1978 Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. Han, Zhengrui
    2011 “The discursive construction of civil judgments in Mainland China.” Discourse & Society22(6): 743–765. 10.1177/0957926511419924
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926511419924 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2014 “The marketization of public discourse: The Chinese universities.” Discourse & Communication8(1): 85–103. 10.1177/1750481313503221
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481313503221 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2016 “The mediatization of Chinese corporate communication: A linguistic approach.” East Asian Pragmatics1(1): 127–147. 10.1558/eap.v1i1.26969
     https://doi.org/10.1558/eap.v1i1.26969 [Google Scholar]
  38. Han, Zhengrui , and Xiaoyu Li
    2011.” Discourse of international commercial arbitration: The case of Mainland China.” Journal of Pragmatics43(5): 1380–1391. 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.022
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2010.10.022 [Google Scholar]
  39. Hantler, Steven B. , Victor E. Schwartz , and Phil S. Goldberg
    2004 “Extending the privilege to litigation communications specialist sin the age of trial by media.” CommLaw Conspectus13: 7–34.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. Hart, Christopher
    2008 “Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: Toward a theoretical framework.” Critical Discourse Studies5(2): 91–106. 10.1080/17405900801990058
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900801990058 [Google Scholar]
  41. 2014 Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspective. London: Bloomsbury.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. Harwood, Nigel , and Gregory Hadley
    2004 “Demystifying institutional practices: Critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing.” English for Specific Purposes23(4): 355–377.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. He, Xin , and Kwai Huang Ng
    2013 “In the name of harmony: The erasure of domestic violence in China’s judicial mediation.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family27(1): 97–115. 10.1093/lawfam/ebs014
     https://doi.org/10.1093/lawfam/ebs014 [Google Scholar]
  44. Hobbs, Pamela
    2008 “‘It’s not what you say but how you say it’: The role of personality and identity in trial success.” Critical Discourse Studies5(3): 231–248. 10.1080/17405900802131744
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17405900802131744 [Google Scholar]
  45. Irvine, Judith T.
    1979 “Formality and informality in communicative events.” American Anthropologist81(4): 773–790. 10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020
     https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020 [Google Scholar]
  46. Jacobs, Scott
    2009 “Commentary on Paul Van Den Hoven’s ‘Argument Discourse as a Sign’.” InArgument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 (CD-ROM), ed. by J. Ritola . 1–3. Windsor, Ont.: OSSA.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. Jones, Rodney H.
    2015 “Generic intertextuality in online social activism: The case of the It Gets Better Project.” Language in Society44(3): 317–339. 10.1017/S0047404515000214
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404515000214 [Google Scholar]
  48. Kim, Jae Won
    2001 “The ideal and the reality of the Korean legal profession.” Asian-Pacific law & Policy Journal2(1): 45–68.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. Kolln, Martha
    2003 Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects (4th ed.). New York: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Kristeva, Julia
    1986 “Word, dialogue, and novel.” InThe Kristeva Reader, ed. by T. Moi . 36–61. Oxford: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  51. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara
    2009 “Speech acts in Early Modern English court trials.” Journal of Pragmatics41(3): 440–457. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.06.009 [Google Scholar]
  52. Kurzon, Dennis
    1986 It is Hereby Performed…: Explorations in Legal Speech acts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pb.vii.6
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pb.vii.6 [Google Scholar]
  53. 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 Law19(2): 239–261. 10.1558/ijsll.v19i2.239
     https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v19i2.239 [Google Scholar]
  54. Lerman, Lisa G.
    2005 “Greed among American lawyers.” Oklahoma City University Law Review30: 611–636.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Li, Yunlong
    2012 Collection of Chinese Lawyers’ Defense Opinions – Li Yunlong (中国大律师辩护词代理词精选: 李云龙专辑). Beijing: China Law Pres.
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Lin, Duan
    2002 Confucianism and Chinese Legal Cultures (儒家伦理与法律文化). Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  57. MacCormick, Neil
    2005 Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571246.001.0001
     https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199571246.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  58. Martin, Jim R. , and David Rose
    2003 Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. Merry, Sally Engle
    1990 Getting Justice and Getting Even. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. Posner, Richard A.
    1999 The problematics of moral and legal theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Richardson, John E.
    2007 Analysing Newspaper: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1007/978‑0‑230‑20968‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-230-20968-8 [Google Scholar]
