Home Burying attitudes in words: Linguistic realization of the shift of judges’ court conciliation style
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

Burying attitudes in words: Linguistic realization of the shift of judges’ court conciliation style

  • Xu Youping EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: January 23, 2016

Abstract

Court conciliation conducted by judges in Chinese courts is often seen in a positive light as resolving civil disputes efficiently. However, it is sometimes also severely criticized for judges’ malpractice in pressing parties to settle by revealing adjudication results. Sadly, except for mere criticism against this kind of phenomenon and abstract provisions on forbidding this kind of malpractice, little has been done to provide a detailed description of what it is and how to avoid it. This paper, based on authentic conciliation data and an interview with two judges, intends to conduct a linguistic analysis of the above problem. This paper argues that, while in theory legal discourse should be explicit, judges in court conciliation need to bury their attitudes in words when it comes to the rendering of attitudes and suggestions. This paper first analyzes the dilemma concerning how much pressure to be imposed upon which party, and then analyzes linguistic features of judges’ coercive and persuasive conciliation styles, and finally offers suggestions as to the linguistic shift of conciliation style from coercion to persuasion. This paper concludes that such malpractice as coercing parties to settle may be linguistically avoided when judges learn to bury their attitudes in words and leave parties to make voluntary choices.

Acknowledgements

This paper is a part of the Philosophy and Social Science Research Program (GD14YWW03, GD11XWW09). I’m deeply indebted to Prof. Janet Ainsworth for her valuable advice on the analysis of undue pressure and her encouragement in the writing of this paper. My sincere thanks also go to Judge Zhang and Judge Cao for their kind help during data collection.

References

Bhatia, Vijay. 2010. Specification in legislative writing: Accessibility, transparency, power and control. In Malcolm Coulthard & Alison Johnson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics, 37–50. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Boskey, James. 1994. The proper role of the mediator: Rational assessment, not pressure. Negotiation Journal 10(4). 367–372.10.1111/j.1571-9979.1994.tb00036.xSearch in Google Scholar

Boulle, Laurence & Miryana Nesic. 2001. Mediation: Principles, process, and practice. London: Butterworths.Search in Google Scholar

Bullen, Barbara. 2012. Mediation: A training and resource guide for the mediator. Bloomington: Trafford.Search in Google Scholar

Certilman, Steven. 2007. Judges as mediators: Retaining neutrality and avoiding the trap of social engineering. Arbitration 73(1). 24–30.Search in Google Scholar

Clarke, Donald. 1991. Dispute resolution in China. Journal of Chinese Law 5(2). 245–296.Search in Google Scholar

Debelle, Bruce. 2007. Should judges be mediators? Paper presented in the Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia Conference, Adelaide, 1–3 June.Search in Google Scholar

Ding, Anqi. 2001. Oumei liuxuesheng shishi jianyi yanyu xingwei moshi fenxi [An analysis of western students’ advice-giving speech act model of in speaking Chinese]. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies 1. 29–33.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hedeen, Timothy. 2005. Coercion and self-determination in court-connected mediation: All mediations are voluntary, but some are more voluntary than others. Justice System Journal 26(3). 273–291.Search in Google Scholar

Huang, Philip C. 2005. Divorce law practices and the origins, myths, and realities of judicial mediation in China. Modern China 31(2). 151–203.10.1177/0097700405274585Search in Google Scholar

Kaufmann-Kohler, Gabrielle & Fan Kun. 2008. Integrating mediation into arbitration: Why it works in China. Gabrielle Journal of International Arbitration 25(4). 479–492.10.54648/JOIA2008035Search in Google Scholar

Li, Hao. 2013. Tiaojie gui tiaojie, shenpan gui shenpan: minshi shenpan zhong de tiaoshen fenli [Mediation is mediation, adjudication is adjudication: Separating mediation from adjudication in civil trials]. China Legal Science 3. 5–18.Search in Google Scholar

Martin, J. R. & P. R. R. White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230511910Search in Google Scholar

Matz, David. 1994. Mediator pressure and party autonomy: Are they consistent with each other? Negotiation Journal 10(4). 359–365.10.1111/j.1571-9979.1994.tb00035.xSearch in Google Scholar

