Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 28:4 (2018) ► pp.463–488

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

The structural format and rhetorical variation of writing Chinese judicial opinions

A genre analytical approach

 | Jinan University
 | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
 | Shandong Normal University
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 23 October 2018
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.17013.ge
Abstract
As Chinese legal system follows a statutory tradition, the writing of Chinese judicial opinions is normally considered as an invariant sequential process of stating the law, presenting the fact, and finally providing the conclusion. The official ideology is further reinforced by the fact that Chinese judges need to follow various authoritative writing guidelines and templates prescribed by the official bodies of legal profession. This paper examines to what extent this ideology is a trustworthy description, and to what extent it is only an imagined myth related to the rhetorical practices of Chinese legal profession. Theoretical constructs employed in the study are genre, text type, and rhetorical modes, and analytical data include exemplar judicial opinions, intertextual legislative documents, and insiders’ accounts. According to the research findings, while the official ideology remains a strong shaping force in the composing of Chinese judicial opinions, Chinese judges do take compelling moves to add dialogic elements to the traditionally monologue-dominated discursive sphere of legal writing.
Article outline
  • 1.The unchangeable deductive format of judicial opinions
  • 2.The ideology and reality of judicial opinions
  • 3.A genre analytical approach to judicial opinions
    • 3.1Genre and text type
    • 3.2Data and analysis
  • 4.The rhetorical variations beyond the deductive writing format
    • 4.1Argumentation
    • 4.2Narration
    • 4.3Exposition
    • 4.4Instruction
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Note
  • References
References (42)
References
Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Archer, Dawn. 2011. “Cross-examining Lawyers, Facework and the Adversarial Courtroom.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (13): 3216–3230. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1975/1981. The Dialogic Imagination: Four Essays. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Aanalysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1997. “Genre Analysis Today.” Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire 75 (3): 629–652. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. “Creativity and Accessibility in Written Professional Discourse.” World Englishes 27 (3/4): 319–326. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blitvich, Pilar. 2010. “A Genre Approach to the Study of Im-politeness.” International Review of Pragmatics 2 (1): 46–94. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, King Kui Sin, and Ying-Long Zheng. 2008. “Contrastive Analysis of Chinese and American Court Judgments.” Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis across Disciplines 2 (1): 49–58.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Conley, John M., and William M. O’Barr. 1990. Rules versus Relationships: The Ethnography of Legal Discourse. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Duke, Nell K., Samantha Caughlan, Mary Juzwik, and Nicole Martin. 2012. Reading and Writing Genre with Purpose in K-8 Classrooms. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1959. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life. New York: Doubleday.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hafner, Chris A. 2013. “The Discursive Construction of Professional Expertise: Appeals to Authority in Barrister’s Opinions.” English for Specific Purposes 32 (3): 131–143. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, Zhengrui. 2011. “The Discursive Construction of Civil Judgments in Mainland China.” Discourse & Society 22 (6): 743–765. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Legal Communication of Chinese Judiciary: A Discourse-based View. Bern: Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “The Mediatisation of Chinese Corporate Communication: A Linguistic Approach.” East Asian Pragmatics 1 (1): 127–147. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Han, Zhengrui, and Li Xiaoyu. 2011. “Discourse of International Commercial Arbitration: The Case of Mainland China.” Journal of Pragmatics 43 (5): 1380–1391. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harris, Sandra. 1995. “Pragmatics and Power.” Journal of Pragmatics 23 (2): 117–135. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hubbard, Frances K., and Lauren Spencer. 2012. Write to Inform. New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hyland, Ken. 2004. Metadiscourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, Barbara. 2001. “Discourse Analysis and Narrative.” In The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, and H. E. Hamilton, 635–649. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kádár, Daniel. 2013. Relational Rituals and Communication: Ritual Interaction in Groups. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kalscheur, Heidi A. 2012. “About ‘Face’: Using Moral Rights to Increase Copyright Enforcement in China.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 39 (2): 513–538.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, George A. 1991. Aristotle, On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William. 2011. “Oral Narratives of Personal Experience.” In Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences, ed. by P. C. Hogan, 546–548. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Labov, William, and Joshua Waletzky. 1967. “Narrative Analysis.” In Essays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, ed. by J. Helm, 12–44. Seattle: U. of Washington Press. Reprinted in Journal of Narrative and Life History 71: 3–38.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leflar, Robert A. 1961. “Some Observations Concerning Judicial Opinions.” Columbia Law Review 61(5): 810–820. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leung, Janny H. C. 2012. “Judicial Discourse in Cantonese Courtrooms in Postcolonial Hong Kong: The Judge as a Godfather, Scholar, Educator and Scolding Parent.” The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 19 (2): 239–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Liang, Huixing. 2011. A General Introduction to Civil Law. Beijing: Law Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maley, Yon. 1985. “Judicial Discourse: The Case of Legal Judgment.” In The Cultivated Australian, ed. by J. E. Clark, 159–175. Hamburg: Buske.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mao, Luming R. 1993. “I Conclude Not: Toward a Pragmatic Account of Metadiscourse.” Rhetoric Review 11 (2): 265–289. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, J. R., and David Rose. 2009. Genre Relations: Mapping Cultures. London: Equinox.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merry, Sally E. 1990. Getting Justice and Getting Even. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Paltridge, Brian. 2002. “ Genre, Text type, and the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Classrooms.” In Genre in the Classroom: Multiple Perspective, ed. by Ann M. Jones, 73–90. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Purcell-Gates, Victoria, Nell K. Duke, and Joseph A. Martineau. 2007. “Learning to Read and Write Genre-specific Text: Roles of Authentic Experience and Explicit Teaching.” Reading Research Quarterly 42 (1): 8–45. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Simons, Herbert W., and Jean G. Jones. 2011. Persuasion in Society (2nd edition). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stevenson, Drury. 2003. “To Whom is the Law Addressed.” Yale Law & Policy Review 21 (1): 105–167.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Den Hoven, Paul. 2011. “The Unchangeable Judicial Formats.” Argumentation 451: 499–511. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo J. 2008. Discourse and Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Vázquez-Orta, Ignacio. 2013. “Authoritative Intervention in Legal Discourse: A Genre-based Study of Judgments and Arbitration Awards.” Revista Espanola de Linguistica Aplicada 261: 91–103.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wells, Michael. 1994. “French and American Judicial Opinions.” Yale Journal of International Law 191: 81–133.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhang, Liping. 2007. “Evaluation in the Language of Law: Appraisal and Its Linguistic Realizations in Chinese Courtroom Discourse (以“评”说“法”: 法庭辩论中的评价资源与实现手段).” Foreign Language Teaching (外语教学) 61: 29–33.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Encinas Duarte, Gabriel Alejandro
2025. Interlegal argumentation in the UK Drill Music decision of Meta’s Oversight Board. Journal of Argumentation in Context 14:1 ► pp. 3 ff. DOI logo
Peng, Yali
2025. Transparency, Punishment, and Judicial Behavior: Analyzing Criminal Sentencing Under China's Mass Publication Reform. Behavioral Sciences & the Law 43:5 ► pp. 501 ff. DOI logo
Lin, Fen, Qin Zhou & Jianing Wang
2024. Can information transparency strengthen authoritarian accountability? An empirical study of open-government-information litigation in China (2008–2018). Chinese Sociological Review ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Liu, Wenjie, Zhengrui Han, Haiqing Chen & Wei Ren
2021. Discursive practice of Chinese criminal adjudication: A genre perspective. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 86 ► pp. 69 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 29 november 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