警察讯问话语
|
摘要
话语实质上是在机构、专业或更普遍的社会语境中的语言运用。警察讯问话语是警察在公安机关这一特定机构组织里的言语交际,具有不同于日常言语交际的话语程式、话语角色、话语策略、话语权力或权势关系等。本研究将警察的讯问话语视作语类,以话语研究中的语类理论为支撑,在基于语料库的分析基础上,以文本内和文本外要素相结合的研究模式,解析警察讯问话语的内部结构特征和语言特点,阐释讯问语篇与社会文化语境之间的相互联系,探究警察讯问语类在机构话语机制中身份的建构与权力的支配,阐释机构语境对讯问话语的影响和制约,揭示警察讯问话语作为一种人类社会活动的本质。本研究突破话语分析局限于词汇语法、语篇语义的研究范式,从语类整体的视角研究警察讯问话语。同时,这一研究也是对我国法律语言学发展的一个推动。
本文共分为七章。第一章为绪论,从侦查学和语言学的角度简述警察讯问的研究背景,阐述了警察讯问话语研究的目的、意义,描述了研究方法和研究语料,提出研究框架。
第二章首先讨论语类的概念和比较分析语类理论研究三大流派。接着,对法律语言学的兴起、发展和研究领域做了梳理,对比分析了国内外法律语言学研究的特点与焦点,着重评析了对警察话语,尤其是警察讯问话语现有的研究和取得的成果。这一章是本研究的理论背景。
本文的第三章和第四章针对讯问话语的文本内要素进行分析与论证。首先,选取某一案件警察对犯罪嫌疑人的第一次讯问笔录作为样本,根据讯问话语宏观结构,分析讯问各阶段的话语特征,以及交际双方在固定的语类结构和语言资源选择下的交际模式。接着对语料库中警察使用的问句类型做了统计与说明,详细阐释了提问中的疑问焦点与预设产生的信息交互的过程,并讨论了预设在警察提问中的作用。讨论现实世界中讯问话语的“语篇间性”,从讯问方对语篇资源的选择、分配和移植角度阐释警察讯问话语交际目的的实现途径。
第五、六两章揭示了机构语境对讯问话语的影响和制约。第五章探析权力和权威如何通过语言加以实施。由于交际双方迥然不同的社会角色和话语角色,讯问话语呈现出强制性的特点,权力分配极不对称。本章深入分析了机构权力在讯问中如何控制与支配交际双方的语言资源选择。
第六章借鉴身份理论,讨论讯问话语双方在交际过程各阶段的话语角色和身份体现。在讯问这一特殊的机构话语中,警察与犯罪嫌疑人谈话的目标或方向在大多数情况下是不一致的。本章详细分析了讯问双方的身份在理想讯问模式的建立或打破这一动态进程中是如何发展与变化的。
第七章为结语。该部分总结了全文的研究内容与步骤,分析了本文在警察讯问话语研究方面的创新之处和对讯问实践的指导意义,并指出存在的不足和今后进一步研究的方向。
Discourse is often described as "language-in-use" or "socially situated text and talk". As an institutional interaction in the police organization, police interrogation embodies discursive features different from ordinary conversation in terms of schema, roles, strategies and power. Taking police interrogation as a genre, supported by genre theories in discourse studies, this study makes a genre analysis of interrogation texts. From a holistic genre perspective, the study first examines the internal structural characteristics and linguistic features of these genre texts. It then probes into the interrelationships between the interrogation discourse and the socio-cultural context in which these genre texts reside. By exploring identity construction and power control in the police interrogation as an institutional discourse, and by highlighting the influence and restriction imposed by such institutional context, the study attempts to reveal the essence of police interrogation as a social action. It is hoped that the present study may serve as a valuable contribution to the development of forensic linguistics in China.
The present dissertation consists of seven chapters. Chapter I is an introduction, presenting the research background of police interrogation from both the science of investigation and linguistics. Research purposes and the methodology together with analytical corpora are discussed and the justification of the study is also examined.
Chapter II deals with the theoretical background of this research. It begins with a discussion of the concept of genre and makes a comparative analysis of three main schools of genre theories. Then, a critical review of the previous studies on forensic linguistics both at home and abroad is provided, with a focus on studies relevant to the present study of the police interrogation reported in this dissertation.
