DU Jinbang
Guangdong University of Foreign Studies
Based on Du (2012)
1．Introduction
In the domain of legal language, courtroom discourse is representative of information processing and utilization which constitute the core of the interaction between participants in the courtroom. Thus the research into this aspect may be illuminating for the whole process of courtroom trial.
In the light of previous research in communication and information processing, the interactive model of information processing in the courtroom setting (see Figure 1) is developed which comprises three tiers: the first is the interactive orientations of participants who often have different attitudes toward a specific piece of information, and the social relations of the participants as are formed in the courtroom context, on which the attitudes are based; the second is the linguistic strategies which are employed by the participants to realize their goals of communication; the third is the specific linguistic devices used which are the embodiment of the strategies.
Figure 1 The Interactive Model
The model may hopefully cast light upon similar studies of different legal languages and in different legal contexts.
2. The Hierarchy of Information Processing
2.1 Interactive Orientations in the Courtroom
Instead of giving consideration only to unilateral choice making, it is also essential to consider the common interests of all participants and thus their common focus of attention and efforts. Since in the courtroom, unlike quarrelling, argumentation proceeds with the one to one dialogue, the common focus of attention and efforts of participants can be classified into two alternatives, i.e., co-X and uni-X. X here signifies an effort with specific purpose and desire while co signifies “common” and uni, “unilateral”.
For the X slot, two polar options can be decided first, one being pursuance, the other evasion, illustrating the efforts that the participant makes to ensure that something happens or does not happen. Evasion is effort consuming. Since what one participant wants to evade may be the other’s focus, he has to make an effort to ensure what he evades does not happen. Otherwise he cannot evade it. Between the two, there is the third that is more effort saving, abandonment, though abandoning something may not be always easy. This list can go on and on. But concepts with nuances can be bothersome in the actual analysis of data.
Each X can be the choice of one or both parties in the dialogue in the courtroom situation. So the total options amount to six: Co-pursuance, Uni-pursuance, Co-abandonment, Uni-abandonment, Co-evasion and Uni-evasion.
Co-pursuance refers to the common efforts of two or more participants to pursue a piece of information, showing that they have similar interests rather than disputes. They bring into focus some information. When the efforts are of a single participant, it is uni-pursuance.
Co-abandonment is the abandonment of information by both parties or by two or more participants who might have pursued it. If one participant abandons, uni-abandonment arises.
Co-evasion refers to the efforts of both parties or two participants who try to prevent the happening of something or prevent or destroy the effect of information. Once again the common efforts of two or more persons who are evading show their similar interests though with somewhat different purposes. The efforts may be made by a single participant, representing uni-evasion.
Participants of the same party may have common general orientations, but, on specific information, their orientations may vary, since they have different interests or positions, as with the defendant and his lawyer, or defendants of the same party.
2.2 Social Relations Underlying Interactions
In the law court, the social relations as highlighted by law bring participants together, which otherwise would not happen. It is this factor that relates analysis of courtroom discourse to real life and makes the analysis more meaningful. Otherwise, if this factor is ignored, discourse analysis would be purely linguistic and cannot be counted on for solving legal problems.
Social relations underlying courtroom interactions may be too complicated to be exhausted in a single study, but the intertwining relations can be boiled down to a manageable short list which can satisfy the needs of a particular researcher.
Social relations are made all the more explicit in the legal context. Courtroom discourse analysis can neither exclude nor belittle this factor. The conclusion of courtroom discourse analysis should be centered around these relations.
2.3 Information Processing Strategies
Four options fall within our consideration: initiating & concluding, elaborating & utilizing, ignoring & diverting, suppressing & destroying. Initiating & concluding are the strategies the participant uses to propose and reinforce his opinions. Such strategies are the active efforts that argumentation requires. In the Chinese court, the argumentation may be initiated by the judges. It may be initiated by the litigating parties if not by the judges.
When a participant finds it worthwhile or necessary, he may elaborate and utilize the information he can seek from the statement he himself makes or from others’ statements. This characterizes the pursuance orientation.
Ignoring characterizes abandonment. When the participant finds a piece of information not worth his while to acknowledge or utilize, he can ignore it. When his desire of ignoring it does not succeed, diverting strategies may be employed. Diverting is changing the original target of a statement initiated usually by the opponent or by someone whose statement the participant thinks may threaten his grounds. Diverting may serve the orientation of abandonment or evasion.
Suppressing and destroying characterize the evasion orientation. When diverting does not work, the participant may resort to such strategies to evade what may be threatening his interests or destructive to his statement. Suppressing means preventing the appearance of the idea or information, while destroying is invalidating the existing information or idea.
2.4 Linguistic and Non-linguistic Devices
Devices used can include linguistic and non-linguistic ones whereas we focus on linguistic devices only. How non-linguistic devices contribute to information processing and how they relate to linguistic devices may be dealt with separately.
The list of linguistic devices for the fulfillment of interactive orientations is open-ended. The relations of the devices with interactive orientations and strategies are never clear-cut. One device may be put into more categories of orientation or strategy.
Reference
1. DU Jinbang 2012. Realization of objectives of participants in courtroom interaction: From the perspective of hierarchical information processing [J]. Journal of Pla University of Foreign Languages (1).
