Legal reasoning: a textual perspective on common law judicial opinions and Chinese judgments
-
Nan Lu
Nan Lu is currently a PhD candidate at the Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (GDUFS). His research interests include Legal Discourse Analysis and Systemic Functional Linguistics. Address for correspondence: Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, GDUFS, North of Baiyun avenue, No. 2, 510420, Guangzhou, China.
Chuanyou Yuan is a Professor of English at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (GDUFS). He currently serves as the President of the China Association of Forensic Linguistics. His main fields of research are Forensic Linguistics, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and Legal Discourse Studies. Address for correspondence: Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, GDUFS, North of Baiyun avenue, No. 2, 510420, Guangzhou, China.
Abstract
The issue of legal reasoning has been addressed widely in legal academia and practice, but rarely considered by linguists. This paper, employing the Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) genre perspective and the discourse semantics system as its conceptual framework, attempts to reveal the different ways of legal reasoning of common law judicial opinions and Chinese judgments from a textual perspective. One judicial opinion of a British case and one judgment of a Chinese case are explored for comparison. The findings suggest that Chinese judgments as a legal genre, compared with its counterpart of common law judicial opinions, unfold not in waves construed by multilayered Theme-and-New structure, but in chunks establishing no prediction or consolidation. We argue that this mode of text unfolding in waves is vitally important for readers to follow the judge’s reasoning and construct a sense of fairness and justice. We suggest that the periodicity and the generic structure of common law judicial opinions would be a valuable frame of reference for the Chinese judicial reform on judgments in improving its legal reasoning.
About the authors
Nan Lu is currently a PhD candidate at the Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (GDUFS). His research interests include Legal Discourse Analysis and Systemic Functional Linguistics. Address for correspondence: Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, GDUFS, North of Baiyun avenue, No. 2, 510420, Guangzhou, China.
Chuanyou Yuan is a Professor of English at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (GDUFS). He currently serves as the President of the China Association of Forensic Linguistics. His main fields of research are Forensic Linguistics, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and Legal Discourse Studies. Address for correspondence: Center for Linguistics and Applied Linguistics, GDUFS, North of Baiyun avenue, No. 2, 510420, Guangzhou, China.
Appendix
Cases cited
Rondel v. Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191.
Case No. 13 of Yu Yi Zhongfa Xing Zhong [2010].
(Case No. 13 of the Chongqing No. 1 People’s Intermediate Court. Criminal and Final [2010]).
References
Aarnio, Aulis. 1987. The rational as reasonable: A treatise on legal justification. Dordrecht: Reidel.Search in Google Scholar
Alexy, Robert. 1989 [1978]. A theory of legal argumentation, revised edn. Oxford: Clarendon.Search in Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, Kingkui Sin & Yinglong Zheng. 2008. Contrastive analysis of Chinese and American court judgments. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2(1). 49–58.Search in Google Scholar
Christie, Frances & James R. Martin (eds.). 1997. Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school. London: Cassell & Co.Search in Google Scholar
Durant, Alan & Janny H. C. Leung. 2016. Language and law: A resource book for students. New York: Routledge.10.4324/9781315436258Search in Google Scholar
Eemeren, Frans H. van & Rob Grootendorst. 1984. Acts in argumentative discussions: A theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion. Dordrecht: Foris.10.1515/9783110846089Search in Google Scholar
Federal Judicial Center of the United States. 1991. Judicial writing manual (Epub ahead of print).Search in Google Scholar
Ferguson, Robert A. 1990. The judicial opinion as literary genre. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities 2(1). 201–220.Search in Google Scholar
Golding, Martin P. 2001. Legal reasoning. Peterborough: Broadview Press.Search in Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1987. The theory of communicative action, vol. 2. Cambridge: Polity Press.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. 1994. An introduction to functional grammar, 2nd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Hu, Yunteng. 2009. The legal reasoning of judicial documents. Journal of Law Application 3. 48–52.Search in Google Scholar
Körner, Henrike. 2000. Negotiating authority: The logogenesis of dialogue in common law judgments. Sydney, NSW: University of Sydney Dissertation.Search in Google Scholar
Leubsdorf, John. 2001. The structure of judicial opinions. Minnesota Law Review 86. 447–496.Search in Google Scholar
Ma, Weijun. 2012. On the legal reasoning of criminal judgments. Criminal Law Review 30. 534–552.Search in Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 1978. Legal reasoning and legal theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 1997. Analysing genre: Functional parameters. In Frances Christie & R. James Martin (eds.), Genre and institutions: Social processes in the workplace and school, 3–39. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 2014. Evolving systemic functional linguistics: Beyond the clause. Functional Linguistics 1(1). 1–25.10.1186/2196-419X-1-3Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2003. Working with discourse: Meaning beyond the clause. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & David Rose. 2008. Genre relations: Mapping culture. London: Equinox.Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R., Christian Matthiessen & Clare Painter. 2010. Deploying functional grammar. Beijing: The Commercial Press.Search in Google Scholar
Neumann, Richard K. 2005. Legal reasoning and legal writing: Structure, strategy, and style. New York: Aspen Publishers.Search in Google Scholar
Peczenik, Aleksander. 1989. On law and reason. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.10.1007/978-1-4020-8381-5Search in Google Scholar
Pike, Kenneth L. 1982. Linguistic concepts: An introduction to tagmemics. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Search in Google Scholar
Simon, D. 1998. A psychological model of judicial decision making. Rutgers Law Journal 30. 1–142.Search in Google Scholar
Su, Li. 2001. Behind judgments. Chinese Journal of Law 3. 3–18.Search in Google Scholar
Toulmin, Stephen E. 1958. The uses of arguments. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Wang, Zhongyun. 2005. On legal reasoning of judgments. Shandong Social Sciences 8. 84–86.Search in Google Scholar
Xu, Zhanghong. 2017. A contrastive study of legal reasoning in Chinese and American criminal judgments: Based on appraisal theory. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies 28(6). 25–33.Search in Google Scholar
Yang, Fan & Zhanghu Lan. 2019. Problems and solutions to the reasoning of criminal sentence in China: Analysis of the criminal sentence of local basic courts as an example. Nanjing Journal of Social Sciences 7. 92–98, https://doi.org/10.15937/j.cnki.issn1001-8263.2019.07.013.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Qing & Mingyu Gong. 2013. Comparative study of modality in American and Chinese criminal judgments. Journal of Shanxi University (Philosophy & Social Science) 36(1). 82–87.Search in Google Scholar
© 2020 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Recontextualisation and advocacy in the translation zone
- Towards an integrated approach: A sociolinguistic analysis of Monica Ali’s Brick Lane
- On the participatory agency of texts: Using institutional forms in performance appraisal interviews
- Legal reasoning: a textual perspective on common law judicial opinions and Chinese judgments
- The ART of apologizing: Entering the black box of an intervention program
- Interpreting real and fictional worlds in interaction: A socio-cognitive approach to reading group talk
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Research Articles
- Recontextualisation and advocacy in the translation zone
- Towards an integrated approach: A sociolinguistic analysis of Monica Ali’s Brick Lane
- On the participatory agency of texts: Using institutional forms in performance appraisal interviews
- Legal reasoning: a textual perspective on common law judicial opinions and Chinese judgments
- The ART of apologizing: Entering the black box of an intervention program
- Interpreting real and fictional worlds in interaction: A socio-cognitive approach to reading group talk
