美国法庭结案陈词的评价研究
摘要
马丁的评价理论是系统功能语言学关于语言人际功能的新发展。该理论注重对词汇层的评价功能的研究，它把评价性资源分为态度、介入和分级三个次系统。其中，态度是人们借以对人的行为、世间的事物、事件或状态等表达肯定或否定评价的意义资源，它又分为情感、判定和鉴赏。态度的这三个子系统分别属于心理、伦理和美学范畴。评价系统中的介入系统涉及说话者/作者和语篇中各种命题和主张的关系，而分级系统则是说话者/作者借以对态度或介入程度等进行分级的资源。评价理论的解释力在不同领域已得到检验，包括叙述话语、媒体话语、学术书评等。研究人员运用评价理论来识别和分析不同体裁中存在的态度、介入及级差资源，来探究不同体裁中评价资源的使用规律及其蕴含的评价意义。
在抗辩制审判制度中，结案陈词是审判过程中控辩双方说服法官或陪审团的最后机会，是能够影响判决结果的环节之一，在庭审中占有重要的地位。不同于审判的其它阶段，控辩双方在结案陈词阶段基本上不会受到来自对方的打断，他们可以进行最充分、最自由、最详细陈述的陈词。控辩双方利用这一次机会，不仅可以突显其认为重要的证据，对审判中的信息进行合成，提醒案件裁决者注意有利于己方的证据，还可以用相关适用法规来解释证据，以说服案件裁决者相信己方的主张，并做出利于己方的判决。在一些富有争议性或是控辩双方胜算相差无几的案件中，结案陈词的质量与诉讼成败息息相关。因此，在审判过程中，结案陈词是控辩双方不敢忽视的一个环节。控辩双方既要客观地向法官或陪审团言明事实，又要对事实进行主观评判，以达到影响法官或陪审团观点的目的。无论是法律事实客观的描述还是个人的主观性看法，控辩双方都要通过表达自己的情感、态度和立场来维护当事人的利益，因此这种语篇必然承载着丰富的评价意义。
目前国内外对法庭语篇的研究主要集中在交叉质询这一互动环节，有一些学者从写作和演讲技巧、不当行为等角度对结案陈词这一语篇进行了研究。本研究以评价理论为研究框架和美国法律史上10篇精彩的结案陈词为语料，其中控方结案陈词和辩方结案陈词各5篇，对它们进行深入、全面的分析和探讨，旨在揭示在这一语篇中控辩双方律师是如何利用评价资源和手段来表明他们的观点和立场，反映个人及社会的价值系统，建立和维护与案件裁决者的关系，以及说服案件裁决者做出有利于他们的当事人的裁决。鉴于语料的可获性，本研究的结案陈词语料仅限于美国法庭。
本研究应用评价理论对法庭结案陈词这一语篇进行了以下几个方面的详细分析：
一、从感受主体、判定对象及鉴赏对象三个角度分析了态度系统中的情感、判定及鉴赏三个子系统中的态度资源的表现形式及评价意义；比较分析了控辩双方对相同评价对象的评价方式、评价意义及评价效果的异同。
二、从自言和借言两个角度分析了使语篇和发话方的声音具有主体间性的介入资源;在统计软件的辅助下，比较各类介入资源的在控辩双方结案陈词中的出现频率的异同及并探究了造成差异的原因;分析了控辩双方如何通过各类介入资源来表明己方对语篇中所述命题的真实值所持的态度。
三、分析了控辩双方结案陈词语篇中的级差资源，并探讨了发话方如何利用它们来表示评价意义的强弱。
四、分析了结案陈词语篇中发话方的声音，探讨了他们是如何通过不同的声音角色来和法庭裁决者进行人际意义的协商以及在法庭语境下进行身份的构建。本研究主要有以下几个意义：
一﹑对英语语境下的法庭结案陈词进行的评价研究，拓展了司法语篇和劝说语篇的研究领域，扩大了评价研究的语类范围,对汉语语境下的法庭辩论语篇研究也有一定的参考价值。
二﹑关于控辩双方律师结案陈词在评价资源应用方面的异同的研究结论是对这一语类的现有研究成果有益的补充，能够对法律从业者有所借鉴作用，同时对劝说性演讲语篇的教学有所启示。
Martin’s Appraisal Theory is a further development on the study of the interpersonalfunction of language within the framework of Systemic Function Linguistics. The researchfocus of this theory is on the evaluative function at the lexico-semantic level. Within thetheory, the evaluative meanings are categorized systemically into three sub-systems:Attitude, Engagement and Graduation. Among them, Attitude refers to the meaningsemployed by humans to express positive or negative evaluation about human behaviors,things, incidents and status. It can be further divided into affect, judgment and appreciation.These three subdivisions of Attitude belong to the categories of psychology, ethics, andaesthetics respectively. Engagement is involved with the relationship between theproposition presented in discourse and the position held by addresser, while Graduation isthe resource employed by speaker/writer to scale the degree of intensity of attitude orengagement. The explanatory power of appraisal theory has been proven in many areas,including narrative discourse, media discourse, and academic review. Researchers employAppraisal Theory to analyze the distribution pattern of appraisal resources and theirconnoted evaluative meanings in different genres by recognizing and analyzing the attitude,engagement and graduation resources in these genres.
In an adversarial judicial system, the closing argument is the last chance for thedefense and the prosecution to persuade the judge or jury. It is one of the phases in the trialto affect the result of the case. Thus it is of great significance in the trial. Unlike otherphases in the trial, attorneys on both sides can deliver complete, free and detailed closingarguments almost without interruption from the opposition. Both sides usually will makethe best use of the opportunity to highlight the important evidence and integrate theinformation presented during the trial to remind the fact-finders of the evidence in theirfavor; they also will clarify the applied law to the facts to convince the fact-finders of theirclaims and to persuade them to make a verdict or sentence in their clients’ favor. In somecontroversial cases or cases with odds of50-50, the quality of the closing argument willgreatly influence the result of the case. Consequently, the closing argument is a phase takenseriously by both sides in a trial. Attorneys on both sides have to present facts objectivelyand explain facts subjectively to influence fact-finders’ opinions. Both in objective presentation and subjective explanation of facts, attorneys have to defend their clients’benefits by expressing their own emotions, attitudes and stances in the closing arguments.Consequently, this kind of discourse must contain rich evaluative meanings.
