法庭交叉询问的邻近应对分析
|
摘要
法庭对话是口头的互动过程。它的抗辩性质贯穿于构成庭审的各个阶段：出庭的证人既享有被己方律师提问的权利，又承担接受对方律师质证的义务；任何类型的庭审，律师／公诉人都有权在庭审前申明代理、辩护意见，并在庭审结束时进行总结陈词；陪审团出庭的案件中，法官还要向陪审团做出关于法律适用的指令。虽说每个阶段对庭审都不可或缺，但质证辩论还是被认为是实现司法公正的核心之所在。法律语言研究者从权力分配、庭审技巧等方面对其作了大量研究。
本文力图从邻近应对的角度来分析庭审中的交叉询问。交叉询问中，律师／公诉人可以使用不同的方式质疑证人证词、引导证人／被告作答或将所诉之罪归责于被告。这方面的研究以Drew(1979)和Drew(1990)为代表，其研究多集中于纠错(correction)、改正(repair)和叙事(narrative)，笔者将选择邻近应对(adjacency pair)作为切入点。关于邻近应对，Schegloff,Sacks和Pomerantz提出了不同的特点，如方式条件(conditional relevance)、顺序条件(relative ordering)和优选条件(preference organization)。本文以邻近应对为中心把这三个条件组织为理论框架(见第30页)，对庭审交叉询问进行分析。笔者将析出语料中的三类现象：打断(overlap)，沉默(pause)和‘以言行事’(management of action sequence)，以所构建的理论框架对其进行分析、解释。这些分析会明晰并加深我们对律师／公诉人询问技巧的理解，对法官及时发现律师／公诉人的引导性问题以及对律师／公诉人提高询问能力都有一定的帮助。
Courtroom discourse is spoken and interactive. The adversarial nature of the trial process is the immediate determinant of its structural elements: the different stages which structure the proceedings. These ensure that for each witness/defendant there will be an examination-in-chief, by his own supportive counsel and a cross-examination, by the adversarial counsel/prosecutor. As well, each counsel/prosecutor typically will open his case by an opening address, and will close the case by a closing address. There will be as well a direction from the judge, directed to the jury. Although each stage is crucial to the process, the examination stage is usually perceived to be the core of the trial process. It is this stage that has attracted the greatest attention from those legal and linguistic observers concerned with the distribution of power, and with forensic strategies.
This thesis examines courtroom cross-examination from the angle of adjacency pairs. In cross-examination, a counsel/prosecutor can challenge a witness/defendant's testimony; lead the witness/defendant to answer predesigned questions, or throw blame on him/her. Drew (1979&1990) has given fruitful research in this field, but most of the research focuses on correction, repair or narrative. This author will choose the framework of adjacency pairs. Sacks, Schegloff, and Pormerautz have proposed different properties about adjacency pairs. In this thesis, conditional relevance, relative ordering and preference organization are combined into the theoretical framework, which are analytically reverted into three skills: overlaps, pauses and local management of action sequence. (For a clear and direct understanding, please refer to the diagram on page 30) The study may be of theoretical and practical significance. It may contribute, if any, to the development of forensic linguistics in China and may help counsel/prosecutor in trial to examine the witness/defendant more strategically and appropriately.
本文力图从邻近应对的角度来分析庭审中的交叉询问。交叉询问中，律师／公诉人可以使用不同的方式质疑证人证词、引导证人／被告作答或将所诉之罪归责于被告。这方面的研究以Drew(1979)和Drew(1990)为代表，其研究多集中于纠错(correction)、改正(repair)和叙事(narrative)，笔者将选择邻近应对(adjacency pair)作为切入点。关于邻近应对，Schegloff,Sacks和Pomerantz提出了不同的特点，如方式条件(conditional relevance)、顺序条件(relative ordering)和优选条件(preference organization)。本文以邻近应对为中心把这三个条件组织为理论框架(见第30页)，对庭审交叉询问进行分析。笔者将析出语料中的三类现象：打断(overlap)，沉默(pause)和‘以言行事’(management of action sequence)，以所构建的理论框架对其进行分析、解释。这些分析会明晰并加深我们对律师／公诉人询问技巧的理解，对法官及时发现律师／公诉人的引导性问题以及对律师／公诉人提高询问能力都有一定的帮助。
Courtroom discourse is spoken and interactive. The adversarial nature of the trial process is the immediate determinant of its structural elements: the different stages which structure the proceedings. These ensure that for each witness/defendant there will be an examination-in-chief, by his own supportive counsel and a cross-examination, by the adversarial counsel/prosecutor. As well, each counsel/prosecutor typically will open his case by an opening address, and will close the case by a closing address. There will be as well a direction from the judge, directed to the jury. Although each stage is crucial to the process, the examination stage is usually perceived to be the core of the trial process. It is this stage that has attracted the greatest attention from those legal and linguistic observers concerned with the distribution of power, and with forensic strategies.
