An analysis of attitude in chinese courtroom discourse

References

Ainsworth, J. 2009. “A lawyer’s perspective: Ethical, technical, and practical considerations in the use of linguistic expert witnesses”. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 16(2). 279–291.10.1558/ijsll.v16i2.279Search in Google Scholar

Aldridge, M. and J. Luchjenbroers. 2007. “Linguistic measures of manipulation in legal discourse: Framing questions and ‘smuggling’ information”. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14(1). 83–105.Search in Google Scholar

Bednarek, M. 2010. “Polyphony in APPRAISAL: typological and topological perspectives”, Linguistics and the Human Sciences 3(2). 107–136.10.1558/lhs.v3i2.107Search in Google Scholar

Cao, D. 2007. Translating law. Clevedon, England: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781853599552Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, L. 2010. Discourse and judicial thinking: A corpus-based study of court judgements in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. (PhD dissertation, City University of Hong Kong.)10.1558/ijsll.v17i2.295Search in Google Scholar

Coffin, C. 2006. Historical discourse: The language of time, cause and evaluation. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Conley, J. M. and W.M. O’Barr. 1998. Just words. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Cooper, B. 2007. “Taboo terms in a sexual abuse criminal trial”. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14(1). 27–50.10.1558/ijsll.v14i1.27Search in Google Scholar

Derewianka, B. 2007. “Using appraisal theory to track interpersonal development in adolescent academic writing”. In: McCabe, A., O’Donnell, M., and R. Whittaker (eds.), Advances in Language and Education. London: Continuum. 142–166.Search in Google Scholar

Du, J.B. 2008. “A study on judges’ manipulation of information flow in courtroom interaction”. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (2). 36–40.Search in Google Scholar

Du, J.B. 2009. “A study of the functions of courtroom questioning and answering and participants’ communicative objective attainment”. Modern Foreign Languages 4. 360–368.Search in Google Scholar

Du, J.B. 2010. “A study on legal facts constructed via courtroom dialogue”. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (2). 84–90.Search in Google Scholar

Du, J.B. 2011. “Information flow of process control in courtroom question and response”. Journal of Foreign Languages (2). 56–63.Search in Google Scholar

Du, J.B. 2012. “Realization of objectives of participants in courtroom interaction: from the perspective of hierarchical information processing”. Journal of PLA University of Foreign Languages (1). 7–12.Search in Google Scholar

Eades, D. 2008. Courtroom talk and neocolonial control. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110208320Search in Google Scholar

Eades, D. 2010. Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847692559Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar (2nd edition). London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M.A.K. and C.M.I.M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar (3rd edition). New York: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Heffer, C. 2005. The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal–lay discourse. Houndsmill: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230502888Search in Google Scholar

Hood, S. 2004a. Appraising research: Taking a stance in academic writing. (PhD dissertation, University of Technology, Sydney.)Search in Google Scholar

Hood, S. 2004b. “Managing attitude in undergraduate academic writing: a focus on the introductions to research reports”. In: Ravelli, L. and Ellis, R. (eds). Analysing Academic Writing: Contextualised Frameworks. London: Continuum. 24–44.Search in Google Scholar

Hood, S. 2005. “What is evaluated and how in academic research writing?: the copatterning of attitude and field”. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series 19. 23–40.10.1075/aralss.19.03hooSearch in Google Scholar

Hood, S. 2006. “The persuasive power of prosodies: Radiating values in academic writing”. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 37–49.10.1016/j.jeap.2005.11.001Search in Google Scholar

Hood, S. 2010. Appraising research: Evaluation in academic writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230274662Search in Google Scholar

Hood, S. and J. R. Martin. 2006. “Invoking attitude: the play of graduation in appraising discourse”. In: Hasan, R., C.M.I.M. Matthiessen and J. Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language. London: Equinox. 739–764.Search in Google Scholar

Hu, Z.L., Y.S. Zhu, D.L. Zhang and Z.Z. Li. 2005. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. Beijing: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Iedema, R., F. Susan and P.R.R. White. 1994/2008. Media literacy. Sydney: NSW Adult Migrant Education Service.Search in Google Scholar

Körner, H. 2000. Negotiating authority: The logogenesis of dialogue in common law judgements. (PhD dissertation, University of Sydney.)Search in Google Scholar

Li, S.F. 2007. Interpersonal meaning in courtroom discourse. (PhD dissertation, Northeast Normal University.)Search in Google Scholar

Li, Z.Z. 2002. Interpersonal meaning in discourse. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Search in Google Scholar

Li, Z.Z. 2004. “Appraisal theory: applications and problems in discourse analysis”. Foreign Languages Research (5). 1–6.Search in Google Scholar

Liao, M.Z. 2003. A study on courtroom questions, responses and their interaction: a linguistic perspective. Beijing: Law Press.Search in Google Scholar

Liao, M.Z. 2004a, Trial communication strategies. Beijing: Law Press.Search in Google Scholar

Liao, M.Z. 2004b, “Researches on replies: insights from court replies”. Rhetoric Learning 5. 50–56.Search in Google Scholar

Liao, M.Z. 2004c, “The principle of goal and goal analysis and cooperation in courtroom verbal interaction”. Foreign Language Research 5. 44–52.Search in Google Scholar

Liao, M.Z. 2006. “A study on ‘formulation’ in Chinese courtroom interaction”. Foreign Languages Research 2. 1–13.Search in Google Scholar