  62. Rotunda, Ronald D.
    1999 “The legal profession and the public image of lawyers.” The Journal of Legal Profession23: 51–64.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Russell, David R. , and David Fisher
    2009 “Online, multimedia cases studies for professional education.” InGenres in the Internet, ed. by J. Giltrow and D. Stein . 163–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.188.07rus
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.188.07rus [Google Scholar]
  64. Sarangi, Srikant
    2000 “Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity: The case of genetic counseling.” InDiscourse and Social Life, ed. by S. Sarangi and M. Coulthard . 1–27. London: Pearson Education.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Sarangi, Srikant , and Christopher N. Candlin
    2010 Applied linguistics and professional practice: mapping a future agenda. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice7(1): 1–9. 10.1558/japl.v7i1.1
     https://doi.org/10.1558/japl.v7i1.1 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sarangi, Srikant , and Celia Roberts
    1999 “Discursive hybridity in medical work.” InTalk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, ed. by S. Sarangi and C. Roberts . 61–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110208375.2.61
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110208375.2.61 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sarangi, Srikant , and Stefan Slembrouck
    1996 Language, Bureaucracy and Social Control. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  68. Shaffer, Thomas L.
    1979 “Advocacy as moral discourse.” North Carolina Law Review57: 647–670.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Searle, John
    1969 Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  70. Spenader, Jennifer , and Emar Maier
    2009 “Contrast as denial in multi-dimensional semantics.” Journal of Pragmatics41(9): 1707–1726. 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.005
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2008.10.005 [Google Scholar]
  71. Swales, John
    1990 Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  72. 2009 “Worlds of genre – Metaphors of genre.” InGenre in a Changing World, ed. by C. Bazerman , A. Bonini , and D. Figueirede . 3–16. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press. 10.37514/PER‑B.2009.2324.2.01
     https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2009.2324.2.01 [Google Scholar]
  73. Tessuto, Girolamo
    2006 “Opinions of counsel: An exploratory survey.” InExplorations in Specialized Genres, ed. by Vijay Bhatia and Maurizio Gotti . 297–309. Bern: Lang.
     [Google Scholar]
  74. Tian, Wenchang
    2013 Collection of Chinese Lawyers’ Defense Opinions – Tian Wenchang (中国大律师辩护词代理词精选: 田文昌专辑). Beijing: China Law Pres.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Tickoo, Asha
    2010 “On assertion without free speech.” Journal of Pragmatics42(6): 1577–1594. 10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.009
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2009.11.009 [Google Scholar]
  76. Tiersma, Peter M.
    1999 Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  77. Trosborg, Anna
    1995 “Statutes and contracts: An analysis of legal speech acts in the English language of the law.” Journal of Pragmatics23(1): 31–53. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00034‑C
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00034-C [Google Scholar]
  78. Van den Hoven, Paul
    2011 “The unchangeable judicial formats.” Argumentation45: 499–511. 10.1007/s10503‑011‑9229‑4
     https://doi.org/10.1007/s10503-011-9229-4 [Google Scholar]
  79. Van Dijk, Teun A.
    1993 “Principles of critical discourse analysis.” Discourse & Society4(2): 249–283. 10.1177/0957926593004002006
     https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926593004002006 [Google Scholar]
  80. Van Leeuwen, Theo
    2007 “Legitimation in discourse and communication.” Discourse & Communication1(1): 91–112. 10.1177/1750481307071986
     https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986 [Google Scholar]
  81. Wang, Jiuchuan
    2016 Collection of Chinese Lawyers’ Defense Opinions – Wang Jiuchuan (中国大律师辩护词代理词精选: 王九川专辑). Beijing: China Law Pres.
     [Google Scholar]
  82. Xiong, Yaoming
    2007 “The origins and development of adversary trials (辩论主义: 溯源与变迁)”. Modern Law Journal (现代法学) 2007 (February): 91–98.
     [Google Scholar]
  83. Zhu, Hongqiang , Wei Ren , and Zhengrui Han
    2016 “The impact of marketization on the communication of Chinese academicians: A genre analytical perspective.” Critical Discourse Studies13(5): 467–484. 10.1080/17405904.2016.1169194
     https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2016.1169194 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.17030.han
Loading
Analyzing interdiscursivity in legal genres
Pragmatics and Society 11, 615 (2020); https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17030.han
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.17030.han
/content/journals/10.1075/ps.17030.han
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Chinese legal context; critical genre analysis; discursive innovations; interdiscursivity; lawyering practices; legal writing

Most Cited

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