Article published In:
Pragmatics and Society: Online-First Articles

Negotiating the value of rule of law through attitudinal positioning

A corpus-based analysis of Chinese digital indictments

ORCID logo | Fujian Normal University
This article examines how the value of rule of law is negotiated through public prosecutors’ attitudinal positioning of themselves and defendants in courtroom discourse. A corpus-based analysis of 120 recent Chinese digital indictments revealed that the evaluative stances of public prosecutors toward themselves invariably imply positive judgment of capacity and legal propriety in their legal investigation, thus constructing a stable and authoritative image of law enforcers. Their attitudes toward defendants are mainly negative judgments of both moral and legal propriety through various criminal actions, creating a predominantly evil image of law violators with different personae. It is through these sharply different patterns of discourse representation that public prosecutors tactically construct and negotiate attitudes toward crime and justice, thus establishing mainstream judicial values during legal proceedings. This study may shed new light on the research of legal argumentation for negotiating judicial values under the civil law system in this digital era.
Keywords: attitudinal positioning, discourse analysis, legal argumentation, Chinese digital indictments, prosecution, civil law system
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Studies of value negotiation in courtroom discourse
  • 3.The corpus-based analysis of evaluative instances within Chinese indictments
    • 3.1Analytical foundation
    • 3.2Application of corpus techniques and data analysis
      • 3.2.1Research questions
      • 3.2.2Data collection
      • 3.2.3Data analysis procedure
  • 4.Findings
    • 4.1Judgment on defendants
    • 4.2Judgment on public prosecutors
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 22 January 2024
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.23026.shi
References (46)
References
Bednarek, M. 2010. “Corpus Linguistics and Systemic Functional Linguistics: Interpersonal Meaning, Identity and Bonding in Popular Culture.” In New Discourse on Language: Functional Perspectives on Multimodality, Identity and Affiliation, eds. by Bednarek Monica, and James R. Martin, 237–266. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Bilz, Kenworthey, and Janice Nadler. 2014. “Law, Moral Attitudes, and Behavioral Change.” In The Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law, eds. by Eyal Zamir, and Doron Teichman, 241–267. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2017. “Speech Reporting in Courtroom Opening Statements.” Journal of Pragmatics 1191: 1–14. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Le, and Xiuli Liu. 2022. “Politics behind the Law: Unveiling the Discursive Strategies in Extradition Hearings on Meng Wanzhou.” International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(2): 235–255. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cheng, Le, and Marcel Danesi. 2019. “Exploring Legal Discourse: A Sociosemiotic (re)Construction.” Social Semiotics 29(3): 279–285. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coffin, Caroline. 2006. Historical Discourse: The Language of Time, Cause and Evaluation London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Coulthard, Malcolm and Johnson Alison. (eds). 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
D’hondt, Sigurd. 2019. “Humanity and Its Beneficiaries: Footing and Stance-taking in an International Criminal Trial.” Signs and Society 7(3): 427–453. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Daniel, Florence O., and Foluke O. Unuabonah. 2021. “Stance and Engagement in Selected Nigerian Supreme Court Judgments.” English Text Construction 14(2): 231–252. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feng, Dezheng. 2023. Multimodal Chinese Discourse: Understanding Communication and Society in Contemporary China. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feng, Dezheng, and Shuo Zhang. 2018. “Language, Attitudes and Party Politics: The Representation of Republicans and Democrats in Presidential Weekly Addresses.” Pragmatics and Society 9(2): 232–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Finegan, Edward, and Benjamin T. Lee. 2010. “Legal Writing: Attitude and Emphasis: Corpus Linguistic Approaches to ‘Legal Language’: Adverbial Expression of Attitude and Emphasis in Supreme Court Opinions.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, eds. by Malcolm Coulthard, and Johnson Alison, 48–63. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Guillén-Nieto, Victoria, and Dieter Stein. (eds). 2021. Language as Evidence: Doing Forensic Linguistics. Springer Nature.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Harré, Rom, and Fathali Moghaddam. 2003. The Self and Others: Positioning Individuals and Groups in Personal, Political, and Cultural Contexts. London: Praeger.Google Scholar