McGillis, Daniel. 1986. Community dispute resolution programs and public policy. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Search in Google Scholar

Mo, Ran. 2012. Duomian de tiaojieren – lun minshi tiaojie zhidu zhong de tiaojieren juese dingwei jiqi jueding yinsu [Multi-face of mediator: The influences of a mediator’s style in the mediation system]. Jinan Journal (Philosophy and Social Sciences) 2. 56–62.Search in Google Scholar

Olekalns, Mara, Jeanne Brett & William Donohue. 2010. Words are all I have: Linguistic cues as predictors of settlement in divorce mediation. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 3(2). 145–168.10.1111/j.1750-4716.2010.00053.xSearch in Google Scholar

Otis, Louise & Eric H. Reiter. 2006. Mediation by judges: A new phenomenon in the transformation of justice. Pepperdine Dispute Resolution Law Journal 6(3). 351–403.Search in Google Scholar

Pechmann, Cornelia. 1992. Predicting when two-sided ads will be more effective than one-sided ads: The role of correlational and correspondent inferences. Journal of Marketing Research 29(4). 441–453.10.1177/002224379202900405Search in Google Scholar

Perloff, Richard. 2003. The dynamics of persuasion: Communication and attitudes in the twenty-first century, 2nd edn. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New approach to legal translation. Hague: Kluwer Law International.Search in Google Scholar

Searle, John. 1979. Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511609213Search in Google Scholar

Song, Chaowu. 2008. Tiaojie lifa yanjiu [A study on the legislation of mediation]. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.Search in Google Scholar

The Hon Marilyn Warren, AC. 2010. Should judges be mediators? Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal 21(2). 77–84.Search in Google Scholar

Welsh, Nancy. 2001. The thinning vision of self-determination in court-connected mediation: The inevitable price of institutionalization? Harvard Negotiation Law Review 6(1). 25–96.Search in Google Scholar

Wen, Ming. 2009. Fayuan taoji de jieru shiji bawo [Seizing opportunities to get engaged in court conciliation]. Charming China (1). 84–85.Search in Google Scholar

Xinhua Dictionary (10th edn.). 2004. Beijing: the Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Youping. 2013. Realization of persuasion in Chinese court conciliation: The Discourse information approach. Beijing: Science Press.10.1558/ijsll.v21i1.157Search in Google Scholar

Xu, Youping. 2015. Dancing with shackles: Judges’ engagement in court conciliation of Chinese civil cases. International Journal of Semiotics for Law 28(1). 209–226.10.1007/s11196-013-9354-5Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2016-1-23
Published in Print: 2016-3-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Introduction: Hidden meanings in legal discourse
  3. Comparing the incomparable and legal discourse
  4. Two assumptions in legal discourse: To answer for self and to tell the truth
  5. Le sens caché: Refoulement et impensé dans le discours de la loi sémiotique des significations cachées du discours juridique
  6. Multiple historical and social layers of interpretation of marital rape in England
  7. Revisiting judgment translation in Hong Kong
  8. Exemption and exegesis: Judicial interpretation of exemption clauses in England, Australia, and India
  9. Identifying the meanings hidden in legal texts: The three conditions of relevance theory and their sufficiency
  10. The consequences and effects of language transformations in legal discourse
  11. Exploring identities in police interrogations
  12. Rights, responsibilities, and resistance: Legal discourse and intervention legislation in the Northern Territory in Australia
  13. An exploration of the semantic domain of legal language
  14. The hidden meanings in the case law of the European Court for Human Rights
  15. Crimes of the sign: Politics and performatives in the Treason Trials of 1794
  16. Showing what “marriage” is: Law’s civilizing sign
  17. A sociosemiotic approach to the legal dispute over the crime of whoring with an underage girl in China
  18. Uncovering hidden meanings in legal discourse on the elderly: A semioethical perspective
  19. Deontic meaning making in legislative discourse
  20. Hidden meanings of the words “religion” and “religious” in legal discourse
  21. Hidden cultures in law: Metaphor and translation in legal discourse
  22. Negotiating language status in multilingual jurisdictions: Rhetoric and reality
  23. Burying attitudes in words: Linguistic realization of the shift of judges’ court conciliation style
Downloaded on 19.9.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2016-0022/html
Scroll to top button