法官庭審話語的實證研究

摘要

當前，法律語言學已經成為一個全球性的熱門研究領域。近年來，越來越多的學者開始關注法庭話語的動態研究，將目光放在法庭審判中的語言活動上。本研究的對象是法官在庭審中的審判話語，研究方法運用話語分析理論、言語行為理論以及語用學的目的原則等。本研究以25場真實的庭審語料為實證材料，在詳細分析和描述法官庭審話語的基礎上，探討了法官庭審話語的規范化問題，以期對我國的司法改革提供一定的理論支持。

全書共分六個章節。

第一章概述了法律語言學，特別是法官語言的國內外研究狀況，同時介紹了本研究的目的、方法、理論依據、語料、研究的特點及意義等。本研究采用語言學中的話語分析理論及語用學中的言語行為理論及目的原則，借用真實的庭審語料，旨在描述法官庭審話語的現狀及特征，從而為拓展我國的語言學研究領域做出嘗試，也在為法學理論研究提供新路徑方面做出探索，同時為我國的司法審判制度改革提供一定的啟示。

第二章通過運用話語分析理論（如會話結構、話輪轉換、話題及話語分類等），在對9場庭審語料進行量化統計的基礎上，描述分析了法官庭審話語的結構及特點，以及法官話語在整個審判活動中的地位及特征。從中我們發現法官在整個庭審話語活動中仍然掌握著最大的話語權，即便在已經改革了的刑事審判中也是如此。同時還發現，法官在刑事審判中的庭審話語以程序性話語居多；相比較而言，法官在民事、行政案件審判中實體性話語占據絕對多數，且在后者中，法官在法庭審理這個“舞臺”上仍然占據著“主角”地位；而在刑事案件審判中，法官的“主角”地位已經淡化。此外，問答結構不僅是整個庭審的主要話語結構，也是由法官啟動的話輪的主要結構。

第三章從言語行為理論的角度分析法官的庭審話語行為。法庭審判活動是以話語進行的，法官的庭審話語就是在實施言語行為。言語行為理論為我們分析探討法官的言語行為提供了一種分析模式。言語行為理論從總體上研究話語的施事行為，認為說話就是做事。按照奧斯汀對施事行為的劃分，法官的庭審話語就是在實施審判行為。法庭話語屬于機構話語，雖然受法庭這一機構規則的嚴格制約，但一般言語行為原則在一定程度上仍然起作用。法官的庭審話語不僅是說話行為，同時還是施事行為和取效行為。我們從法官最后的宣判行為中的“本院認為”句式中可以清楚地看到法官庭審話語的言語行為功能。

第四章運用語用學中的目的原則來描述、揭示法官的庭審話語。目的系統論認為目的是一個有結構、有層次、有機的系統。用語用學的目的原則分析法官話語，我們可以看到法官的審判話語就是這樣一個有結構、有層次的目的系統。法官的話語都是在一定目的引導下的話語活動。法官為了實現其話語目的，進而實現整個審判目的，通常會使用帶有目的性很強的話語策略，如打斷策略。

第五章主要探討法官話語規范化的必要性、途徑及意義。在現實審判活動中，法官不可避免地出現“語誤”，即審判話語失范。但是由于法官的特殊地位及作用，法官的失范話語可能造成不公正的效果。因此要保證審判公正，就需要規范法官的審判話語。我們認為，在實行當事人主義的審判方式下，法官在庭審中要盡量退居次要地位。在總體話語量中，以說規范、說準確為前提，盡量采用程序性話語，控制實體性話語量，以真正體現法官的中立角色地位。

第六章歸納了本研究的主要內容、重要發現和可能的啟示，指出了本研究的特色與創新之處，以及其中存在的不足和未來研究的設想。本研究在方法上嘗試了不同的視角，是針對司法實踐話語的一種語用研究，具有交叉學科的研究范式，兼具方法論及現實意義。但是由于語料的局限性，經驗性描述較多而理論探討不足，有待于今后進行更深入的理論探討，應將法官庭審話語、司法制度及司法公正更好地結合起來進行研究。

