Crafting moral legitimation: insights from lawyers’ strategic deployment of Attitude resources in civil trials
-
Qijing Wu
Qijing Wu received her PhD in Linguistics from Shanghai Jiao Tong University and is currently Lecturer at Dalian University of Technology. Her research interests include discourse analysis, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and Forensic Linguistics. Her recent studies on legal language have been published in journals such as
Semiotica andLinguistics and the Human Sciences .
Abstract
This study investigates how lawyers strategically employ Attitude resources of Affect, Judgement, and Appreciation to construct moral legitimation in civil trials. Drawing on verbatim transcripts from 12 Chinese civil trial videos, the analysis examines lawyers’ deployment of these resources, with a focus on their subtypes, targets, polarity, and ways of realization. The findings reveal that Affect: dis/inclination, Judgement: propriety/capacity, and Appreciation: valuation/composition are dominant Attitude subtypes in lawyers’ argumentation. They are typically employed to target plaintiff/defendant, non-witness third parties, the court, evidence, and non-evidence entities, with positive/negative polarity tendencies. Predominantly inscribed and with limited instances of invoked Judgement, these resources contribute to the evaluation and abstraction types of moral legitimation. The strategic construction of moral legitimation by Attitude resources operates via hierarchical and binary mechanisms, stemming, respectively, from the inherent hierarchy among the appraised targets and the interplay between positive/negative polarity tendencies. This nuanced exploration illuminates the intricate relationship between linguistic strategies and power dynamics within courtroom discourse, offering valuable insights for enhancing persuasive techniques in legal argumentation.
Funding source: National Social Science Fund of China
Award Identifier / Grant number: 24CYY114
About the author
Qijing Wu received her PhD in Linguistics from Shanghai Jiao Tong University and is currently Lecturer at Dalian University of Technology. Her research interests include discourse analysis, Systemic Functional Linguistics, and Forensic Linguistics. Her recent studies on legal language have been published in journals such as Semiotica and Linguistics and the Human Sciences.
-
Research funding: This work was supported by the National Social Science Fund of China [grant number 24CYY114].
Appendix 1: Transcription conventions (adapted from Jefferson 2004)
This study adopts verbatim transcription exclusively for text meaning analysis, with the symbols below to mark text features potentially relevant to semantic interpretation.
mid-sentence cut-off for correction
false start with immediate repair
repetition for court recording
Appendix 2: Original data extracts
他就拒绝这个问题 – 拒绝支付。首先, 我们今天就提起诉讼, 要求这个被告支付由这个原告代垫的这个抚养费。
被告 1 和被告 2 发现原告的丈夫倒地后, 不但不愿救助, 连扶都不愿意扶。
我们认为在分配享有这个继承遗产的情况下, 各被告是应当予以少分的, 是存在有这个过错的, 因为他们不承担赡养的职责。
原告不能证明涉案图片是受著作权法保护的作品,不能证明其对涉案图片享有著作权。
父母生前的日常生活、生病都是由三个被告 – 也就是说三个被告共同照顾和赡养的。三个被告没有不赡养和照顾父母……原告呢他本身是经常辱骂和虐待父母, 这个是殴打父母亲, 这个是地方明确都是知道的。
合同被确认为无效或撤销后, 有过错的一方应当赔偿无过错一方相应的一个损失<<,应当赔偿无过错一方相应的一个损失>>。而结合本案案情来看, 导致本案租赁协议无效的一个重要原因是因为被告无权处分所造成的……被告应当对原告所遭受的各项损失承担全部的赔偿责任。
我们所建的这个厂房是一个带有生产经营性质的。我们这两年→之后刚建完直接被强拆, 必然会产生生产之后的一个间接损失……具体损失的一个数额, 得需要专门的评估机构予以鉴定, 才能予以确认。
在涉案土地已被征收的一个情况下, 被告对外出租涉案土地属于无权处分。被告故意隐瞒以上客观的一个事实, 同原告签订租赁协议, 依法应当确认 – 签订了一个租赁协议, 依法应当确认为无效……为此, 原告特向贵院提起民事诉讼, 望贵院及时查明案件事实, 判如所请。
第三是公司规定原件。这一份原件,我们主要能够证明有关那个员工待岗的一个规定,是一个规章制度。比如说,待岗的应该说按照规定到单位报到, 由单位安排其他工作, 这样就支付那个待岗期间的生活费。如果不到单位报道的, 就不能享受这个待岗期间的生活费。
网站那个截图上面,作品的发表者有一句话,“工作中这类合作很多, 一些已经产生的作品和飞机稿一并奉上,作为交流”。可见,这个发表者是在合作工作当中参与创作的,作品的著作权归属处于一种未知状态。
被告系小区的管理者,但被告未尽职尽责地管理小区, 致使小区多方面管理混乱, 严重影响了小区全体业主的正常生活。
References
Ainsworth, Janet. 2015. Legal discourse and legal narratives: Adversarial versus inquisitorial models. Language and Law 2(1). 1–11.Search in Google Scholar
Anowu, Anthony E., Tunde Ope-Davies & Shodipe Mojisola. 2024. Strategies for legitimising and delegitimising power in Nigerian courtroom discourse. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 37(2). 379–398.10.1007/s11196-023-10052-9Search in Google Scholar
Bartley, Leanne V. 2020. ‘Please make your verdict speak the truth’: Insights from an Appraisal analysis of the closing arguments from a rape trial. Text & Talk 40(4). 421–442. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-2065.Search in Google Scholar
Binder, Guyora. 2007. Aesthetic judgment and legal justification. Studies in Law, Politics and Society 43. 79–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1059-4337-07-00604-7.Search in Google Scholar
