Engagement in Chinese criminal judgments

IF 0.5 4区 文学 N/A LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS
Guang Shi, Xi Wang, Lijun Zhou
{"title":"Engagement in Chinese criminal judgments","authors":"Guang Shi, Xi Wang, Lijun Zhou","doi":"10.1515/psicl-2022-0027","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Based on the engagement system in Appraisal Theory and taking 100 Chinese criminal judgments as data, this paper analyzes the distribution features and interpersonal functions of engagement resources in Chinese criminal judgments. The findings are as follows. First, in Chinese criminal judgments, dialogic contractive resources outnumber dialogic expansive ones. Of the nine types of engagement resources, Deny takes the largest proportion. Entertain, Acknowledge, Pronounce, and Endorse are also favored by judges, while Counter, Endorse+Pronounce, Concede, Endorse+Acknowledge, and Distance are much less favored. Second, the dialogic space is adjusted in different parts of judgments due to different engagement strategies, narrowing down in the Head, Fact, and Reason parts, then nearly closing up in the Result part, and finally opening up in the Ending part. Third, Deny, Pronounce, Endorse+Pronounce, Endorse, and Distance are used to show that criminal judgments are just, authoritative, persuasive, and compulsory. By acknowledging the arguments and submissions that have been presented, judges are showing respect for the litigation rights of the various parties, while the featured strategies of Counter, Concede, and Entertain increase the acceptability of the judgments.","PeriodicalId":43804,"journal":{"name":"Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Poznan Studies in Contemporary Linguistics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/psicl-2022-0027","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"N/A","JCRName":"LANGUAGE & LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Based on the engagement system in Appraisal Theory and taking 100 Chinese criminal judgments as data, this paper analyzes the distribution features and interpersonal functions of engagement resources in Chinese criminal judgments. The findings are as follows. First, in Chinese criminal judgments, dialogic contractive resources outnumber dialogic expansive ones. Of the nine types of engagement resources, Deny takes the largest proportion. Entertain, Acknowledge, Pronounce, and Endorse are also favored by judges, while Counter, Endorse+Pronounce, Concede, Endorse+Acknowledge, and Distance are much less favored. Second, the dialogic space is adjusted in different parts of judgments due to different engagement strategies, narrowing down in the Head, Fact, and Reason parts, then nearly closing up in the Result part, and finally opening up in the Ending part. Third, Deny, Pronounce, Endorse+Pronounce, Endorse, and Distance are used to show that criminal judgments are just, authoritative, persuasive, and compulsory. By acknowledging the arguments and submissions that have been presented, judges are showing respect for the litigation rights of the various parties, while the featured strategies of Counter, Concede, and Entertain increase the acceptability of the judgments.
参与中国刑事判决
摘要本文以评价理论中的契约制度为基础,以100份中国刑事裁判文书为数据,分析了中国刑事裁判文书中契约资源的分布特征及其人际功能。研究结果如下。首先,在中国刑事判决中,对话收缩资源多于对话扩张资源。在9种参与度资源中,否定所占比例最大。“招待”、“承认”、“宣布”和“认可”也受到评委的青睐,而“反击”、“认可+宣布”、“让步”、“认可+承认”和“距离”则不受评委青睐。其次,由于不同的参与策略,对话空间在判断的不同部分被调整,在Head, Fact和Reason部分缩小,然后在Result部分接近闭合,最后在Ending部分开放。第三,Deny, Pronounce,背书+Pronounce,背书,Distance表示刑事判决是公正的,权威的,有说服力的,强制性的。法官通过承认已经提出的论据和意见,体现了对各方诉讼权利的尊重,而具有特色的Counter, Concede,和招待策略增加了判决的可接受性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信