Judicial jigsaw and power dynamics: a cognitive-functional analysis of Chinese courtroom discourse

References

Bennett, W. Lance. 1981. Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgment in American culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Boye, Kasper. 2012. Epistemic meaning: A crosslinguistic and functional-cognitive study. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110219036Search in Google Scholar

Busse, Dietrich. 1993. Juristische Semantik: Grundfragen der juristischen Interpretationstheorie in sprachwissenschaftlicher Sicht. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot.10.3790/978-3-428-07728-1Search in Google Scholar

Butler, Christopher. 2024. Approaches to cross-linguistic studies in functional and cognitive/constructional theories of language. In Annalisa Baicchi & Cristiano Broccias (eds.), Constructional and cognitive explorations of contrastive linguistics, 11–30. Cham: Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-031-46602-1_2Search in Google Scholar

Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2017. Evaluative stancetaking in courtroom opening statements. Folia Linguistica 51(1). 103–132. https://doi.org/10.1515/flin-2017-0003.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le. 2010. Discourse and judicial thinking: A corpus-based study of court judgments in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 17(2). 295–298. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v17i2.295.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & Xiuli Liu. 2023. From principles to practices: The intertextual interaction between AI ethical and legal discourses. International Journal of Legal Discourse 8(1). 31–52. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2001.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & David Machin (eds.). 2024. The law and critical discourse studies. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781003376880Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & King Kui Sin. 2008. A court judgment as dialogue. In Edda Weigand (ed.), Dialogue and rhetoric, 267–281. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/ds.2.21cheSearch in Google Scholar

Cheng, Le & Xiaobin Zhu. 2024. Setting boundaries between crime and rights: Discursive (de)legitimation of abortion rights in the U.S. Supreme Court Dobbs opinions. Journal of Language and Politics 23(5). 653–676. https://doi.org/10.1075/jlp.24100.che.Search in Google Scholar

Conley, John M., William M. O’Barr & Robin Conley Riner. 2019. Just words: Law, language, and power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226484532.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Cotterill, Janet. 1998. ‘If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit’: Metaphor and the O.J. Simpson criminal trial. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 5(2). 141–158. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v5i2.141.Search in Google Scholar

Coulthard, Malcolm, Alison Johnson & David Wright. 2016. An introduction to forensic linguistics. New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Ellsworth, Phoebe C. & Adrienne Dougherty. 2016. Appraisals and reappraisals in the courtroom. Emotion Review 8(1). 20–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1754073915601227.Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2014. Language and power, 3rd edn. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315838250Search in Google Scholar

Fairclough, Norman. 2010. Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Foss, Sonja K., Karen A. Foss & Robert Trapp. 2014. Contemporary perspectives on rhetoric, 30th Anniversary Edition. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Malden: Wiley-Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Gibbons, John & M. Teresa Turell (eds.). 2008. Dimensions of forensic linguistics. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/aals.5Search in Google Scholar

Group, Pragglejaz. 2007. MIP: A method for identifying metaphorically used words in discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 22(1). 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10926480709336752.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. & Christian Matthiessen. 2006. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Hart, Christopher. 2010. Critical discourse analysis and cognitive science: New perspectives on immigration discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230299009_2Search in Google Scholar

Hart, Christopher. 2014. Discourse, grammar and ideology: Functional and cognitive perspectives. London: Bloomsbury Academic.Search in Google Scholar

Hart, Christopher. 2017. Cognitive linguistic critical discourse studies: Connecting language and image. In Ruth Wodak & Bernhard Forchtner (eds.), The Routledge handbook of language and politics, 187–201. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315183718-15Search in Google Scholar

Hart, Christopher. 2018. ‘Riots engulfed the city’: An experimental study investigating the legitimating effects of fire metaphors in discourses of disorder. Discourse & Society 29(3). 279–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517734663.Search in Google Scholar

Hu, Zhuanglin. 2024. Cognitive perspectives in systemic functional linguistics. In Zhuanglin Hu (ed.), Halliday and Chinese linguistics, 155–167. Singapore: Springer Nature.10.1007/978-981-99-3232-0_13Search in Google Scholar

Katajamäki, Heli & Merja Koskela. 2018. Lexical metaphor as judgement: Attitudinal positioning of editorial writers in business newspapers. Fachsprache 40(3–4). 140–160.10.24989/fs.v50i3-4.1479Search in Google Scholar

Lakoff, George & Mark Johnson. 2003. Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226470993.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Langacker, Ronald W. 1999. Foundations of cognitive grammar: Volume I: Theoretical prerequisites. California: Stanford University Press.10.1515/9780804764469Search in Google Scholar