Harré, Rom, and Luk Van Langenhove. 1999. The Positioning Theory. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. “Narrative Navigation: Narrative Practices in Forensic Discourse.” Narrative Inquiry (2): 267–286. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heydon, Georgina. 2019. Researching Forensic Linguistics: Approaches and Applications, London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hobbs, Pamela. 2003. “‘Is That What We’re Here About?’:A Lawyer’s Use of Impression Management in a Closing Argument at Trial.” Discourse & Society 14 (3: 273–290.Google Scholar
Hood, Susan. 2010. Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huan, Changpeng, Menghan Deng, and Napak-on Sritrakarn. 2021. “The Bangkok Blast as a Finger-Pointing Blame Game: How Attitudinal Positioning Construes a Divided Polity.” Journal of Language and Politics 20(4): 493–514. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liao, Meizhen. 2006. “A Study on ‘Formulation’ in Chinese Courtroom Interaction.” Foreign Language Research (2):3–10.Google Scholar
Liebman, Benjamin L., Margaret Roberts, Rachel E. Stern and Alice Wang. 2020. “Mass Digitization of Chinese Court Decisions: How to Use Text as Data in the Field of Chinese Law”, Journal of Law & Courts (8):177–201. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Liu, Aiying. 1999. New Legal Documents Models. Beijing: Law Press.Google Scholar
Liu, Sida, and Terence C. Halliday. 2016. Criminal Defense in China: The Politics of Lawyers at Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luo, Haocai and Gongde Song. 2004. “The Construction of Public Law in a Harmonious Society.” Chinese Jurisprudence (6):3–22.Google Scholar
Martin, James R. 2004. “Mourning: How We Get Aligned.” Discourse and Society 15(2–3): 321–344. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martin, James R., and David Rose. 2007. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Martin, James R., and Peter, White P. R. 2005. The Language of Evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mühlhahn, Klaus. 2009. Criminal Justice in China: A History. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Obeng, Gyasi Samuel. 1997. “Communication Strategies: Persuasion and Politeness in Akan Judicial Discourse.” Text & Talk 17(1): 25–52.Google Scholar
Olsson, John. 2008. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language, Crime and the Law. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Poole, Robert. 2021. “A Corpus-aided Study of Stance Adverbs in Judicial Opinions and the Implications for English for Legal Purposes Instruction.” English for Specific Purposes 621:117–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosulek, Felton L. 2009. The Sociolinguistic Construction of Reality in the Closing Arguments of Criminal Trial. Urbana: University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Shavell, Steven. 2002. “Law versus Morality as Regulators of Conduct.” American Law and Economics Review 4 (2: 227–257. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shi, Chunxu. 2019. “On Multimodal Designing for the Identity Construction of Public Prosecutors from the Perspective of Individuation.” Modern Foreign Languages 42(2): 243–253.Google Scholar
Shi, Guang. 2016. “A Study on Attitude in Chinese Courtroom Discourse.” Modern Foreign Languages 39 (1: 52–63.Google Scholar
Stygall, Gail. 1994. Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Dijk, Teun. A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Wang, Zhenhua, and Chunxu Shi. 2016. “Nominalization and Its Effects on Discourse: Technicalization, Rationalization and Interpersonalization.” Modern Foreign Languages (6): 751–762.Google Scholar
Wan, Yi, Yongzhong Tan and Tian Xie. 2016. “A Practical Exploration and Legal Analysis of Judicial Transparency: A Case Study of the Reform of G City People’s Procuratorate.” Chinese Journal of Criminal Law (4):102–120.Google Scholar
Wang, Chunli, and Jiangao Jiang. 2015. “The Role Positioning of Public Prosecutors in Criminal Proceedings.” Beijing Social Science (5):115–121.Google Scholar
Yuan, Chuanyou. 2019. “A Battlefield or a Lecture Hall? A Contrastive Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Courtroom Trials.” Social Semiotics 29(5): 645–669. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zappavigna, M., and James R. Martin. 2018. Discourse and Diversionary Justice: An Analysis of Youth Justice Conferencing. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Cao, Huishu & Chuanyou Yuan
2024. Affiliating With Jury: Analysis of Multimodal Graduation in Attorneys’ Closing Arguments. International Journal of Applied Linguistics DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 26 december 2024. 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.