【作者】 程朝阳；

【导师】 廖美珍；

【作者基本信息】 中国政法大学 ， 法学理论， 2007， 博士

【摘要】 首先,需要说明的是,本文是关于法庭调解语言或语言使用(话语)的研究。法庭调解话语作为本研究的核心概念,贯穿于整个论文的始终,将各章节串联成一个意义的整体。本文主要从调解话语本体(如调解话语的结构、行为)和调解话语在法庭特定语境下的功能以及话语与各种语境因素(包括目的、角色、权力、修辞)之间的互动关系两个维度展开。当然,这种所谓本体与功能的(或语境互动的)区分,并不是纯净的、绝对的,在具体章节针对具体问题展开论述的过程中,两者经常相互交错、相互补充。因此,从整体上看,除了第一章的绪论和最后一章的结论之外,文章本体按照研究内容和分析角度的不同可划分为两大部分:第一部分包括第二、第三两章,第二部分包括第四、第五、第六、第七四章。前者主要是一种去语境的(de-contextual)、本体的、静态的分析,后者则更多地是一种语境的(contextual)、功能的、动态的研究。这两大部分共同构成了本文的主体。在第一章,即绪论中,作者首先对本文所属的法律语言学(法庭语用学)这一学科的产生、发展和研究现状做了一番粗略的勾勒,目的是为本文将要进行的法庭调解语言的语用研究提供一个完整的学科背景和理论框架。接着作者比较详细地介绍了法庭语用学之下一个十分重要的分支——本文所要具体展开的法庭调解语用学研究的一些基本情况,包括本文的主要内容、研究原因、目的以及意义等,作为本文的导入部分。正文第一大部分,即第二、第三章是对我国法庭调解话语的一种静态分析,换言之,主要是一种脱离语境的、将语言(话语)作为对象的描述性研究。第二章描述了整个法庭调解话语的结构,包括宏观上与整个调解过程相关的结构模式和微观上与具体的调解话语活动、话语行为相关的话语互动模式。第三章是关于调解话语行为本身的论述,在这一章中,作者对与话语行为相关的各种理论、研究成果进行了梳理,并结合实际语料,具体分析了不同话语行为的功能和作用。从第四章开始,包括第四、五、六、七四章,是正文的第二大部分。如果说正文前一部分的内容主要是一种脱离语境的、本体的、静态的分析,后者则更多地是一种语境结合的、功能的、动态的研究。第四章,作为第二部分的开始章节,首先论述了法庭调解话语作为一种机构话语的性质和特征。作者认为,法庭调解话语作为机构话语的典型形式,主要是由法庭话语中的角色、话语目的、话语策略、话语中的权力使用等要素构成和决定的,并通过这些要素与话语之间的互动展现出来。因此,第四、五、六、七四章是对法庭调解话语机构性的进一步延伸和拓展,都是以调解话语的机构性作为论述的基础和前提的。在第五章接下来的内容中,作者分别从社会学和语言学的角度具体考察了调解话语中的“角色”(话语活动中的社会角色和话语角色)概念,以及角色与调解话语使用之间的互动关系。第五章,“法庭调解话语与权力”,对法庭调解机构话语中一个十分重要的变量——权力作出了探讨。本章从“权力”概念的社会学考察开始,描述了话语与权力之间的关系和前人对法庭话语中的权力问题的研究,并在此基础上通过真实的语料示例,对法庭调解话语与权力互动作出了自己的论述。第六章,“法庭调解话语与目的”。作者从学者们对人类行为的目的性、话语中的目的问题的研究出发,认为法庭调解话语行为属于目的性、社会性行为,具体论述了法庭调解话语中的目的和目的关系,以及目的和目的关系与话语运用之间的互动。第七章,“法庭调解话语与修辞”。作者认为,调解就是一门言辞说服的艺术,说服性是调解话语的基本属性。文章接着对西方古典修辞学中以理性说服为特征的人文传统进行了考察,认为代表这一传统的亚里士多德的说服修辞学思想与调解的说服性有着内在的一致性、契合性,亚里士多德修辞学中论及的说服技巧可以创造性地运用于法庭调解话语实践,以增强调解话语的说服性,实现调解活动的说服目的。第八章是本论文的结论部分。总结了本文的主要内容、重要发现和可能启示,指出了本研究的特色与创新之处,以及其中存在的不足和未来研究的设想。更多还原

【Abstract】 The whole paper consists of eight chapters. Chapter One is an introduction, which intends to introduce the theoretical background and the overall framework of the whole dissertation. At first, it briefly examines the academic history of language and the law study which proves later to have laid a solid foundation for the forensic linguistics coming into being as a formal subject, and reviews the recent developments and accomplishments of forensic linguistic studies. And then it provides a survey of the present paper, including its main contents, research value and significance, and the academic theory and study methods to be employed. In general, Chapter One as a whole is a preparation for the forthcoming study of this paper.The last chapter, Chapter Eight as the conclusion part summerizes the main points and important findings of this study. In addition, it highlights its significance once again, makes some explanations over its limits and shortcomings, and indicates the possible improvements and further researches in this field in the future.The body of the current paper is fundamentally composed of two parts, all concentrating on the pragmatic use of language in court-connected mediation. The first part, including Chapter Two and Chapter Three, is relatively a static and decontextual (context-independent) analysis of court-related mediation discourse. Chapter Two elaborates the discourse structure which can be divided into macro and micro ones. Chapter Three takes language behavior as the theme, in particular describing different types of discourse acts and their usage and corresponding functions in carrying out specific mediating activities. Meanwhile, these two chapters provide a starting point and a study platform for the next part.The second part, made up of the last four chapters, is in comparison a more dynamic and contextual (context-dependent) study of language use in court mediation. It expounds four essential aspects of discourse behavior occurring in court-connected mediation, through empirical and pragmatic analysis of various texts transcribed from recordings of 13 genuine court-related mediation discourses. Chapter Four is mainly about roles which mediation participants take and play, esp. the dynamic interaction between different roles and their corresponding linguistic acts. It concludes that different roles prescribe different speech acts and language uses, meanwhile different language uses and linguistic behavior help establish and consolidate different role expectations, role takings and role playings.They are constantly in an interaction. In Chapter Five, power as an important social factor is thoroughly discussed and investigated through different language examples. The author argues that power and the use of power are manifested and achieved by means of various strategic linguistic acts in mediation. In Chapter Six, another important inherent factor of institutional discourse, the purpose is taken into consideration and fully explored. It finds that as a typical institutional discourse, the oral mediation interaction is goal-oriented and task-loaded. The ultimate institutional goal and purpose in court-related mediation decide the particular personal interaction goals and purposes of the mediation participants, and accordingly their language behavior. Different goals and purposes on the other hand are manifested and attained by means of participants’specific discourse acts. Chapter Seven explains in detail the possible application of pragmatic rhetoric strategies and arts by mediators in persuasive discourse during mediation, esp. the employment of Aristotle’s classical rhetoric of persuasion in mediation discourse.更多还原