Cover not available

Article published In: Conversation Analysis in Chinese: Part II
Edited by Ni-Eng Lim
[Chinese Language and Discourse 10:2] 2019
► pp. 224–240

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Preference organization in PRC criminal trial interaction

Defendant resistance and enforced compliance

 | University of California, Los Angeles
Published online: 15 January 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/cld.00018.car
Abstract
This paper analyzes resistance in the preference organization of criminal trial interaction from a conversation analytic perspective, with examples taken from an 11-hour video corpus of 20 PRC (People’s Republic of China) criminal trials from 2016–2018. Defendants’ dispreferred responses to judges’ questions are then analyzed to determine how resistance is constructed and handled by judges. Defendants are found to construct resistance implicitly and orient to out-of-courtroom stance, objects and topics, while judges respond by reorienting to broader legal matters of guilt and in-court actions. Previous research on PRC criminal trials has focused mainly on questions and turn formulation by judges and procurators (廖美珍：中国法庭互动话语对应结构研究。《语言科学》 2003 年9 月第 2 卷第5期(总第6期) 77 一 89 页。 [Liao, Meizhen. 2003. “Research on the structure of exchange in interactive discourse in Chinese courts.” Yuyan Kexue. 2(5): 77–89.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar, Liao, Meizhen. 2012. “Courtroom discourse in China.” In The Oxford handbook of language and law, ed. by Peter M. Tiersma and Lawrence M. Solan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; 高　华：刑事法庭调查中的填表式问句初探《语言教学与研究》 2003 年第4 期37–44页。 [Gao, Hua. 2003. A preliminary exploration of fill-in-the-blank style questions in criminal trial investigation. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu. Vol. 41, 37–44.] Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; 张丽萍与金孝柏：刑事法庭上的合作交际研究：法官一被告人庭审会话分析。《广东外语外贸大学学报》 2004 年7月第15卷第3期。 [Zhang, Liping and Xiaobo Jin. 2004. “Research on cooperative exchange in criminal court: courtroom conversation analysis of the judge and defendant.” Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. 15(3) 43–46.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; 孟新爱：法庭问话中合作原则违反与信息获取《怀化学院学报》。 2010年10期 1–3页[Meng, Xin’ai. 2009. “The violation of the cooperation principle and information access in court questioning.” Journal of Huaihua University, 101: 1–3.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar); this study complements existing research by analyzing defendants’ speech in its interactional context.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Literature review
  • 3.Data and methodology
    • 3.1Data
    • 3.2Methodology
  • 4.Analysis: Implicit and explicit resistance patterns in criminal trial defense
    • 4.1Initially explicit resistance
    • 4.2Initially implicit resistance: Transformative responses
  • 5.Findings and discussion
  • Note
  • References
References (28)
References
Atkinson, J. Maxwell, and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in court. Oxford Socio-Legal Studies. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chang, Yanrong. (2004). “Courtroom questioning as a culturally situated persuasive genre of talk.” Discourse & Society, 15(6), 705–722. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chen, Jianfu. 2013. Criminal law and criminal procedure law in the People’s Republic of China: Commentary and legislation, trans. by Suiwa Ke. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clayman, Steven E. 2001. “Answers and Evasions.” Language in Society, 30(3): 403–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2013. “Agency in response: The role of prefatory address terms.” Journal of Pragmatics, 571, 290–302. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Comrie, Bernard; Haspelmath, Martin and Bickel, Balthasar. 2008. “The Leipzig glossing rules: Conventions for interlinear morpheme-by-morpheme glosses.” Retrieved from [URL]
Congressional-Executive Commission on China. 2016. “Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China.” Retrieved from [URL]