關鍵詞：法官 庭審話語 話語分析 言語行為 目的原則

A POSITIVE STUDY ON JUDGES’ TRIAL DISCOURSE

ABSTRACT

The study of forensic linguistics has been on the rise both at home and abroad. In China, the scholars who are engaged in the research of this field are mainly the scholars of law, Chinese language and foreign language study. Recently, many scholars begin to pay attention to the dynamic study on the trial discourse. More and more scholars are focusing on the language activities taking place in the courtroom. This paper aims at the study on the discourse features, speech acts and goal analysis of judges’ trial discourse from the perspectives of discourse analysis, speech act theory and the principle of goals together with the analysis of 25 transcripts of courtroom trials so as to give a general description of judges’ trial discourse and attempt to provide some proposals which may contribute to the normativeness of judges’ trial discourse. It is hoped that the study may give some hints to the judicial practice and judicial reforms in China.

The whole book is composed of six chapters.

As an introduction to the paper, the first chapter intends to introduce the theoretical background and the overall framework of the whole book. Firstly, it briefly examines the academic history of language and law study which proves later to have laid a solid foundation for the forensic linguistics coming into being as a formal subject, and reviews the recent developments and accomplishments of forensic linguistic studies both at home and abroad. And then it provides a survey of the present paper, including its main contents, research value and significance, and the academic theory and study methods to be employed.

Chapter Two is a quantitative description of 9 courtroom trials in terms of discourse analysis theory, such as adjacency pair, conversational structure, turn-taking, topics and classification of discourse, etc., aiming to uncover the features and status of judges’ trial discourse. We have discovered that judges still assume the supreme power in the whole trial discourse activities, and it is so even in the criminal trail after the judicial reform. However, we have also found out that the procedural discourse of judges in criminal trials takes predominance, whereas by contrast, the substantive discourse in civil and administrative trials is the dominant discourse, where judges are still playing the leading role on the trial stage. Hopefully the leading role of judges in criminal trials is diminishing. Besides, the pattern of question-response is still the major structure of the court trial, so is the judges’ discourse with other participants in the trial.

In Chapter Three, the speech act theory is adopted to analyze the judges’ trial discourse. It is obvious that the courtroom trial is conducted through discourse, in which the judges’ trial discourse is also performing speech acts. The speech act theory by Austin provides us with a pattern of analyzing judges’ trial discourse. The speech act theory deals with the illocutionary act of discourse generally, in which saying is doing. According to the distinctions of illocutionary acts by Austin, we have found that judges’ trial discourse is actually performing the trial act. The trial discourse is a kind of institutional discourse, which is restricted strictly by the rules of institutions though, and the general speech act still plays a role in it. The judges’ trial discourse is not only a locutionary act, but also an illocutionary act and perlocutionary act. By analyzingthe sentence pattern of “consideratum est per curiam” when judges pronounce a judgment, we may clearly notice the aim and functions of speech acts of judges’ trial discourse.

Chapter Four aims to employ the principle of goal analysis in pragmatics so as to describe and discover the judges’ trial discourse. According to the system of goals theory, goals are a system with the goals, and in order to realize his/her discourse goals, so as to realize the aim of the whole trial, the judge may have adopted many goal-oriented discourse strategies, such as interruptions, which are closely related with power.

In Chapter Five, it is devoted to the standardization of judges’ trial discourse. In real life trial practice, it is unavoidable that judges may make some errors in their trial discourse. However, due to their special status and positions, such discourse errors may cause disastrous results. Therefore, in order to guarantee a just trial, it is a must for judges to make their trial discourse normative. Under the adversarial system of trial, judges should remain as passive in the trial as they can. In terms of discourse, under the premises of speaking within norms and accurately, judges should produce more procedural discourse rather than substantive one, which is in conformity with the spirits of procedure laws.

Finally, the last chapter, Chapter Six, as the conclusion part of the book, summarizes the main points and important findings of this study. In addition, it highlights its significance, makes some explanations over its limits and shortcomings, and indicates the possible improvements and further researches in this field in the future.

KEY WORDS: judge, trial discourse, discourse analysis, speech act, goal principle