Chapters III and IV center on an analysis of text-internal factors of police interrogation. Firstly, based on a sample analysis, Chapter III explores discursive features of three stages within the macro structure of interrogation genre texts, and the communicative pattern of the two parties involved in the interrogation. Chapter IV provides a corpus-based account of the questions used by the police, elaborating on information produced by interaction in the interrogation process with various question foci and presuppositions. Functions of presupposition in the interrogation are identified. Issues such as interdiscursivity of the police interrogation in the world of reality, appropriation and embedding of generic resources are also addressed.
The following two chapters are concerned with the effects of the institutional context on police interrogation. Chapter V analyzes how the police impose power and authority through language. Owing to the distinctive social and discursive roles of two parties in the communication process, the police interrogation has its characteristic features of coercion and asymmetric power. The chapter explores how the institutional power controls and dominates the selection of language resources by the two parties in the interrogation.
Chapter VI discusses the roles of discourse and the manifestation of identities of the two parties in the police interrogation. As conflicts are evident between the communicative purposes of the police and suspects, the chapter examines the evolution of identities of the two parties following a dynamic interrogation mode.
Chapter VII sums up the procedures and the major research findings of the study. It then switches attention to the contributions and limitations of the study. Implications and areas for further research are also examined and proposed.
本文共分为七章。第一章为绪论,从侦查学和语言学的角度简述警察讯问的研究背景,阐述了警察讯问话语研究的目的、意义,描述了研究方法和研究语料,提出研究框架。
第二章首先讨论语类的概念和比较分析语类理论研究三大流派。接着,对法律语言学的兴起、发展和研究领域做了梳理,对比分析了国内外法律语言学研究的特点与焦点,着重评析了对警察话语,尤其是警察讯问话语现有的研究和取得的成果。这一章是本研究的理论背景。
本文的第三章和第四章针对讯问话语的文本内要素进行分析与论证。首先,选取某一案件警察对犯罪嫌疑人的第一次讯问笔录作为样本,根据讯问话语宏观结构,分析讯问各阶段的话语特征,以及交际双方在固定的语类结构和语言资源选择下的交际模式。接着对语料库中警察使用的问句类型做了统计与说明,详细阐释了提问中的疑问焦点与预设产生的信息交互的过程,并讨论了预设在警察提问中的作用。讨论现实世界中讯问话语的“语篇间性”,从讯问方对语篇资源的选择、分配和移植角度阐释警察讯问话语交际目的的实现途径。
第五、六两章揭示了机构语境对讯问话语的影响和制约。第五章探析权力和权威如何通过语言加以实施。由于交际双方迥然不同的社会角色和话语角色,讯问话语呈现出强制性的特点,权力分配极不对称。本章深入分析了机构权力在讯问中如何控制与支配交际双方的语言资源选择。
第六章借鉴身份理论,讨论讯问话语双方在交际过程各阶段的话语角色和身份体现。在讯问这一特殊的机构话语中,警察与犯罪嫌疑人谈话的目标或方向在大多数情况下是不一致的。本章详细分析了讯问双方的身份在理想讯问模式的建立或打破这一动态进程中是如何发展与变化的。
第七章为结语。该部分总结了全文的研究内容与步骤,分析了本文在警察讯问话语研究方面的创新之处和对讯问实践的指导意义,并指出存在的不足和今后进一步研究的方向。
Discourse is often described as "language-in-use" or "socially situated text and talk". As an institutional interaction in the police organization, police interrogation embodies discursive features different from ordinary conversation in terms of schema, roles, strategies and power. Taking police interrogation as a genre, supported by genre theories in discourse studies, this study makes a genre analysis of interrogation texts. From a holistic genre perspective, the study first examines the internal structural characteristics and linguistic features of these genre texts. It then probes into the interrelationships between the interrogation discourse and the socio-cultural context in which these genre texts reside. By exploring identity construction and power control in the police interrogation as an institutional discourse, and by highlighting the influence and restriction imposed by such institutional context, the study attempts to reveal the essence of police interrogation as a social action. It is hoped that the present study may serve as a valuable contribution to the development of forensic linguistics in China.
The present dissertation consists of seven chapters. Chapter I is an introduction, presenting the research background of police interrogation from both the science of investigation and linguistics. Research purposes and the methodology together with analytical corpora are discussed and the justification of the study is also examined.