This thesis examines courtroom cross-examination from the angle of adjacency pairs. In cross-examination, a counsel/prosecutor can challenge a witness/defendant's testimony; lead the witness/defendant to answer predesigned questions, or throw blame on him/her. Drew (1979&1990) has given fruitful research in this field, but most of the research focuses on correction, repair or narrative. This author will choose the framework of adjacency pairs. Sacks, Schegloff, and Pormerautz have proposed different properties about adjacency pairs. In this thesis, conditional relevance, relative ordering and preference organization are combined into the theoretical framework, which are analytically reverted into three skills: overlaps, pauses and local management of action sequence. (For a clear and direct understanding, please refer to the diagram on page 30) The study may be of theoretical and practical significance. It may contribute, if any, to the development of forensic linguistics in China and may help counsel/prosecutor in trial to examine the witness/defendant more strategically and appropriately.
引文
1. Alkinson, J. M. & Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings.[M] London: Macmillan
2. Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds) (1984). Structures of Social ACTION: Studies in Conversation Analysis.[C] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
3. Boden, D.& Zimmerman, D.H. (eds) (1991). Talkand Social Structure. [C] Cambridge: Polity Press
4. Brenner, M. (1981). Aspects of Conversational Structure in the Research Interview [A]. In Werth(1981)[C]
5. Bussmann, H. (2000). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
6. Clayman, S. (1989). The Production of Punctuality: Social Interaction, Temporal Organisationand Social Structure[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 95(3)
7. Clayman, S. (1988). Displaying Neutralityin Television News Interviews[J]. Social Problems, 35(4)
8. Coates, J. (1997). The Construction of a Collaborative Floor in Women's Friendly Talk [A]. In Givon[C](1997)
9. Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection[A]. In Atkinson&Heritage[C] (1984)
10. Drew, P. (1990). Strategies in the Contest between Lawyer and Witness in Cross-examination[A]. In Levi&Walker[C] (1990)
11. Drew, P. (1992). Contest Evidence in Courtroom Cross-exmination: the Case of a Trial for Rape[A]. In Drew&Heritage[C] (1992)
12. Drew, P.& Heritage, J. (eds)(1992). Talk at Work[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
13. Fasold, R. (1990). Sociolinguistics of language[M]. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Inc.
14. Firth, A. (1995). Talk for A Change: Commodity Negotiating by the Phone[A]. In A. Firth(ed) The Discourse of Negotiation[C]. Oxford: pergamon
15. Garcia, A. (1991). Dispute Resolution without Disputing: How the Interactional Organisation of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argumentative Talk[J]. American Sociological Review, 56
16. Gibbons, J. (1994). Language and the Law[C]. London: Longman
17. Given, T. (1997). Conversation: Connitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
18. Greatbateh, D. (1988). A Turn-taking System for British News Interviews[J]. Language in Society, 17
19. Green, G. M. (1990). Linguistic Analysis of Conversation as Evidence Regarding the Interpretation of Speech Events[A]. In Levi&Walker[C] (1990)
20. Have, P. (1991). Talk and Institution: a Reconsideration of the "Asymmetry" of Doctor-patient Iinteraetion[A]. In Boden&Zimmerman[C] (1991)
21. Have, P. T. (1999). Doing Conversation Analysis [M]. London: SAGE Pulbications Ltd.
22. Heritage, J. & Greatbatch, D. (1991). On the Institutional Chareater of Institutional Talk: the Case of News Interviews[A]. In Boden& Zimmerman[C](1991)
23. Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interaction between Health Visitors and First-time Mothers[A]. In Drew&Heritage[C] (1992)
24. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1991). Opening Sequences in Dutch Telephone Conversations[A]. In Boden& Zimmerman [C](1991)
25. Hutchby, I.& Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis[M]. Maldel: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
26. Kotthoff, H.(1993). Disagreement and Conversation in Disputes: on the Context-sensitivity of Preference Structures[J]. Language in Society, 22
27. Levi, J. N. (1990). The Study of Language in the Judicial Process [A]. In Levi&Walker[C] (1990)
28. Levi, J. N. & Walker, A.G.. (eds) (1990). Language in the Judicial Process[C]. New York: Plenum Press
29. Levison, S. C. (1992). Activity Types and Language[A]. In Drew&Heritage[C] (1992)
30. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Anaysis[M]. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers
31. Matoesian, G. M. (1993). Reproducing Rape:Domination through Talk in the Courtroom [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
32. Maynard, D. W. (1991). The Perspetive-display Series and the Delivery and Receipt of Diagnostic News[A]. In Boden & Zimmerman[C](1991)
33. McHoul, A. (1978). The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom[J]. Language in Society, 17
34. O'Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom [M]. New York: Academic Press
35. Owen, M. (1981). Conversational Units and the Use of "Well"[A]. In Werth [C](1981)
36. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn-shapes[A]. In Atkinson&Heritage[C] (1984)
37. Prince, E. F. (1990). On the Use of Social Conversation as Evidence in a Court of Law [A]. In Levi&Walker[C](1990)
38. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., &Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation[A]. In J. Schenkein. (ed) (1978). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction[C]. New York: Academic press Inc.
39. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation[M], ed. G. Jefferson. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell
40. Sarangi, S. & Roberts, C. (eds)(1999). Talk, Work and Institutional Orer[C]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter
41. Schogloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational Openings [J]. American Anthropolist, 70
42. Schogloff, E. A. &Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings [J]. Semiotica, 7
43. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions [A]. In Drew&Heritage [C](1992)
44. Stygall, G. (1994). Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation[M]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
45. Werth, W. (ed) (1981). Conversation and Discourse[C]. London: Biddies. Ltd.
46. Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Talk and Its Occasion: the Case of Calling the Police[A]. In D. Schiffrin(ed). Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications[C]. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press
47．(Du)杜金榜(2000)‘从目前的研究看法律语言学学科体系的构建’[J]《现代外语》，2000年第一期：99-107
48．(Liao)廖美珍(2003)《法庭问答及其互动研究》[M]，北京：法律出版社
49．(Wu)吴伟平(2002)，《语言与法律——司法领域的语言学研究》[M]上海：上海外语教育出版社
50 “．现在开庭”广播节目 中央人民广播电台中国之声
2. Atkinson, J. M. & Heritage, J. (eds) (1984). Structures of Social ACTION: Studies in Conversation Analysis.[C] Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
3. Boden, D.& Zimmerman, D.H. (eds) (1991). Talkand Social Structure. [C] Cambridge: Polity Press
4. Brenner, M. (1981). Aspects of Conversational Structure in the Research Interview [A]. In Werth(1981)[C]
5. Bussmann, H. (2000). Routledge Dictionary of Language and Linguistics[M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press
6. Clayman, S. (1989). The Production of Punctuality: Social Interaction, Temporal Organisationand Social Structure[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 95(3)
7. Clayman, S. (1988). Displaying Neutralityin Television News Interviews[J]. Social Problems, 35(4)
8. Coates, J. (1997). The Construction of a Collaborative Floor in Women's Friendly Talk [A]. In Givon[C](1997)
9. Davidson, J. (1984). Subsequent Versions of Invitations, Offers, Requests, and Proposals Dealing with Potential or Actual Rejection[A]. In Atkinson&Heritage[C] (1984)
10. Drew, P. (1990). Strategies in the Contest between Lawyer and Witness in Cross-examination[A]. In Levi&Walker[C] (1990)
11. Drew, P. (1992). Contest Evidence in Courtroom Cross-exmination: the Case of a Trial for Rape[A]. In Drew&Heritage[C] (1992)
12. Drew, P.& Heritage, J. (eds)(1992). Talk at Work[C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
13. Fasold, R. (1990). Sociolinguistics of language[M]. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell Inc.
14. Firth, A. (1995). Talk for A Change: Commodity Negotiating by the Phone[A]. In A. Firth(ed) The Discourse of Negotiation[C]. Oxford: pergamon
15. Garcia, A. (1991). Dispute Resolution without Disputing: How the Interactional Organisation of Mediation Hearings Minimizes Argumentative Talk[J]. American Sociological Review, 56
16. Gibbons, J. (1994). Language and the Law[C]. London: Longman
17. Given, T. (1997). Conversation: Connitive, Communicative and Social Perspectives[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
18. Greatbateh, D. (1988). A Turn-taking System for British News Interviews[J]. Language in Society, 17
19. Green, G. M. (1990). Linguistic Analysis of Conversation as Evidence Regarding the Interpretation of Speech Events[A]. In Levi&Walker[C] (1990)
20. Have, P. (1991). Talk and Institution: a Reconsideration of the "Asymmetry" of Doctor-patient Iinteraetion[A]. In Boden&Zimmerman[C] (1991)
21. Have, P. T. (1999). Doing Conversation Analysis [M]. London: SAGE Pulbications Ltd.
22. Heritage, J. & Greatbatch, D. (1991). On the Institutional Chareater of Institutional Talk: the Case of News Interviews[A]. In Boden& Zimmerman[C](1991)
23. Heritage, J. & Sefi, S. (1992). Dilemmas of Advice: Aspects of the Delivery and Reception of Advice in Interaction between Health Visitors and First-time Mothers[A]. In Drew&Heritage[C] (1992)
24. Houtkoop-Steenstra, H. (1991). Opening Sequences in Dutch Telephone Conversations[A]. In Boden& Zimmerman [C](1991)
25. Hutchby, I.& Wooffitt, R. (1998). Conversation Analysis[M]. Maldel: Blackwell Publishers Inc.
26. Kotthoff, H.(1993). Disagreement and Conversation in Disputes: on the Context-sensitivity of Preference Structures[J]. Language in Society, 22
27. Levi, J. N. (1990). The Study of Language in the Judicial Process [A]. In Levi&Walker[C] (1990)
28. Levi, J. N. & Walker, A.G.. (eds) (1990). Language in the Judicial Process[C]. New York: Plenum Press
29. Levison, S. C. (1992). Activity Types and Language[A]. In Drew&Heritage[C] (1992)
30. Markee, N. (2000). Conversation Anaysis[M]. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publishers
31. Matoesian, G. M. (1993). Reproducing Rape:Domination through Talk in the Courtroom [M]. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers
32. Maynard, D. W. (1991). The Perspetive-display Series and the Delivery and Receipt of Diagnostic News[A]. In Boden & Zimmerman[C](1991)
33. McHoul, A. (1978). The Organization of Turns at Formal Talk in the Classroom[J]. Language in Society, 17
34. O'Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom [M]. New York: Academic Press
35. Owen, M. (1981). Conversational Units and the Use of "Well"[A]. In Werth [C](1981)
36. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and Disagreeing with Assessments: Some Features of Preferred/dispreferred Turn-shapes[A]. In Atkinson&Heritage[C] (1984)
37. Prince, E. F. (1990). On the Use of Social Conversation as Evidence in a Court of Law [A]. In Levi&Walker[C](1990)
38. Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., &Jefferson, G. (1974). A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-taking for Conversation[A]. In J. Schenkein. (ed) (1978). Studies in the Organization of Conversational Interaction[C]. New York: Academic press Inc.
39. Sacks, H. (1992). Lectures on Conversation[M], ed. G. Jefferson. 2 vols. Oxford: Blackwell
40. Sarangi, S. & Roberts, C. (eds)(1999). Talk, Work and Institutional Orer[C]. New York: Mouton de Gruyter
41. Schogloff, E. A. (1968). Sequencing in Conversational Openings [J]. American Anthropolist, 70
42. Schogloff, E. A. &Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up Closings [J]. Semiotica, 7
43. Schegloff, E. A. (1992). On Talk and Its Institutional Occasions [A]. In Drew&Heritage [C](1992)
44. Stygall, G. (1994). Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation[M]. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company
45. Werth, W. (ed) (1981). Conversation and Discourse[C]. London: Biddies. Ltd.
46. Zimmerman, D. H. (1984). Talk and Its Occasion: the Case of Calling the Police[A]. In D. Schiffrin(ed). Meaning, Form, and Use in Context: Linguistic Applications[C]. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University Press
47．(Du)杜金榜(2000)‘从目前的研究看法律语言学学科体系的构建’[J]《现代外语》，2000年第一期：99-107
48．(Liao)廖美珍(2003)《法庭问答及其互动研究》[M]，北京：法律出版社
49．(Wu)吴伟平(2002)，《语言与法律——司法领域的语言学研究》[M]上海：上海外语教育出版社
50 “．现在开庭”广播节目 中央人民广播电台中国之声