Conley, John and William O’Barr. 1990. Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. The University of Chicago Press: Chicago and London.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1992. “Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: the case of a trial for rape.” In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, ed. by Paul Drew and John Heritage, 3–65. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Foucault, Michel. 1977. Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Alan Sheridan, trans. New York: Vintage Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 2004. “Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction.” In Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation, ed. by G. H. Lerner, 13–31. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liao, Meizhen. 2012. “Courtroom discourse in China.” In The Oxford handbook of language and law, ed. by Peter M. Tiersma and Lawrence M. Solan. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory. 2008. “You Might Win the Battle but Lose the War: Multimodal, Interactive, and Extralinguistic Aspects of Witness Resistance.” Journal of English Linguistics, 36(3), 195–219. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McConville, Mike and S. Choongh. 2011. Criminal justice in China: An empirical inquiry. Edward Elgar. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes.” Structures of Social Action: Studies in Conversation Analysis, J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, eds. 57–101. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stivers, Tanya and Makoto Hayashi. 2010. “Transformative answers: One way to resist a question’s constraints.” Language in Society, 391, 1–25. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法 [Criminal Procedure Law of the People’s Republic of China (Zhonghua Renmin Gongheguo Xingshi Susong Fa) Amended 2012) Promulgated by the National People’s Congress, March 14, 2012)] Retrieved from [URL]
中国庭审公开网 [China Open Trial Proceedings Online (Zhongguo Tingshen Gongkai Wang), Accessed 2016 December 6.] Retrieved from [URL]
最高人民法院工作报告 （2018） [The Supreme People’s Court Work Report (Zuigao Renmin Fayuan Gongzuo Baogao), 2018.] Retrieved from [URL]
北京高级人民法院工作报告 (2018). [Beijing Gaoji Renmin Fayuan Gongzuo Baogao (Beijing Supreme People’s Court Work Report) (2018).] Retrieved from [URL]
孟新爱：法庭问话中合作原则违反与信息获取《怀化学院学报》。 2010年10期 1–3页[Meng, Xin’ai. 2009. “The violation of the cooperation principle and information access in court questioning.” Journal of Huaihua University, 101: 1–3.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
廖美珍：中国法庭互动话语对应结构研究。《语言科学》 2003 年9 月第 2 卷第5期(总第6期) 77 一 89 页。 [Liao, Meizhen. 2003. “Research on the structure of exchange in interactive discourse in Chinese courts.” Yuyan Kexue. 2(5): 77–89.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
廖美珍：中国法庭互动话语 formulation 现象研究 《外语研究》 Foreign Languages Research 2006 年第 2 期总第 96 期 [Liao, Meizhen. 2006. “Research on the phenomenon of formulation in Chinese courtroom interaction.” Foreign Languages Research 96.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
廖美珍. 答话研究——法庭答话的启示[J]. 修辞学习, 2004(05):29–34. [Liao, Meizhen. 2004. “Research on Response: Lesson on Courtroom Response.” Xiuci Xuexi. 51: 29–34.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
孙亚迪与廖美珍：法庭解述话语现象的生成机制研究。《湖北大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》 2017年04期。 [Sun, Yadi and Meizhen Liao. 2017. “Research on the generation mechanism for the phenomenon of courtroom formulation.” Hubei University Bulletin (Philosophy and Social Sciences Version), 41.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
张丽萍与金孝柏：刑事法庭上的合作交际研究：法官一被告人庭审会话分析。《广东外语外贸大学学报》 2004 年7月第15卷第3期。 [Zhang, Liping and Xiaobo Jin. 2004. “Research on cooperative exchange in criminal court: courtroom conversation analysis of the judge and defendant.” Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. 15(3) 43–46.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
张志铭：审判方式改革再思考。《法学研究》 1995 第四期。 [Zhang, Zhiming. 1995. “A Further Thought on the Reform of the Trial Process.” Studies in Law (Faxue Yanjiu) 41: 93–96.]Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
高　华：刑事法庭调查中的填表式问句初探《语言教学与研究》 2003 年第4 期37–44页。 [Gao, Hua. 2003. A preliminary exploration of fill-in-the-blank style questions in criminal trial investigation. Yuyan Jiaoxue Yu Yanjiu. Vol. 41, 37–44.] Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Chen, Yan, Alison May & Paul Drew
2025. The defendant’s dilemma: Being cooperative without compromising their defence. Discourse Studies DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 7 december 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue