Cover not available

Article published In: Pragmatics and Society
Vol. 11:4 (2020) ► pp.615–639

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

Analyzing interdiscursivity in legal genres

The case of Chinese lawyers’ written opinions

 | Beihang University
 | The Chinese University of Hong Kong
 | Jinan University, China
Published online: 20 November 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.17030.han
Abstract
The traditional simplistic understanding of legal genre as homogeneous texts of legalese is recently confronted by researches focusing on the contextual aspects of legal communication, i.e. the production, circulation, and consumption of legal genres in diverse institutional contexts (Candlin, Christopher N., and Yon Maley. 1997. “Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the discourse of alternative dispute resolution.” in The Construction of Professional Discourse, ed. by L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, and B. Nordberg. 201–222. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar; D’hondt, Sigurd, and Fleur van der Houwen. 2014. “Quoting from the case file: How intertextual practices shape discourse at various stages in the legal trajectory”. Language & Communication 36(2): 1–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar). It is, according to these researches, more reasonable to think of legal genres as a hybrid combining the operation of different heterogeneous discourses. This article takes the broad contextual perspective, draws on the theory of critical genre analysis (Bhatia 2016) and attempts to explore the discursive heterogeneity in one of the Chinese legal genres – the lawyers’ defense opinions. Both textual and interpretative analysis are conducted in order to identify specific discourses that underline Chinese lawyers’ preparation of defense opinions, and to look at how Chinese lawyers linguistically construct the different discourses to fulfill the ultimate purpose of justifying the defendant’s actions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Interdiscursivity in professional discourse studies
  • 3.The study
    • 3.1Critical genre analysis
    • 3.2Lawyers’ opinions as a structured legal genre
    • 3.3Lawyers’ opinions as a dynamic interdiscursive institution
  • 4.Legal discourse
  • 5.Moral discourse
  • 6.Therapeutic discourse
  • 7.Self-legitimation discourse
  • 8.Conclusion
  • References
References (83)
References
Bagguley, Paul. 1991. “Post-Fordism and enterprise culture: Flexibility, autonomy and changes in economic organization.” In Enterprise Culture, ed. by Russell Keat and Nicholas Abercrombie. 151–170. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail. 1981. The Dialogic Imagination (trans. by M. Holquist, and C. Emerson; ed. by M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (trans. by V. McGee; ed. by C. Emerson and M. Holquist). Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bargiela-Chiappini, Francesca, and Catherine Nickerson (eds.). 2014. Writing Business: Genres, Media and Discourses. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bateman, John A. 2008. Multimodality and Genre: A Foundation for the Systematic Analysis of Multimodal Documents. Basingstoke UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles. 2004. “Intertextuality: How texts rely on other texts.” in What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices, ed. by Charles Bazerman and Paul Prior. 83–96. Mahwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bazerman, Charles, and Paul Prior (eds.). 2004. What Writing Does and How It Does It: An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1993. Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2004. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-based View. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. “Towards critical genre analysis.” in Advances in Discourse Studies, ed. by Vijay Bhatia, John Flowerdew, and Rodney Jones. 166–177. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. “Critical genre analysis: Theoretical preliminaries”. Hermes 541: 9–20.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. Critical Genre Analysis: Investigating Interdiscursive Performance in Professional Practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, and Edward Finegan. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Breeze, Ruth. 2013. “Lexical bundles across four legal genres”. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 18(2): 229–253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bremner, Stephen. 2014. “Genres and processes in the PR industry: Behind the scenes with an intern writer”. International Journal of Business Communication 51(3): 259–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Candlin, Christopher N., and Ken Hyland (eds.). 1999. Writing: Texts, Processes, and Practices. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Candlin, Christopher N., and Yon Maley. 1997. “Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the discourse of alternative dispute resolution.” in The Construction of Professional Discourse, ed. by L. Gunnarsson, P. Linell, and B. Nordberg. 201–222. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Le. 2010. “A semiotic interpretation of genre: court judgments as an example”. Semiotica 1821: 89–113.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, Le, and K. K. Sin. 2008. “A court judgment as dialogue.” In Dialogue and Rhetoric, ed. by Edda Weigand. 267–281. Amsterdam: Benjamins. 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
Davies, Sarah R. 2009. “Doing dialogue: Genre and flexibility in public engagement with science.” Science as Culture 18(4): 397–416. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devitt, Amy J. 1991. “Intertextuality in tax accounting: Generic, referential and functional.” in Textual Dynamics of the Professions: Historical and Contemporary Studies of Writing in Professional Communities, ed. by Charles Bazerman and James Paradis. 336–355. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
D’hondt, Sigurd, and Fleur van der Houwen. 2014. “Quoting from the case file: How intertextual practices shape discourse at various stages in the legal trajectory”. Language & Communication 36(2): 1–6. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Elkins, James R. 1982. “Moral discourse and legalism in legal education”. Journal of Legal Education 32(1): 11–52.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fairclough, Norman. 1992. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1994. “Technologisation of discourse.” in Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and M. Coulthard. 71–83. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fineman, Martha. 1988. “Dominant discourse, professional language, and legal change in child custody decision making.” Harvard Law Review 1011: 272–774. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fishelov, David. 1993. Metaphors of Genre: The Role of Analogies in Genre Theory. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Frow, John. 2006. Genre. London: Routledge.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Giltrow, Janet, and Dieter Stein (eds.) 2008. Genres in the Internet: Issues in the Theory of Genre. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hafner, Christoph A. 2010. “A multi-perspective genre analysis of the Barrister’s Opinion: Writing context, generic structure, and textualization.” Written Communication 27(4): 410–441. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
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
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.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
. 2014. “The marketization of public discourse: The Chinese universities.” Discourse & Communication 8(1): 85–103. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2016. “The mediatization 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 Xiaoyu Li. 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
Hantler, Steven B., Victor E. Schwartz, and Phil S. Goldberg. 2004. “Extending the privilege to litigation communications specialist sin the age of trial by media.” CommLaw Conspectus 131: 7–34.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hart, Christopher. 2008. “Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: Toward a theoretical framework.” Critical Discourse Studies 5(2): 91–106. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2014. Discourse, Grammar and Ideology: Functional and Cognitive Perspective. London: Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Harwood, Nigel, and Gregory Hadley. 2004. “Demystifying institutional practices: Critical pragmatism and the teaching of academic writing.” English for Specific Purposes 23(4): 355–377.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
He, Xin, and Kwai Huang Ng. 2013. “In the name of harmony: The erasure of domestic violence in China’s judicial mediation.” International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family 27(1): 97–115. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hobbs, Pamela. 2008. “‘It’s not what you say but how you say it’: The role of personality and identity in trial success.” Critical Discourse Studies 5(3): 231–248. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Irvine, Judith T. 1979. “Formality and informality in communicative events.” American Anthropologist 81(4): 773–790. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jacobs, Scott. 2009. “Commentary on Paul Van Den Hoven’s ‘Argument Discourse as a Sign’.” In Argument Cultures: Proceedings of OSSA 09 (CD-ROM), ed. by J. Ritola. 1–3. Windsor, Ont.: OSSA.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jones, Rodney H. 2015. “Generic intertextuality in online social activism: The case of the It Gets Better Project.” Language in Society 44(3): 317–339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kim, Jae Won. 2001. “The ideal and the reality of the Korean legal profession.” Asian-Pacific law & Policy Journal 2(1): 45–68.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kolln, Martha. 2003. Rhetorical Grammar: Grammatical Choices, Rhetorical Effects (4th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kristeva, Julia. 1986. “Word, dialogue, and novel.” In The Kristeva Reader, ed. by T. Moi. 36–61. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2009. “Speech acts in Early Modern English court trials.” Journal of Pragmatics 41(3): 440–457. 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
Lerman, Lisa G. 2005. “Greed among American lawyers.” Oklahoma City University Law Review 301: 611–636.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Li, Yunlong. 2012. Collection of Chinese Lawyers’ Defense Opinions – Li Yunlong (中国大律师辩护词代理词精选: 李云龙专辑). Beijing: China Law Pres.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lin, Duan. 2002. Confucianism and Chinese Legal Cultures (儒家伦理与法律文化). Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacCormick, Neil. 2005. Rhetoric and the Rule of Law: A Theory of Legal Reasoning. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Jim R., and David Rose. 2003. Working with Discourse: Meaning beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Merry, Sally Engle. 1990. Getting Justice and Getting Even. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Posner, Richard A. 1999. The problematics of moral and legal theory. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Richardson, John E. 2007. Analysing Newspaper: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rotunda, Ronald D. 1999. “The legal profession and the public image of lawyers.” The Journal of Legal Profession 231: 51–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Russell, David R., and David Fisher. 2009. “Online, multimedia cases studies for professional education.” In Genres in the Internet, ed. by J. Giltrow and D. Stein. 163–191. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant. 2000. “Activity types, discourse types and interactional hybridity: The case of genetic counseling.” In Discourse and Social Life, ed. by S. Sarangi and M. Coulthard. 1–27. London: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant, and Christopher N. Candlin. 2010. Applied linguistics and professional practice: mapping a future agenda. Journal of Applied Linguistics and Professional Practice 7(1): 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant, and Celia Roberts. 1999. “Discursive hybridity in medical work.” In Talk, Work and Institutional Order: Discourse in Medical, Mediation and Management Settings, ed. by S. Sarangi and C. Roberts. 61–74. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sarangi, Srikant, and Stefan Slembrouck. 1996. Language, Bureaucracy and Social Control. London: Longman.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shaffer, Thomas L. 1979. “Advocacy as moral discourse.” North Carolina Law Review 571: 647–670.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spenader, Jennifer, and Emar Maier. 2009. “Contrast as denial in multi-dimensional semantics.” Journal of Pragmatics 41(9): 1707–1726. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Swales, John. 1990. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. “Worlds of genre – Metaphors of genre.” In Genre in a Changing World, ed. by C. Bazerman, A. Bonini, and D. Figueirede. 3–16. West Lafayette, Indiana: Parlor Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tessuto, Girolamo. 2006. “Opinions of counsel: An exploratory survey.” In Explorations in Specialized Genres, ed. by Vijay Bhatia and Maurizio Gotti. 297–309. Bern: Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tian, Wenchang. 2013. Collection of Chinese Lawyers’ Defense Opinions – Tian Wenchang (中国大律师辩护词代理词精选: 田文昌专辑). Beijing: China Law Pres.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tickoo, Asha. 2010. “On assertion without free speech.” Journal of Pragmatics 42(6): 1577–1594. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Trosborg, Anna. 1995. “Statutes and contracts: An analysis of legal speech acts in the English language of the law.” Journal of Pragmatics 23(1): 31–53. 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 Dijk, Teun A. 1993. “Principles of critical discourse analysis.” Discourse & Society 4(2): 249–283. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Leeuwen, Theo. 2007. “Legitimation in discourse and communication.” Discourse & Communication 1(1): 91–112. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wang, Jiuchuan. 2016. Collection of Chinese Lawyers’ Defense Opinions – Wang Jiuchuan (中国大律师辩护词代理词精选: 王九川专辑). Beijing: China Law Pres.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Xiong, Yaoming. 2007. “The origins and development of adversary trials (辩论主义: 溯源与变迁)”. Modern Law Journal (现代法学) 2007 (February): 91–98.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zhu, Hongqiang, Wei Ren, and Zhengrui Han. 2016. “The impact of marketization on the communication of Chinese academicians: A genre analytical perspective.” Critical Discourse Studies 13(5): 467–484. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (8)

Cited by eight other publications

Cheng, Le & Xiaobin Zhu
2025. Foreign relations law as an interdiscursive continuum. Pragmatics and Society DOI logo
Qian, Yubin & Nan Wu
2025. Cultural Interdiscursivity in Managing Corporate Discourse: A Corpus Analysis. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 54:1 DOI logo
Yang, Min & Ye Lin
2025. A Comparative Analysis of Moral Discourse in Chinese and American Courtrooms. SAGE Open 15:1 DOI logo
Han, Zhengrui, Vijay K. Bhatia & Xue Fu
2024. Ideology and the contextualization of ancient Chinese judicial opinions. Discourse & Society 35:6 ► pp. 757 ff. DOI logo
李, 静
2023. A Review of Foreign Courtroom Discourse Studies. Modern Linguistics 11:05 ► pp. 2311 ff. DOI logo
Qian, Yubin
2022. A stylometric approach to the interdiscursivity of professional practice. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications 9:1 DOI logo
Zhu, Wuhan & Yangfei Zhu
2022. Employing political persuasion to manage rapport: qualitative analysis of campaign leaflets in Sheffield Central constituency. Text & Talk 42:5 ► pp. 755 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 30 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