Li, Jing, Lei Lei & Le Cheng. 2019. Mapping evaluation, appraisal and stance in discourse (2000–2015): A bibliometric analysis. Glottotheory 10(1–2). 31–55. https://doi.org/10.1515/glot-2019-0002.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Feifei. 2018. Lexical metaphor as affiliative bond in newspaper editorials: A systemic functional linguistics perspective. Functional Linguistics 5(2). 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40554-018-0054-z.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Xinyuan, Kanglong Liu & Andrew K. F. Cheung. 2023. A corpus-assisted study of nominalization in translated and non-translated judgments. In Junfeng Zhao, Defeng Li & Victoria Lai Cheng Lei (eds.), New advances in legal translation and interpreting, 79–112. Singapore: Springer Nature.10.1007/978-981-19-9422-7_6Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Yanping & Furui Wang. 2022. Verena, Klappstein and Maciej Dybowski: Theory of legal evidence – Evidence in legal theory. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(1). 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2070.Search in Google Scholar

Liu, Kanglong & Linqing Zhu. 2021. An investigation of norms in legal translation: A corpus-based study of conditional connectives in company law. In Riccardo Moratto & Martin Woesler (eds.), Diverse voices in Chinese translation and interpreting, 361–381. Singapore: Springer Nature.10.1007/978-981-33-4283-5_15Search in Google Scholar

Luchjenbroers, June & Michelle Aldridge. 2007. Conceptual manipulation by metaphors and frames: Dealing with rape victims in legal discourse. Text & Talk 27(3). 339–359. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.2007.014.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, James & Peter R. R. White. 2007. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar

Matoesian, Gregory. 1999. Intertextuality, affect, and ideology in legal discourse. Text 19(1). 73–109. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1999.19.1.73.Search in Google Scholar

Matoesian, Gregory. 2001. Law and the language of identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195123296.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Schuster, Mary L. 2019. Emotional appeals and moral standards: Rhetorical arguments in court cases. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 49(3). 279–308. https://doi.org/10.1177/0047281618773704.Search in Google Scholar

Shi, Chunxu. 2025. Negotiating the value of rule of law through attitudinal positioning: A corpus-based analysis of Chinese digital indictments. Pragmatics and Society 16(1). 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23026.shi.Search in Google Scholar

Solan, Lawrence M. 1993. The language of judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Solan, Lawrence M. & Peter M. Tiersma (eds.). 2016. The Oxford handbook of language and law. New York: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Su, Yanfang, Kanglong Liu & Andrew K. F. Cheung. 2023. Epistemic modality in translated and non-translated English court judgments of Hong Kong: A corpus-based study. JoSTrans: The Journal of Specialised Translation(40). 56–80.10.26034/cm.jostrans.2023.525Search in Google Scholar

Tiersma, Peter M. 2000. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Tian, Huajing & Zhenhua Wang. 2019. Categorization issues in the attitude system and their topological solutions. Contemporary Rhetoric(1). 65–75.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun A. 2001. Multidisciplinary CDA: A plea for diversity. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 95–120. London: Sage.10.4135/9780857028020.n5Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun A. 2009a. Critical discourse studies: A sociocognitive approach. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 62–86. London: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun A. 2009b. Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511575273Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun A. 2010. Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, Teun A. 2015. Critical discourse analysis. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 466–485. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.10.1002/9781118584194.ch22Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, Anne & Le Cheng. 2011. Language, power and control in courtroom discourse. In Anne Wagner & Le Cheng (eds.), Exploring courtroom discourse: The language of power and control, 1–10. London: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar

Wodak, Ruth. 1980. Discourse analysis and courtroom interaction. Discourse Processes 3(4). 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/01638538009544498.Search in Google Scholar

Wodak, Ruth. 2006. Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies 8(1). 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445606059566.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Zhonghua & Le Cheng. 2023. Exploring metaphorical representations of law and order in China’s government work reports: A corpus-based diachronic analysis of legal metaphors. Critical Arts 36(1). 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02560046.2023.2165696.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Jingjing, Le Cheng & Yi Yang. 2022. A corpus-based interpretation of the discourse-cognitive-society triangle on Chinese court judgments. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9(1). 468. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01491-z.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, Jianguo & Diqiao Li. 2023. Critical metaphor analysis: Frontiers and prospects. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching(4). 87–97.Search in Google Scholar

Xin, Bin & Xiaoli Gao. 2013. Critical discourse analysis: Objectives, methods, and developments. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching(4). 1–5.Search in Google Scholar

Ye, Zhanglei & Jian Li. 2024. Artificial intelligence through the lens of metaphor: Analyzing the EU AIA. International Journal of Digital Law and Governance 1(2). 361–381. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijdlg-2024-0016.Search in Google Scholar

Ye, Meng & Jamie Mckeown. 2023. Investigating the targeted use of (dis)agreement in leave to appeal decisions of the HKSAR appellate courts: A corpus-assisted discourse analysis. International Journal of Legal Discourse 8(2). 235–255. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2023-2012.Search in Google Scholar

Young, Lynne & Claire Harrison (eds.). 2004. Systemic functional linguistics and critical discourse analysis: Studies in social change. New York: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, Tianwei & Binbin Guo. 2016. A study on discourse strategies and construal operations in critical discourse analysis. Foreign Language Education 37(6). 17–22.Search in Google Scholar