The study on courtroom discourse at home and abroad mainly focuses on theinteractive cross-examination. Only a few scholars have studied closing arguments fromthe perspectives of crafting skill, speaking skills and misconduct. Within the framework ofAppraisal Theory, this study intends to conduct a deep analysis and discussion of the5great defense and5great prosecuting closing arguments in American modern law. Thestudy aims to reveal how attorneys employ evaluative resources to present their viewpointsand stances, to reflect their individual values and the values shared by the socialcommunity, and to establish and maintain alignment with fact-finders to persuadefact-finders to make the verdict in their client’s favor. Taking into the availability of thecorpus into consideration, this study focuses on American courtroom closing argument.
Within the framework of Appraisal Theory, this study analyzes courtroom closingarguments from the following aspects:
(1) The representing forms and evaluative meanings of attitudinal resources in thethree subsystems of affect, judgment, and appreciation in the attitude system areanalyzed from three angles: emoter, judged objects and appreciated objects. Thedifferences and similarities in forms, meanings and effects of the evaluationsmade by attorneys on both sides about the same appraised objects will also becompared.
(2) The engagement resources making the textual voice and interlocutory voicesubjective are analyzed from monoglossia and heteroglossia; with the assistanceof statistical software, the differences in the occurrence and frequency of variousengagement resources are analyzed and the reasons behind these differences areexplored; an analysis is also conducted about how attorneys on both sides presenttheir attitudes toward the truth value of the propositions in the discourse.
(3) The graduation resources are analyzed in the discourse; the way the addresseremploys them to express the intensity of evaluative meanings is discussed.
(4) The voices of the addresser in the closing argument are analyzed; the way theaddresser negotiate with fact-finders about interpersonal meanings and construct their identities in the context of courtroom by taking differentiate voice roles willbe discussed.
The study is of significance in the following aspects:
(1) The appraisal study of courtroom closing arguments in English-speaking contextexpands the research area of judicial discourse and argument discourse andenlarges the scope of genre study within Appraisal Theory; the research will be ofsome reference value for the study of Chinese-speaking courtroom arguments.
(2) The findings about the differences and similarities in the employment ofevaluative resources in the closing arguments in attorneys of both sides is abeneficial complement to the recent findings of the study on this genre; thefindings can be used for reference by legal practitioners and the teaching andlearning of persuasive discourse.
在抗辩制审判制度中，结案陈词是审判过程中控辩双方说服法官或陪审团的最后机会，是能够影响判决结果的环节之一，在庭审中占有重要的地位。不同于审判的其它阶段，控辩双方在结案陈词阶段基本上不会受到来自对方的打断，他们可以进行最充分、最自由、最详细陈述的陈词。控辩双方利用这一次机会，不仅可以突显其认为重要的证据，对审判中的信息进行合成，提醒案件裁决者注意有利于己方的证据，还可以用相关适用法规来解释证据，以说服案件裁决者相信己方的主张，并做出利于己方的判决。在一些富有争议性或是控辩双方胜算相差无几的案件中，结案陈词的质量与诉讼成败息息相关。因此，在审判过程中，结案陈词是控辩双方不敢忽视的一个环节。控辩双方既要客观地向法官或陪审团言明事实，又要对事实进行主观评判，以达到影响法官或陪审团观点的目的。无论是法律事实客观的描述还是个人的主观性看法，控辩双方都要通过表达自己的情感、态度和立场来维护当事人的利益，因此这种语篇必然承载着丰富的评价意义。
目前国内外对法庭语篇的研究主要集中在交叉质询这一互动环节，有一些学者从写作和演讲技巧、不当行为等角度对结案陈词这一语篇进行了研究。本研究以评价理论为研究框架和美国法律史上10篇精彩的结案陈词为语料，其中控方结案陈词和辩方结案陈词各5篇，对它们进行深入、全面的分析和探讨，旨在揭示在这一语篇中控辩双方律师是如何利用评价资源和手段来表明他们的观点和立场，反映个人及社会的价值系统，建立和维护与案件裁决者的关系，以及说服案件裁决者做出有利于他们的当事人的裁决。鉴于语料的可获性，本研究的结案陈词语料仅限于美国法庭。
本研究应用评价理论对法庭结案陈词这一语篇进行了以下几个方面的详细分析：
一、从感受主体、判定对象及鉴赏对象三个角度分析了态度系统中的情感、判定及鉴赏三个子系统中的态度资源的表现形式及评价意义；比较分析了控辩双方对相同评价对象的评价方式、评价意义及评价效果的异同。
二、从自言和借言两个角度分析了使语篇和发话方的声音具有主体间性的介入资源;在统计软件的辅助下，比较各类介入资源的在控辩双方结案陈词中的出现频率的异同及并探究了造成差异的原因;分析了控辩双方如何通过各类介入资源来表明己方对语篇中所述命题的真实值所持的态度。
三、分析了控辩双方结案陈词语篇中的级差资源，并探讨了发话方如何利用它们来表示评价意义的强弱。
四、分析了结案陈词语篇中发话方的声音，探讨了他们是如何通过不同的声音角色来和法庭裁决者进行人际意义的协商以及在法庭语境下进行身份的构建。本研究主要有以下几个意义：
一﹑对英语语境下的法庭结案陈词进行的评价研究，拓展了司法语篇和劝说语篇的研究领域，扩大了评价研究的语类范围,对汉语语境下的法庭辩论语篇研究也有一定的参考价值。
二﹑关于控辩双方律师结案陈词在评价资源应用方面的异同的研究结论是对这一语类的现有研究成果有益的补充，能够对法律从业者有所借鉴作用，同时对劝说性演讲语篇的教学有所启示。
Martin’s Appraisal Theory is a further development on the study of the interpersonalfunction of language within the framework of Systemic Function Linguistics. The researchfocus of this theory is on the evaluative function at the lexico-semantic level. Within thetheory, the evaluative meanings are categorized systemically into three sub-systems:Attitude, Engagement and Graduation. Among them, Attitude refers to the meaningsemployed by humans to express positive or negative evaluation about human behaviors,things, incidents and status. It can be further divided into affect, judgment and appreciation.These three subdivisions of Attitude belong to the categories of psychology, ethics, andaesthetics respectively. Engagement is involved with the relationship between theproposition presented in discourse and the position held by addresser, while Graduation isthe resource employed by speaker/writer to scale the degree of intensity of attitude orengagement. The explanatory power of appraisal theory has been proven in many areas,including narrative discourse, media discourse, and academic review. Researchers employAppraisal Theory to analyze the distribution pattern of appraisal resources and theirconnoted evaluative meanings in different genres by recognizing and analyzing the attitude,engagement and graduation resources in these genres.
In an adversarial judicial system, the closing argument is the last chance for thedefense and the prosecution to persuade the judge or jury. It is one of the phases in the trialto affect the result of the case. Thus it is of great significance in the trial. Unlike otherphases in the trial, attorneys on both sides can deliver complete, free and detailed closingarguments almost without interruption from the opposition. Both sides usually will makethe best use of the opportunity to highlight the important evidence and integrate theinformation presented during the trial to remind the fact-finders of the evidence in theirfavor; they also will clarify the applied law to the facts to convince the fact-finders of theirclaims and to persuade them to make a verdict or sentence in their clients’ favor. In somecontroversial cases or cases with odds of50-50, the quality of the closing argument willgreatly influence the result of the case. Consequently, the closing argument is a phase takenseriously by both sides in a trial. Attorneys on both sides have to present facts objectivelyand explain facts subjectively to influence fact-finders’ opinions. Both in objective presentation and subjective explanation of facts, attorneys have to defend their clients’benefits by expressing their own emotions, attitudes and stances in the closing arguments.Consequently, this kind of discourse must contain rich evaluative meanings.
The study on courtroom discourse at home and abroad mainly focuses on theinteractive cross-examination. Only a few scholars have studied closing arguments fromthe perspectives of crafting skill, speaking skills and misconduct. Within the framework ofAppraisal Theory, this study intends to conduct a deep analysis and discussion of the5great defense and5great prosecuting closing arguments in American modern law. Thestudy aims to reveal how attorneys employ evaluative resources to present their viewpointsand stances, to reflect their individual values and the values shared by the socialcommunity, and to establish and maintain alignment with fact-finders to persuadefact-finders to make the verdict in their client’s favor. Taking into the availability of thecorpus into consideration, this study focuses on American courtroom closing argument.
Within the framework of Appraisal Theory, this study analyzes courtroom closingarguments from the following aspects:
(1) The representing forms and evaluative meanings of attitudinal resources in thethree subsystems of affect, judgment, and appreciation in the attitude system areanalyzed from three angles: emoter, judged objects and appreciated objects. Thedifferences and similarities in forms, meanings and effects of the evaluationsmade by attorneys on both sides about the same appraised objects will also becompared.
(2) The engagement resources making the textual voice and interlocutory voicesubjective are analyzed from monoglossia and heteroglossia; with the assistanceof statistical software, the differences in the occurrence and frequency of variousengagement resources are analyzed and the reasons behind these differences areexplored; an analysis is also conducted about how attorneys on both sides presenttheir attitudes toward the truth value of the propositions in the discourse.
(3) The graduation resources are analyzed in the discourse; the way the addresseremploys them to express the intensity of evaluative meanings is discussed.
(4) The voices of the addresser in the closing argument are analyzed; the way theaddresser negotiate with fact-finders about interpersonal meanings and construct their identities in the context of courtroom by taking differentiate voice roles willbe discussed.
The study is of significance in the following aspects:
(1) The appraisal study of courtroom closing arguments in English-speaking contextexpands the research area of judicial discourse and argument discourse andenlarges the scope of genre study within Appraisal Theory; the research will be ofsome reference value for the study of Chinese-speaking courtroom arguments.
(2) The findings about the differences and similarities in the employment ofevaluative resources in the closing arguments in attorneys of both sides is abeneficial complement to the recent findings of the study on this genre; thefindings can be used for reference by legal practitioners and the teaching andlearning of persuasive discourse.
引文
Athanasiadou, Angeliki and El bieta Tabakowska (eds). Speaking of Emotions:Conceptualization and Expression [M]. Hague: Mouton de Gruyter,1998.
Atkinson, J.M. and Paul Drew. Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction inJudicial Settings [M]. London: MacMillan,1979.
Austin, John L. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1962.
Bakhtin, M.M. The Dialogic Imagination [M]. Austin: University of Texas Press,1981.
Bennett, W.L. and M.S. Feldman. Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom [M]. London:Tavistock Publication,1981.
Bhatia, Vijay K. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Setting [M]. London:Longman,1993.
Bhatia, Vijay K. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View [M]. London:Continuum,2004.
Brown, George and George Yule. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1983.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. The Pronouns of Powers and Solidarity [A]. In Sebeok, T.A.(ed.)Style in Language [C]. Cambridge: MIT Press,1960.253-277.
Butler, Christopher S. On the Concept of an Interpersonal Metafunction in English [A].In Margaret Berry et al.(eds). Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations[C]. New Jersey: Ablex,1996.152-181.
Butt, David, et al. Using Functional Grammar—An Explorer’s Guide [M]. Sydney:Macquaries University,1994.
Bybee, Joan L. and Susanne Fielshman (eds). Modality in Grammar and Discourse [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1995.
Chimombo, Moira and Robert L. Roseberry. The Power of Discourse: An Introduction toDiscourse Analysis [M]. New Jersey: Mahwah,1998.
Cleveland, William C. Closing Argument [J]. Defense Counsel Journal,2009,(10):437-450.
Coffin, C. Constructing and Giving Value to the Past: An Investigation into Second SchoolHistory [A]. In Christie, F. and J. R. Martin (eds). Genre and Institutions-SocialProcesses in the Workplace and School [M]. London: Cassell,1997,196-230.
Coffin, C. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of New South Wales,2000.
Conley, John M. and William M. O’Barr. Just Words: Law, Language and Power [M].Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1998.
Cooke, Michael. A Different Story: Narrative versus ‘Question and Answer’ in AboriginalEvidence [J]. Forensic Linguistics,1996,(2):273-288.
Cortazzi, Martin and Lixian Jin. Evaluating Evaluation in Narrative [A]. In Hunston Susanand Geoff Thompson (eds). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Constructionof Discourse [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000,102-120.
Couthard，M. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Longman,1977.
Couthard，M.(ed.). Advances in Written Text Analysis [M]. London: Routledge,1994.
Curzon, Leslie B. and Paul Richards. The Longman Dictionary of Law [Z]. Harlow:Pearson Education,2003.
Danet, Brenda. Language in the Legal Process [J]. Law and Society Review,1980,(14):445-564.
Defoor, J. Allison II. Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument [J]. Nova LawJournal,1983,(7):444-476.
Drew, Paul. Analyzing the Use of Language in Courtroom Interaction [A]. In T. Van Dijk(ed). Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse and Dialogue [C]. London:Academic Press,1985,(3):133-147.
Drew, Paul and John Heritage (eds). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings [M].Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press,1992.
Drew, Paul and John Heritage (eds). Conversation Analysis [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1992.
Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics [M]. London: Pinter,1994.
Eggins, Suzanne and Diana Slade. Analyzing Casual Conversation [M]. London:Equinox Publishing Ltd.,2005.
Elwork, A., B.D. Sales and D. Suggs. Trial-A Research Review [M]. New York: PlenumPublishing Corp.,1981.
Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power [M]. London and New York: Longman,1989.
Fan Wenfang. Systemic-Functional Approach to Grammatical Metaphor [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
Gee, J.P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method [M]. London:Routledge,1999.
Gibbons, John (ed.). Language and the Law [M]. London and New York: Longman,1994.
Gibbons, John. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System[M]. London: Blackwell,2003.
Goffman, Erving. Forms of Talk [M]. Philadephia: University of Pensylvania Press,1981.
Goody, E. N. Questions and Politeness: Strategies and Social Interaction [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1978.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume1: Reason and theRationalization of Society [M]. Boston: Beacon Press,1984.
Halliday, M.A.K. Language Structure and Language Function [A]. In John Lyons (ed) NewHorizons in Linguistics (1stedition)[C]. Hamondsworth: Penguin Books,1970:40-165.
Halliday, M.A.K. Exploration in the Function of Language [M]. London: Edward Arnold,1994.
Halliday, M.A.K. Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse [M]. Beijing：Peking UniversityPress,2007.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, Context and Text: A Social SemioticPerspective [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1989.
Halliday, M.A.K and Christian Matthiessen. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rdedition)[M]. London: Edward Arnold,2000.
Harris, Sandra. Questions as a mode of Control in Magistrates’ Courts [J]. InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Language,1984,(49):5-28.
Harris, Sandra. Fragmented Narratives and Multiple Tellers: Witness and DefendantAccounts in Trials [J]. Discourse Studies,2001,(3):53-74.
Harris, Z. Discourse Analysis [J]. Language,1952,(28):1-30.
Helmbrecht, Johannes. Grammar and Function of We [A]. In Duzsak, Anna (ed.) Us andOthers [C]. Amsterdam: John Bemjamins,2002.31-50.
Hood, Susan and Gail Forey. Introducing a Conference Paper: Getting Interpersonal withYour Audience [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2005,(4):291-306.
Hunston, Susan and Geoff Thompson (eds). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and theConstruction of Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000.
Jeans, J. W. Trial Advocacy [M]. St. Paul: West Publishing Company,1975.
Koven, Michèle. Selves in Two Languages: Bilinguals’ Verbal Enactments of Identity inFrench and Portuguese [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing House,2002.
Lakoff, R. T. Persuasive Discourse and Ordinary Conversation with Examples ofAdvertising [A]. In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk [C].Washington: Georgetown University Press,1981,25-42.
Lemke, J. L. Interpersonal Meaning in Discourse: Value Orientation [A]. In M. Davies andL. Ravelli, Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice [C].London: Pinter,1992,82-104.
Lemke, J. L. Resources for Attitudinal meaning: Evaluative Orientations in Text Semantics[J]. Functions of Language,1998,(5):33-56.
Levi, Judith N. and Anne Graffam Walker (eds). Language in the Judicial Process [M].New York: Penum Press,1990.
Lief, Michael S. and H. Mitchell Caldwell. The Devil’s Attorney: Greatest ClosingArguments in Criminal Law [M]. New York: Scribner,2006.
Lief, Michael S., H. Mitchell Caldwell and Benjamin Bycel. Ladies and Gentlemen of theJury: Greatest Closing Argument in Modern Law [M]. New York: Scribner,1998.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. Eyewitness Testimony [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1979.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. and James M. Doyle. Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal [M].New York: Kluwer Law Book,1987.
Lucas, Richard H. and K. Byron McCoy. The Winning Edge: Effective Communicationand Persuasion Techniques for Lawyers [M]. Tucson: Lawyers and Judge Co., Inc.,1999.
Luchjenbroers. In Your Own Words…: Questions and Answers in a Supreme Court Trial [J].Journal of Pragmatics,1997(27):477-503.
Martin, J. R. Macro-proposals: Meaning by Degree [A]. In Mann, W.C. and Thompson,S.A.(eds). Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analysis of a Fund-raising Text[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1992.
Martin, J. R. Christian Matthiessen and Clare Painter. Working with Functional Grammar[M]. London: Arnold,1997.
Martin, J. R. Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English [A]. In Hunston, Susanand Geoff Thompson (eds). Evaluation in Text Authorial Stance and the Constructionof Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000,142-175.
Martin, J. R. and David Rose. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause [M].London: Continuum,2003.
Martin, J. R. and P. R. R. White. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English [M].London: Palgrave,2005.
Mathiessen, Christian. Tense in English Seen through Systemic-functional Theory [A]. InMargaret Berry el al.(eds). Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations[C]. New Jersy: Ablex,1996,431-498.
Maley, Y. The Language of the Lwa [A]. In John Gibbons (ed.) Language and the Law [M].Harlow: Longman,1994.3-50.
Mellinkoff, David. The Language of the Law [M]. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,1963.
Mellinkoff, David. Legal: Sense and Nonsense [M]. New York: Scribner,1982.
Mumby, Dennis K. Communication and Power in Organizations: Discourse, Ideology, andDomination [M].Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation,1988.
Nolan, Kenneth P. Closing Argument [J]. Litigation,1994,(4):32-34.
O’Barr, William M. Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power and Strategy in theCourtroom [M]. New York: Academic Press,1982.
Olsson, John. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language, Crime, and the Law [M].London: Continuum,2004.
Penman, Robyn. Discourse in Courts: Cooperation, Coercion and Coherence [J]. DiscourseProcesses,1987,(10):201-18.
Penman, Robyn. Communication and the Judicial Process [J]. Communication News,1988,(4):23-31.
Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise onArgumentation [M]. London: University of Notre Dame Press,1969.
Quirk, Randolph, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar ofthe English Language. London: Longman,1985.
Roberts Jr., J. The SEC of Closing Arguments [J]. American Journal of Trial Advocacy,1999,(23):203-214.
Rosulek, Laura Felton. Dual Identities: Lawyer’s Constructional of Self in the ClosingArguments of Criminal Trials [J]. Texas Linguistic Forum,2007,(51):154-164.
Sarat, Austin and William L.F. Felstiner. Divorce Lawyers and Their Clients: Power andMeaning in the Legal Process [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1997.
Schane, Sanford. Language and the Law [M]. London: Continuum,2006.
Schauer, Frederick (ed). Law and Language [M]. New York: New York University Press,1993.
Schiffrin, D. Approaches to Discourse.[M]. Oxford and Cambridge: Basil Blackwell,1995.
Shuy, Roger. Linguistics in Other Professions [J]. Annual Review of Anthropology,1984,(13):419-45.
Solan, Lawrence M. The Language of Judges [M]. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press,1993.
Stygall, Gail. Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and DiscursiveFormation [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1994.
Tanford, J. Alexander. Closing Argument Procedure [J]. American Journal of TrialAdvocacy,1986,(10):47-140.
Tannen, Deborah. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in ConversationalDiscourse (2ndEdition)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2007.
Thompson, Geoff. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. London: Arnold,1996.
Thornborrow, Joanna. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse[M]. London: Longman Pearson Education,2002.
Tiersma, Peter M. Linguistic Issues in the Law [J]. Language,1993,(69):113.
Toulmin, Stephen E. The Uses of Argument [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press，2003.
Van Dijk, T. A.(ed). Discourse Studies [M]. London: Sage,2007.
Verderber, R. F. Essentials of Persuasive Speaking: Theory and Contexts [M]. California:Wadsworth Publishing Company,1991.
Walker, A. G. Linguistic Manipulation, Power and the Legal Setting [A]. L. Kedare (ed.)Power through Discourse [C]. New Jersy: Ablex,1987,57-82.
Wellman, Francis L. The Art of Cross-examination [M]. Montana: Kessinger Pub Company,2005.
White, P. R. An Introductory Tour through Appraisal Theory [OL].http://grammatics.com/Appraisal/AppraisalOutline/Framed/AppraisalOutline.htm
Yule, George. Pragmatics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2000.
常晨光．英语习语的人际意义[J]．《外语教学与研究》，2002，(12)：57-63．
常晨光．英语中的人际语法隐喻[J]．《外语与外语教学》，2001，(7)：6-8．
陈纪安．《美国法律》[M]．北京：中国科学技术大学出版，2002．
崔凤娟、苗兴伟.律师庭审辩护词中模糊限制语的顺应理论研究[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，2009(2),38-41.
杜金榜.《法律语言学》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2004.
公静、方琰．英语法庭辩论语篇的概念功能分析[J]．《外语研究》，2005，(3)：11-16．
胡壮麟、朱永生、张徳禄、李战子．《系统功能语言学概论》[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005．
黄国文．《语篇分析概要》[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988．
黄国文．《语言问题研究》[M]．广州：中山大学出版社，1999．
黄国文．《语篇分析的理论和实践》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001．
李悦娥、范宏雅．《话语分析》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002．
李战子．《语言的人际元功能新探－自传话语的人际意义研究》[M]．北京：军事译文出版社，2000．
李战子．自传中反身代词的人际意义[J].《外语教学》，2001,(5)：7－13．
李战子．《话语的人际意义研究》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002．
李战子.评价理论：在话语分析中的应用和问题[J].《外语研究》，2004,(5):1-6.
李战子、高一虹、李芳芳.留学自述中的评价资源、谦虚策略与学术身份构建[A].中国大学生英语学习社会心理[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
廖美珍.《法庭问答及其互动研究》[M].北京：法律出版社，2003.
廖美珍．《法庭语言技巧》[M]．北京：法律出版社,2005．
刘红婴．《法律语言学》[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2003．
刘世生．关于人际评论系统的体现[J]．《外国语》，1996，(5)：35-38．
刘蔚铭．《法律语言学研究》[M]．北京：中国经济出版社，2003．
吕万英.法官话语的权力支配[J].《外语研究》，2006,(2):9-13.
毛凤凡.法庭询问中的模糊限制语引发的语用冲突及其对法庭审判的启示[J].《外语研究》，2006，(2):19-22.
苗兴伟．书面语篇分析的进展介绍[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1998，(3):71-72．
苗兴伟．人际意义与语篇的建构[J]．《山东外语教学》，2004，(1):5-11．
潘庆云.《跨世纪的中国法律语言》[M]．上海：华东化工学院出版社，1997.
秦甫.《律师论辩的策略与技巧》[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
裘燕萍．语篇目的与人际意义的体现[J]．《四川外语学院学报》，2006，(11)：103-111.
孙懿华、周广然．《法律语言学》[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，1997．
唐丽萍.英语学术书评的评价策略——从对话视角的介入分析[J]．《外语学刊》，2005,(4):105-112.
王红阳、程春松．英语政治演讲和学术演讲的情态对比研究[J]．《外语与外语教学》，2007,(5):21-24．
王洁.《法律语言学教程》[M]．北京：法律出版社，1997.
王洁.《法律语言研究》[M]．广州：广东教育出版社，1999.
王洁.控辩式法庭审判互动语言探索[J]．《语言文字应用》，2004,(3)：76-82.
王振华．评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展[M]．《外国语》，2001，(6)：13-20．
王振华．法庭交叉质询中的人际关系－系统功能语言学“情态”视角[J]．《外语学刊》，2004,(3):51-59.
吴伟平．《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，2002．
徐章宏、李冰．法庭应答语信息过量的顺应性研究[J]．《外语研究》，2006，(2)：14-18．
张徳禄．系统功能语言学的新发展[J]．《当代语言学》，2004，(1)：57-65.
张新红.汉语立法语篇的言语行为分析[J]．《现代外语》，2000，(3)：283-295.
朱苏力.关于抗辩制改革[OL]. http://club.topsage.com/thread-1818452-1-1.htm
Atkinson, J.M. and Paul Drew. Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction inJudicial Settings [M]. London: MacMillan,1979.
Austin, John L. How to Do Things with Words [M]. Oxford: Clarendon Press,1962.
Bakhtin, M.M. The Dialogic Imagination [M]. Austin: University of Texas Press,1981.
Bennett, W.L. and M.S. Feldman. Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom [M]. London:Tavistock Publication,1981.
Bhatia, Vijay K. Analyzing Genre: Language Use in Professional Setting [M]. London:Longman,1993.
Bhatia, Vijay K. Worlds of Written Discourse: A Genre-Based View [M]. London:Continuum,2004.
Brown, George and George Yule. Discourse Analysis [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1983.
Brown, R. and Gilman, A. The Pronouns of Powers and Solidarity [A]. In Sebeok, T.A.(ed.)Style in Language [C]. Cambridge: MIT Press,1960.253-277.
Butler, Christopher S. On the Concept of an Interpersonal Metafunction in English [A].In Margaret Berry et al.(eds). Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations[C]. New Jersey: Ablex,1996.152-181.
Butt, David, et al. Using Functional Grammar—An Explorer’s Guide [M]. Sydney:Macquaries University,1994.
Bybee, Joan L. and Susanne Fielshman (eds). Modality in Grammar and Discourse [M].Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1995.
Chimombo, Moira and Robert L. Roseberry. The Power of Discourse: An Introduction toDiscourse Analysis [M]. New Jersey: Mahwah,1998.
Cleveland, William C. Closing Argument [J]. Defense Counsel Journal,2009,(10):437-450.
Coffin, C. Constructing and Giving Value to the Past: An Investigation into Second SchoolHistory [A]. In Christie, F. and J. R. Martin (eds). Genre and Institutions-SocialProcesses in the Workplace and School [M]. London: Cassell,1997,196-230.
Coffin, C. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis. University of New South Wales,2000.
Conley, John M. and William M. O’Barr. Just Words: Law, Language and Power [M].Chicago: The University of Chicago Press,1998.
Cooke, Michael. A Different Story: Narrative versus ‘Question and Answer’ in AboriginalEvidence [J]. Forensic Linguistics,1996,(2):273-288.
Cortazzi, Martin and Lixian Jin. Evaluating Evaluation in Narrative [A]. In Hunston Susanand Geoff Thompson (eds). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Constructionof Discourse [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000,102-120.
Couthard，M. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis [M]. London: Longman,1977.
Couthard，M.(ed.). Advances in Written Text Analysis [M]. London: Routledge,1994.
Curzon, Leslie B. and Paul Richards. The Longman Dictionary of Law [Z]. Harlow:Pearson Education,2003.
Danet, Brenda. Language in the Legal Process [J]. Law and Society Review,1980,(14):445-564.
Defoor, J. Allison II. Prosecutorial Misconduct in Closing Argument [J]. Nova LawJournal,1983,(7):444-476.
Drew, Paul. Analyzing the Use of Language in Courtroom Interaction [A]. In T. Van Dijk(ed). Handbook of Discourse Analysis: Discourse and Dialogue [C]. London:Academic Press,1985,(3):133-147.
Drew, Paul and John Heritage (eds). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings [M].Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press,1992.
Drew, Paul and John Heritage (eds). Conversation Analysis [M]. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,1992.
Eggins, Suzanne. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics [M]. London: Pinter,1994.
Eggins, Suzanne and Diana Slade. Analyzing Casual Conversation [M]. London:Equinox Publishing Ltd.,2005.
Elwork, A., B.D. Sales and D. Suggs. Trial-A Research Review [M]. New York: PlenumPublishing Corp.,1981.
Fairclough, Norman. Language and Power [M]. London and New York: Longman,1989.
Fan Wenfang. Systemic-Functional Approach to Grammatical Metaphor [M]. Beijing:Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press,2000.
Gee, J.P. An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method [M]. London:Routledge,1999.
Gibbons, John (ed.). Language and the Law [M]. London and New York: Longman,1994.
Gibbons, John. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System[M]. London: Blackwell,2003.
Goffman, Erving. Forms of Talk [M]. Philadephia: University of Pensylvania Press,1981.
Goody, E. N. Questions and Politeness: Strategies and Social Interaction [M]. New York:Cambridge University Press,1978.
Habermas, Jürgen. The Theory of Communicative Action, Volume1: Reason and theRationalization of Society [M]. Boston: Beacon Press,1984.
Halliday, M.A.K. Language Structure and Language Function [A]. In John Lyons (ed) NewHorizons in Linguistics (1stedition)[C]. Hamondsworth: Penguin Books,1970:40-165.
Halliday, M.A.K. Exploration in the Function of Language [M]. London: Edward Arnold,1994.
Halliday, M.A.K. Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse [M]. Beijing：Peking UniversityPress,2007.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. Language, Context and Text: A Social SemioticPerspective [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,1989.
Halliday, M.A.K and Christian Matthiessen. An Introduction to Functional Grammar (3rdedition)[M]. London: Edward Arnold,2000.
Harris, Sandra. Questions as a mode of Control in Magistrates’ Courts [J]. InternationalJournal of the Sociology of Language,1984,(49):5-28.
Harris, Sandra. Fragmented Narratives and Multiple Tellers: Witness and DefendantAccounts in Trials [J]. Discourse Studies,2001,(3):53-74.
Harris, Z. Discourse Analysis [J]. Language,1952,(28):1-30.
Helmbrecht, Johannes. Grammar and Function of We [A]. In Duzsak, Anna (ed.) Us andOthers [C]. Amsterdam: John Bemjamins,2002.31-50.
Hood, Susan and Gail Forey. Introducing a Conference Paper: Getting Interpersonal withYour Audience [J]. Journal of English for Academic Purposes,2005,(4):291-306.
Hunston, Susan and Geoff Thompson (eds). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and theConstruction of Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000.
Jeans, J. W. Trial Advocacy [M]. St. Paul: West Publishing Company,1975.
Koven, Michèle. Selves in Two Languages: Bilinguals’ Verbal Enactments of Identity inFrench and Portuguese [M]. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing House,2002.
Lakoff, R. T. Persuasive Discourse and Ordinary Conversation with Examples ofAdvertising [A]. In Deborah Tannen (ed.) Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk [C].Washington: Georgetown University Press,1981,25-42.
Lemke, J. L. Interpersonal Meaning in Discourse: Value Orientation [A]. In M. Davies andL. Ravelli, Advances in Systemic Linguistics: Recent Theory and Practice [C].London: Pinter,1992,82-104.
Lemke, J. L. Resources for Attitudinal meaning: Evaluative Orientations in Text Semantics[J]. Functions of Language,1998,(5):33-56.
Levi, Judith N. and Anne Graffam Walker (eds). Language in the Judicial Process [M].New York: Penum Press,1990.
Lief, Michael S. and H. Mitchell Caldwell. The Devil’s Attorney: Greatest ClosingArguments in Criminal Law [M]. New York: Scribner,2006.
Lief, Michael S., H. Mitchell Caldwell and Benjamin Bycel. Ladies and Gentlemen of theJury: Greatest Closing Argument in Modern Law [M]. New York: Scribner,1998.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. Eyewitness Testimony [M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1979.
Loftus, Elizabeth F. and James M. Doyle. Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal [M].New York: Kluwer Law Book,1987.
Lucas, Richard H. and K. Byron McCoy. The Winning Edge: Effective Communicationand Persuasion Techniques for Lawyers [M]. Tucson: Lawyers and Judge Co., Inc.,1999.
Luchjenbroers. In Your Own Words…: Questions and Answers in a Supreme Court Trial [J].Journal of Pragmatics,1997(27):477-503.
Martin, J. R. Macro-proposals: Meaning by Degree [A]. In Mann, W.C. and Thompson,S.A.(eds). Discourse Description: Diverse Linguistic Analysis of a Fund-raising Text[C]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins,1992.
Martin, J. R. Christian Matthiessen and Clare Painter. Working with Functional Grammar[M]. London: Arnold,1997.
Martin, J. R. Beyond Exchange: APPRAISAL Systems in English [A]. In Hunston, Susanand Geoff Thompson (eds). Evaluation in Text Authorial Stance and the Constructionof Discourse [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press,2000,142-175.
Martin, J. R. and David Rose. Working with Discourse: Meaning Beyond the Clause [M].London: Continuum,2003.
Martin, J. R. and P. R. R. White. The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English [M].London: Palgrave,2005.
Mathiessen, Christian. Tense in English Seen through Systemic-functional Theory [A]. InMargaret Berry el al.(eds). Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional Interpretations[C]. New Jersy: Ablex,1996,431-498.
Maley, Y. The Language of the Lwa [A]. In John Gibbons (ed.) Language and the Law [M].Harlow: Longman,1994.3-50.
Mellinkoff, David. The Language of the Law [M]. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,1963.
Mellinkoff, David. Legal: Sense and Nonsense [M]. New York: Scribner,1982.
Mumby, Dennis K. Communication and Power in Organizations: Discourse, Ideology, andDomination [M].Norwood, New Jersey: Ablex Publishing Corporation,1988.
Nolan, Kenneth P. Closing Argument [J]. Litigation,1994,(4):32-34.
O’Barr, William M. Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power and Strategy in theCourtroom [M]. New York: Academic Press,1982.
Olsson, John. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language, Crime, and the Law [M].London: Continuum,2004.
Penman, Robyn. Discourse in Courts: Cooperation, Coercion and Coherence [J]. DiscourseProcesses,1987,(10):201-18.
Penman, Robyn. Communication and the Judicial Process [J]. Communication News,1988,(4):23-31.
Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca. The New Rhetoric: A Treatise onArgumentation [M]. London: University of Notre Dame Press,1969.
Quirk, Randolph, S. Greenbaum, G. Leech, and J. Svartvik. A Comprehensive Grammar ofthe English Language. London: Longman,1985.
Roberts Jr., J. The SEC of Closing Arguments [J]. American Journal of Trial Advocacy,1999,(23):203-214.
Rosulek, Laura Felton. Dual Identities: Lawyer’s Constructional of Self in the ClosingArguments of Criminal Trials [J]. Texas Linguistic Forum,2007,(51):154-164.
Sarat, Austin and William L.F. Felstiner. Divorce Lawyers and Their Clients: Power andMeaning in the Legal Process [M]. New York: Oxford University Press,1997.
Schane, Sanford. Language and the Law [M]. London: Continuum,2006.
Schauer, Frederick (ed). Law and Language [M]. New York: New York University Press,1993.
Schiffrin, D. Approaches to Discourse.[M]. Oxford and Cambridge: Basil Blackwell,1995.
Shuy, Roger. Linguistics in Other Professions [J]. Annual Review of Anthropology,1984,(13):419-45.
Solan, Lawrence M. The Language of Judges [M]. Chicago: The University ofChicago Press,1993.
Stygall, Gail. Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and DiscursiveFormation [M]. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company,1994.
Tanford, J. Alexander. Closing Argument Procedure [J]. American Journal of TrialAdvocacy,1986,(10):47-140.
Tannen, Deborah. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue and Imagery in ConversationalDiscourse (2ndEdition)[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,2007.
Thompson, Geoff. Introducing Functional Grammar [M]. London: Arnold,1996.
Thornborrow, Joanna. Power Talk: Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse[M]. London: Longman Pearson Education,2002.
Tiersma, Peter M. Linguistic Issues in the Law [J]. Language,1993,(69):113.
Toulmin, Stephen E. The Uses of Argument [M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press，2003.
Van Dijk, T. A.(ed). Discourse Studies [M]. London: Sage,2007.
Verderber, R. F. Essentials of Persuasive Speaking: Theory and Contexts [M]. California:Wadsworth Publishing Company,1991.
Walker, A. G. Linguistic Manipulation, Power and the Legal Setting [A]. L. Kedare (ed.)Power through Discourse [C]. New Jersy: Ablex,1987,57-82.
Wellman, Francis L. The Art of Cross-examination [M]. Montana: Kessinger Pub Company,2005.
White, P. R. An Introductory Tour through Appraisal Theory [OL].http://grammatics.com/Appraisal/AppraisalOutline/Framed/AppraisalOutline.htm
Yule, George. Pragmatics [M]. Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press,2000.
常晨光．英语习语的人际意义[J]．《外语教学与研究》，2002，(12)：57-63．
常晨光．英语中的人际语法隐喻[J]．《外语与外语教学》，2001，(7)：6-8．
陈纪安．《美国法律》[M]．北京：中国科学技术大学出版，2002．
崔凤娟、苗兴伟.律师庭审辩护词中模糊限制语的顺应理论研究[J].《西安外国语大学学报》，2009(2),38-41.
杜金榜.《法律语言学》[M].上海：上海外语教育出版社，2004.
公静、方琰．英语法庭辩论语篇的概念功能分析[J]．《外语研究》，2005，(3)：11-16．
胡壮麟、朱永生、张徳禄、李战子．《系统功能语言学概论》[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2005．
黄国文．《语篇分析概要》[M]．长沙：湖南教育出版社，1988．
黄国文．《语言问题研究》[M]．广州：中山大学出版社，1999．
黄国文．《语篇分析的理论和实践》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2001．
李悦娥、范宏雅．《话语分析》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002．
李战子．《语言的人际元功能新探－自传话语的人际意义研究》[M]．北京：军事译文出版社，2000．
李战子．自传中反身代词的人际意义[J].《外语教学》，2001,(5)：7－13．
李战子．《话语的人际意义研究》[M]．上海：上海外语教育出版社，2002．
李战子.评价理论：在话语分析中的应用和问题[J].《外语研究》，2004,(5):1-6.
李战子、高一虹、李芳芳.留学自述中的评价资源、谦虚策略与学术身份构建[A].中国大学生英语学习社会心理[M].北京:外语教学与研究出版社,2004.
廖美珍.《法庭问答及其互动研究》[M].北京：法律出版社，2003.
廖美珍．《法庭语言技巧》[M]．北京：法律出版社,2005．
刘红婴．《法律语言学》[M]．北京：北京大学出版社，2003．
刘世生．关于人际评论系统的体现[J]．《外国语》，1996，(5)：35-38．
刘蔚铭．《法律语言学研究》[M]．北京：中国经济出版社，2003．
吕万英.法官话语的权力支配[J].《外语研究》，2006,(2):9-13.
毛凤凡.法庭询问中的模糊限制语引发的语用冲突及其对法庭审判的启示[J].《外语研究》，2006，(2):19-22.
苗兴伟．书面语篇分析的进展介绍[J]．《外语教学与研究》，1998，(3):71-72．
苗兴伟．人际意义与语篇的建构[J]．《山东外语教学》，2004，(1):5-11．
潘庆云.《跨世纪的中国法律语言》[M]．上海：华东化工学院出版社，1997.
秦甫.《律师论辩的策略与技巧》[M].北京:法律出版社,2001.
裘燕萍．语篇目的与人际意义的体现[J]．《四川外语学院学报》，2006，(11)：103-111.
孙懿华、周广然．《法律语言学》[M]．北京：中国政法大学出版社，1997．
唐丽萍.英语学术书评的评价策略——从对话视角的介入分析[J]．《外语学刊》，2005,(4):105-112.
王红阳、程春松．英语政治演讲和学术演讲的情态对比研究[J]．《外语与外语教学》，2007,(5):21-24．
王洁.《法律语言学教程》[M]．北京：法律出版社，1997.
王洁.《法律语言研究》[M]．广州：广东教育出版社，1999.
王洁.控辩式法庭审判互动语言探索[J]．《语言文字应用》，2004,(3)：76-82.
王振华．评价系统及其运作——系统功能语言学的新发展[M]．《外国语》，2001，(6)：13-20．
王振华．法庭交叉质询中的人际关系－系统功能语言学“情态”视角[J]．《外语学刊》，2004,(3):51-59.
吴伟平．《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，2002．
徐章宏、李冰．法庭应答语信息过量的顺应性研究[J]．《外语研究》，2006，(2)：14-18．
张徳禄．系统功能语言学的新发展[J]．《当代语言学》，2004，(1)：57-65.
张新红.汉语立法语篇的言语行为分析[J]．《现代外语》，2000，(3)：283-295.
朱苏力.关于抗辩制改革[OL]. http://club.topsage.com/thread-1818452-1-1.htm