Burke, Kenneth. 1969. A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.10.1525/9780520353237Search in Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2022. Moral legitimation in capital trials: The case of the prosecution’s closing summation. Text & Talk 42(6). 849–870. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2020-0129.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, Liang & Jinhua Cheng. 2023. 道德判断何以导入司法裁判 [How can moral judgment be imported into judicial decision]. 探索与争鸣 [Exploration and Free Views] 1(8). 59–72.Search in Google Scholar
Di Donato, Flora. 2011. Constructing legal narratives: Client-lawyers’ stories. In Anne Wagner & Le Cheng (eds.), Exploring courtroom discourse: The language of power and control, 111–127. England: Ashgate.Search in Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2010. Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.10.21832/9781847692559Search in Google Scholar
Garland, Scott L. 1998. Avoiding Goliath’s fate: Defeating a Pro Se litigant. Litigation 24(2). 45–67.Search in Google Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. 1986. Law and morality. tannerlectures.org/lectures/law-and-morality/ (accessed 23 July 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Christian Matthiessen. 2021. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. London: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230502888Search in Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2008. Judgement in court: Evaluating participants in courtroom discourse. In Barbara Lewandowska-Tomaszczyk, Tomasz Pludowski & Dolores V. Tanno (eds.), Language and the law: International outlooks, 145–179. New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Holmgreen, Lise-Lotte. 2021. Is being right legitimate? Addressing public outcries on social media. Discourse, Context & Media 39. 100458. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dcm.2020.100458.Search in Google Scholar
Hood, Susan & James R. Martin. 2007. Invoking attitude: The play of graduation in appraising discourse. In Ruqaiya Hasan, Christian Matthiessen & Jonathan J. Webster (eds.), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective, 739–764. London: Equinox.10.3138/9781845535803-027Search in Google Scholar
Idevall Hagren, Karin & Theres Bellander. 2024. National discourses in (de)legitimations of the Swedish COVID-19 strategy. Text & Talk 44(6). 715–737. https://doi.org/10.1515/text-2022-0100.Search in Google Scholar
Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Application of the Civil Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China. 2022 Amendment. 最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》的解释(2022修正). https://www.pkulaw.com/en_law/641e63ec6a640828bdfb.html?flag=english (accessed 10 January 2025).Search in Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.125.02jefSearch in Google Scholar
Liang, Zhiping. 2023. A study of legal tradition of China from a culture perspective: Searching for harmony in the natural order. In Jingrong Li, Junwu Pan & Jie Xue trans. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-19-4510-6Search in Google Scholar
Martin, James R. & Peter White. 2005. The language of evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Peng, Xuanwei, Yujie Liu, Ranran Zhang, Yujuan Chen, Xianfang Tan, Yuying Wang & Xiaojun Yang. 2015. 汉英评价意义分析手册 [Handbook for analyzing Chinese and English appraisal meanings]. Beijing: Peking University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Petroski, Karen. 2007. The rhetoric of symmetry. Valparaiso University Law Review 41(3). 1165–1234.Search in Google Scholar
Reisigl, Martin & Ruth Wodak. 2009. The discourse-historical approach (DHA). In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of critical discourse analysis, 2nd edn, 87–121. London: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar
Sala, Michele. 2014. Interpersonal and interactional markers in legal research articles. In Ruth Breeze, Maurizio Gotti & Carmen S. Guinda (eds.), Interpersonality in legal genres, 113–136. Bern: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar
Statham, Simon. 2016. Redefining trial by media: Towards a critical-forensic linguistic interface. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/dapsac.67Search in Google Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach. London: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. Legitimation in discourse and communication. Discourse & Communication 1(1). 91–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/1750481307071986.Search in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2008. Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195323306.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2018. Moral evaluation in critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies 15(2). 140–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/17405904.2018.1427120.Search in Google Scholar
Zhang, Liping. 2024. Lawyer evaluation in Chinese courtroom. Singapore: Springer.10.1007/978-981-97-1211-3Search in Google Scholar
© 2026 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