Liao, M.Z. 2012. “Framework analysis of courtroom discourse”. Contemporary Rhetoric Studies 6. 83–91.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0029Search in Google Scholar

Lowndes, S. 2007. “Barristers on trial: Comprehension and misapprehension in courtroom discourse”. The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 17(1). 305–308.10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.305Search in Google Scholar

Martin, J.R. 2004. “Mourning – how we get aligned”. Discourse and Society 15(2/3). 321–344.10.1177/0957926504041022Search in Google Scholar

Martin, J.R. and D. Rose. 2007. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause (2nd edition). London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, J.R. and P.R.R. White. 2008. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.Search in Google Scholar

National People’s Congress. Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. 2002. Beijing: Legal Press.Search in Google Scholar

Nicholson, S. N. 2009. “Law on Language in the European Union: Policy Development for Interpreting/Translation Services in Criminal Proceedings”. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 16(1). 59–90.10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.59Search in Google Scholar

Olsen, F. E., R. A. Lorz. and D. Stein. 2009. Translation Issues in Language and Law. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230233744Search in Google Scholar

Peng, X.W. 2004. “Appraisal systems of modern Chinese vocabulary”. Linguistic Studies (3). 101–109.Search in Google Scholar

People’s Republic of China Supreme People’s Court. 2012. Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.Search in Google Scholar

Rosulek, L.F. 2009. “the sociolinguisic creation of opposing representations of defendants and victims”. The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 16(1). 1–30.10.1558/ijsll.v16i1.1Search in Google Scholar

Shi, G. 2012. “An analysis of modality in Chinese courtroom discourse”. Journal of Multicultural Discourses 7(2). 161–178.10.1080/17447143.2011.581285Search in Google Scholar

Shi, G. 2014. “Intertextuality in Chinese courtroom discourse: A critical perspective”. Chinese Semiotic Studies 10(3). 427–450.10.1515/css-2014-0035Search in Google Scholar

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

Solan, L.M. 1998. “Linguistic experts as semantic tour guides”. Forensic Linguistics 5(2). 87–106.10.1558/sll.1998.5.2.87Search in Google Scholar

Swain, E. 2007. Constructing an effective ‘voice’ in academic discussion writing: an appraisal theory perspective”. In: McCabe, A., M. O’Donnell and R. Whittaker (eds.), Advances in Language and Education. London: Continuum. 166–184.Search in Google Scholar

Thompson, J.K. 2002. “Powerful/powerless language in court: A critical reevaluation of the Duke Language and Law Programme”. Forensic Linguistics 9(2). 153–167.10.1558/sll.2002.9.2.153Search in Google Scholar

Titus, J.J. 2010. “Ascribing monstrosity: Judicial categorization of a juvenile sex offender”. The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 17(1). 1–23.10.1558/ijsll.v17i1.1Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Z.H. 2001. “APPRAISAL systems and their Operation: a new development in the systemic functional linguistics”. Journal of Foreign Languages 6. 13–20.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Z.H. 2004. “An appraisal approach to hard news in both English and Chinese–appraisal systems inquiry (II)”. Foreign Language Education 5. 31–36.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, Z.H. 2006. “An SFL perspective on legal discourse: A case study”. Modern Foreign Languages 1. 1–9.Search in Google Scholar

White, P.R.R. 1998. Telling media tales. (PhD Dissertation, University of Sydney.)Search in Google Scholar

White, P.R.R. 2000. “Media objectivity and the rhetoric of news story structure”. In: Ventola, E. (ed.), Discourse and community-doing functional linguistics. Language in Performance. Tübingen: Gunter Narr Verlag. 379–397.Search in Google Scholar

White, P.R.R. 2003a. “News as history – Your daily gossip”. In: Martin, J.R. and R. Wodak (eds), Re-reading the past: Critical and functional perspectives on time and value. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 61–89.10.1075/dapsac.8.05whiSearch in Google Scholar

White, P.R.R. 2003b. “Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance”. Text 23(2). 259–284.10.1515/text.2003.011Search in Google Scholar

White, P.R.R. 2005. “Subjectivity, evaluation and point of view in media discourse”. In: Coffin, C. and K. O’Halloran (eds), Grammar, text and context: A reader. London and New York: Arnold. 229–257.Search in Google Scholar

White, P.R.R. 2006. “Evaluative semantics and ideological positioning in journalistic discourse”. In: Lassen, I. (ed.), Image and ideology in the mass media. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 45–73.Search in Google Scholar

White, P.R.R. 2008. “Praising and blaming, applauding and disparaging – solidarity, audience positioning, and the linguistics of evaluative disposition”. In: Antos, G. and E. Ventola (eds), Handbook of interpersonal communication. Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 542–567.10.1515/9783110211399.4.567Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, C.Y. 2007. Avoiding revictimization: shifting from police interrogations to police interviewing in China. (PhD dissertation, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.)10.1558/ijsll.v16i2.293Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, C.Y. 2008. “Interpersonal meanings in police interrogations: an appraisalengagement perspective”. Modern Foreign Languages 2. 141–149.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang. L.P. 2006. Lawyer evaluation in the Chinese courtroom: a social-semiotic perspective. (PhD dissertation, Guangdong University of Foreign Studies.)Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, W.P. 2004. “On the authority of the people’ s court in civil action”. Legal Forum 5. 11–20.Search in Google Scholar