Chapter II deals with the theoretical background of this research. It begins with a discussion of the concept of genre and makes a comparative analysis of three main schools of genre theories. Then, a critical review of the previous studies on forensic linguistics both at home and abroad is provided, with a focus on studies relevant to the present study of the police interrogation reported in this dissertation.
Chapters III and IV center on an analysis of text-internal factors of police interrogation. Firstly, based on a sample analysis, Chapter III explores discursive features of three stages within the macro structure of interrogation genre texts, and the communicative pattern of the two parties involved in the interrogation. Chapter IV provides a corpus-based account of the questions used by the police, elaborating on information produced by interaction in the interrogation process with various question foci and presuppositions. Functions of presupposition in the interrogation are identified. Issues such as interdiscursivity of the police interrogation in the world of reality, appropriation and embedding of generic resources are also addressed.
The following two chapters are concerned with the effects of the institutional context on police interrogation. Chapter V analyzes how the police impose power and authority through language. Owing to the distinctive social and discursive roles of two parties in the communication process, the police interrogation has its characteristic features of coercion and asymmetric power. The chapter explores how the institutional power controls and dominates the selection of language resources by the two parties in the interrogation.
Chapter VI discusses the roles of discourse and the manifestation of identities of the two parties in the police interrogation. As conflicts are evident between the communicative purposes of the police and suspects, the chapter examines the evolution of identities of the two parties following a dynamic interrogation mode.
Chapter VII sums up the procedures and the major research findings of the study. It then switches attention to the contributions and limitations of the study. Implications and areas for further research are also examined and proposed.
引文
[1]《资治通鉴》卷204,[唐纪二十]。
[2]胡三省(1230-1302),中国宋元之际史学家,著有《资治通鉴音注》294卷及《释文辩误》12卷。古代对于《通鉴》的注释,卷帙浩繁,历来以此书声价最高,是目前研究《通鉴学》最完整的参考资料。
[3]《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》(1996)第九十三条规定：“侦查人员在讯问犯罪嫌疑人的时候,应当首先讯问犯罪嫌疑人是否有犯罪行为,让他陈述有罪的情节或者无罪的辩解,然后向他提出问题。犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问,应当如实回答。”
[4]《刑诉法》(1996)第四十三条规定：“审判人员、检察人员、侦查人员必须依照法定程序,收集能够证实犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有罪或者无罪、犯罪情节轻重的各种证据。严禁刑讯逼供和以威胁、引诱、欺骗以及其他非法的方法收集证据。”
[1]该期刊于1994年创刊,名为《法律语言学》(Forensic Linguistics)。2003年改为现期刊名,由英国以出版人文社科和艺术闻名的Equinox出版社出版。
[1]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第2171页。讯：①问。②审问。③音信；消息。④告；陈诉。⑤通“迅”。迅速。⑥西周时对俘虏的称谓。
[2]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第2170页。询：①询问；请教。②通“洵”。信。③通“均”。协调。
[1]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第333页。盗：①偷窃；劫掠。《荀子·修身》：“窃货曰盗”。《史记·高祖本纪》：“杀人者死,伤人及盗抵罪。”
[2]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第1501页。窃：①偷取；盗取。《列子·说符》：“人有亡鈇者,意其邻之子,视其行步,窃鈇也,颜色,窃鈇也。”
[3]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第1893页。偷：①窃取。《淮南子·道应》：“楚有善为偷者。”
[1]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第825页。机构：②泛指机关、团体或者其他工作单位。亦指机关、团体等的内部组织。如：科研机构；调整机构。
Agar, M.1985. Institutional Discourse. Text,5 (3),147-168.
Ainsworth, J.2008.'You have the right to remain silent...'but only if you ask for it just so:the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law,15,1-21.
Alcaraz, V. E. & Hughes, B.2002. Legal Translation Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Bakhtin, M. M.1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (V. W. Mcgee, Trans.).
Austin:University of Austin Press.
Bazerman, C.1997. The life of genre, the life in the classroom. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrom (Eds.), Genre and Writing. Portsmouth NH:Boynton Cook.
Bazerman, C.2004. Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems:How Texts Organize Activity and People. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What Writing Does and How It Does It:An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berg-Seligso, S.1990. The Bilingual Courtroom:Courtroom Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Berk-Seligson, S.2002. The Miranda Warnings and Linguistic Coercion:The Role of Footing in the Interrogation of a Limited-English-Speaking Murder Suspect. In Janet Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the Legal Process. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bhatia, V. K.1993. Analyzing Genre:Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K.1995. Genre-mixing and in professional communication:The case of 'private intentions'v.'socially recognised purposes'. In Bruthiaux, P., Boswood, T., & Bertha,B. (Eds.), Explorations in English for Professional Communication. Hong Kong:City University of Hong Kong.
Bhatia, V. K.2004. Worlds of Written Discourse:A Genre-Based View. London: Continuum.
Bhatia, V. K.2008. Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes,27,161-174.
Bhatia, V. K., Engberg, J., Gotti, M. and Heller, D.2005. Vagueness in Normative Texts. Bern:Peter Lang.
Bourdieu, P.1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brumfit, C.1995. Teacher professionalism and research. In Guy Cook & Barbara Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles & Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford:OUP.
Bryant, M.1930. English in the Law Courts:the Part that Articles, Prepositions and Conjunctions Play in Legal Decisions. New York:Columbia University Press.
Burke, P.1980. The self:measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly,44,18-29.
Butters, R.2001. Forensic Linguistics. London:Blackwell.
Carter, E. K.2009. Policing Talk:an investigation into the interaction of the officer and the suspect in the police interview. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Essex, UK.
Conley, J. M. and O'Barr, W. M.1998. Just Words:Law, Language and Power (2nd edition 2005). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Conley, J. M. and O'Barr, W. M.1998. Just Words:Law, Language, and Power. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Cotterill, J.2000. Reading the rights:a cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics 7(1),4-25.
Cotterill, J.2003. Language and Power in Court:A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A.2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London:Routledge.
Coulthard, R. M.2000. Suppressed dialogue in a confession statement. In R. M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill and F. Rock (Eds.), Working with Dialogue. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Danet, B.1980. Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review,14(3), 445-564.
Davis, K.1988. Power under the Microscope. Dordrecht:Foris.
Dillon, James T.1990. The Practice of Questioning. London:Routledge.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J.1992. Analyzing talk at work:an introduction. In Drew P. and Heritage J. (Eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., & Sorjonen, M.-L.1997. Institutional dialogue. In Teun. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. London:Sage.
Dudley-Evans, T. & Henderson, W.(Eds.).1990. The Language of Economics:The Analysis of Economic Discourse. London:Modern English Publications/British Council.
Eades, D.1994. Forensic linguistics in Australia:an overview, Forensic Linguistics, 1(2),113-132.
Eades, D.1995. Language in Evidence:Issues Confronting Aboriginal and Multicultural Australia. Sydney:University of New South Wales Press.
Edwards, A. B.1995. The Practice of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Edwards, D.1997. Discourse and cognition. London:Sage.
Fairclough, N.1989. Language and Power. London:Longman.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. Boston:Addison Wesley.
Firth, J. R.1957. Papers in Linguistics,1934-1951. London:Oxford University Press.
Foster, D.2000. Author Unknown:On the Trail of Anonymous. New York:Henry Holt.
Foucault, M.1984. The Order of Discourse. In M. J. Shapiro (Ed.), Language and Politics. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Fries, P.1983. On the Status of Theme in English. In Janos S. Petofi and Emel Sozer (Eds.), Micro-and Macro-connexity of Discourse. Hamburg:Buske.
Galdia, Marcus.2009. Legal Linguistics. Frankfurt:Peter Lang.
Garfinkel, Harold.1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gibbons, J. (Ed.).1994. Language and the Law. New York:Longman.
Gibbons, J.1990. Applied linguistics in court. Applied. Linguistics.,11(3),229-237.
Gibbons, J.2003. Forensic Linguistics:An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford:Blackwell.
Goffman, E.1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E.1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodrich, P.1987. Legal Discourse:Studies in Linguistics, Rhetoric, and Legal Analysis. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Grice, H. P.1981. Presupposition and Conversational Implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York:Academic Press.
Grice, H. P.1999. Logic and conversation. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader. New York:Routledge.
Gudjonsson, G H.1999. The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony. Chichester:John Wiley.
Habermas, J.1984. The Theory of Communicative Action (Volume Ⅰ). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hall, P.2008. Policespeak. In Gibbons, J. and M. Teresa Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R.1989. Language, Context and Text:Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.1985. Spoken and Written Language. Geelong, Victoria:Deakin.
Halliday, M. A. K.1994 (first published 1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Haworth, K.2006. The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse & Society, Vol 17 (6),739-759.
Heritage, J.1984. A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action:Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J.1985. Analyzing news interviews:aspects of the production of talk for an
"overhearing" audience. In Teun A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. Ⅲ. London:Academic Press.
Heydon, G.2004. Establishing the structure of police evidentiary interviews with suspects. Speech, Language and the Law 11(1),27-49.
Heydon, G.2005. The language of police interviewing:a critical analysis. Palgrave Macmillan
Hollien, H.2001. Forensic Voice Identification. San Diego:Academic Press.
Hyon, S.1996. Genre in Three Traditions:Implications for ESL. Tesol Quarterly, Vol. 30, No.4,693-722.
Jackendoff, R.1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Johnson, A.2002. So...?:Pragmatic Implications of So-Prefaced Questions in Formal Police Interviews. In Janet Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the Legal Process. Palgrave.
Johnson, A.2005. Ask me a story. Police interviewing:The pragmatic effects of questions in elicited narratives. Unpublished PhD thesis. Birmingham, Department of English:University of Birmingham.
Johnson, A.2008a.'From where we're sat...':Negotiating narrative transformation through interaction in police interviews with suspects. Text & Talk,28(3),327-349.
Johnson, A.2008b. Changing stories. Functions of Language,15(1),84-114.
Jones, C. E. L.2008. UK police interviews:a linguistic analysis of Afro-Caribbean and white British suspect interviews. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Essex, UK.
Kamio, Akio.1994. The theory of territory of information:the case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics,21 (1),67-100.
Kamio, Akio.2001. English generic we, you, and they:an analysis in terms of territory of information. Journal of Pragmatics,33 (7),1111-1124.
Kniffka, H.1990. Texte zu Theorie und Praxis forensischer Linguistik. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Kniffka, H., Blackwell, S., and Coulthard, M. (Eds.).1996. Recent Developments in Forensic Linguistics. Frankfurt:Peter Lang.
Kredens, K. & Gozdz-Roszkowski, S.2007. Language and the Law:International Outlooks. Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang.
Labov, W.1972. The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax. In Labov, W. (Ed.), Language in the Inner City:studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia:Pennsylvania University Press.
Lakoff, R. T.1990. Talking Power:the Politics of Language in Our Lives. New York: Basic Books.
Lerner, G.1992. Assisted story telling:deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology,15,213-245.
Levi, J. N.1982. Linguistics, Language, and Law:a Topical Bibliography. Bloomington:Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Levi, J. N.1994a. Language and Law:A Bibliographic Guide to Social Science Research in the U.S.A. Chicago, Illinois:American Bar Association.
Levi, J. N.1994b. Language as evidence:the linguist as expert witness in North American courts. Foreign Linguistics,1(1),1-26.
Levi, J. N. and Graffam Walker, A. (Eds.).1990. Language in the Judicial Process. New York:Plenum Press.
Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C.2000. Presumptive meanings:The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Linfoot-Ham, K.2006. Conversational maxims in encounters with law enforcement officers. Speech, Language and the Law 13 (1),23-54.
Litowitz, D.1997. Postmodern Philosophy and Law. Kansas:University Press of Kansas.
Maley, Y.1994. The Language of the Law. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the Law. London:Longman
Malinowski, B.1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), Supplement to the Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul.
Martin, J. R.1992. English Text:System and Structure. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Martin, J. R.2009. Genre and Language Learning:A Social Semiotic Perspective. Linguistics and Education, No.20,10-21.
Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R.2005. The Language of Evaluation. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Mayr, A.2008. Language and Power:An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London:Continuum.
Mazzi, D.2007. The Construction of Argumentation in Judicial Texts:Combining a Genre and a Corpus Perspective. Argumentation, vol.21,21-38.
McElhinny, B.1995. Challenging Hegemonic Masculinities:Female and Male Police Officers Handling Domestic Violence. In Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender Articulated:Language and the Socially Constructed Self. New York and London:Routledge.
Mead, R.1985. Courtroom Discourse. University of Birmigham:Birminghamin Press.
Miller, C. R.1984. Genre as Social Action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol.70,
151-167.
Miller, C. R.1994. Rhetorical Community:The Cultural Basis of Genre. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric. London:Taylor & Francis.
Mumby, D. K. and Clair, R. P.1997. Organizational discourse. In Teun. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies, Volume 2:Discourse as Social Action. London:Sage.
Murphy, H. F.1998. Linguistics and law:an overview of forensic linguistics, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal,1,1-11.
Nakane, I.2007. Problems in Communicating the Suspect's Rights in Interpreted Police Interviews. Applied Linguistics,281,87-112.
Newbury P. and Johnson, A.2006. Suspects'resistance to constraining and coercive questioning strategies in the police interview. Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, vol 13 (2),213-240.
Nolan, F.1983. The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition. Cambridge:Cambridge UP.
O'Barr, W.1982. Linguistic Evidence, Language, Power and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York:Academic Press.
Rock, F.2001. The genesis of a witness statement. Forensic Linguistics,8(2),44-72.
Rose, P.2002. Forensic Speaker Identification. London:Taylor and Francis.
Russel, S.2000.'Let me put it simply...':the case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation. Forensic Linguistics,7(1),26-48.
Sacks, H.1992. Lectures on conversation (Vols.1-2). Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.
Sarcevic, S.2009. Legal Language in Action:Translation, Terminology, Drafting and Procedural Issues. Zagreb:Nakladni zavod Globus.
Schane, S.2006. Language and the Law. New York:Continuum.
Shuy, R. W.1984. Linguistics in other professions. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13,419-445.
Shuy, R. W.1986. Language and the law. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,7, 50-63.
Shuy, R. W.1993. Language Crimes:the Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Oxford:Blackwell.
Shuy, R. W.1998. The Language of Confession, Interrogation, and Deception. Thousand Oaks, CA. and London:Sage.
Shuy, R. W.1998. The Language of Confessions, Interrogation and Deception. Los Angeles:Sage Publications.
Shuy, R. W.2002. Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes. London:Palgrave.
Shuy, R. W.2005. Creating Language Crimes:How Law Enforcement Uses (and Abuses) Language. New York:Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. W.2006. Linguistics in the Courtroom:A Practical Guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. W.2010. The Language of Defamation Cases. Oxford:University Press.
Silverman, D.1993. Interpreting Qualitative Data. London:Sage.
Simpson, P. and Mayr, A.2010. Language and Power:A Resource Book for Students. Abingdon:Routledge.
Snedaker, K. H.1991. Storytelling in opening statements. In D. R. Papke (Ed.), Narrative and the Legal Discourse:A Reader in Storytelling and the Law. Liverpool:Deborah Charles Publications.
Solan, L. M.1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Solan, L. M. and Tiersma, P. M.2005. Speaking of Crime:The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago:university of Chicago Press.
Stryker, R.1987. Identity theory:developments and extensions. In K. Yardley and T.
Honess (Eds.), Self and Identity:Psychosocial Perspectives. Chichester:John Wiley.
Stygall, G.1995. Trial Language:Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Svartvik, J.1968. The Evans Statements:A Case for Forensic Linguistics. Goteborg: University of Gothenburg Press.
Swales, J. M.1990. Genre Analysis:English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.).1978. Differentiation between Social Groups:Studies in Social Psychology. London:Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C.1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. C. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago:Nelson-Hall.
Thomas, J.1995. Meaning in Interaction:An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thornborrow, J.2002. Power Talk:Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. London:Longman (Pearson Education).
Tiersma, P. M.1993. Linguistic issues in law. Language,69(1):113-135.
Tiersma, P. M.1999. Legal Language. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Timor, Uri and Landau, Rachel.1998. Discourse Characteristics in the Sociolect of Repentant Criminals. Discourse & Society,9,363-386.
Van De Mieroop, D.2005. An integrated approach of quantitative and qualitative analysis in the study of identity in speeches. Discourse & Society,16 (1),107-130.
Van Dijk, Teun A.2001. Critical Discourse Analysis. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deboran
浙江大学博士学位论文 参考文献Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Walton, D.2003. The interrogation as a type of dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics,35, 1771-1802.
Weber, Max.1978. Economy and Society:An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Wetter, J. G.1960. The Styles of Appellate Judicial Opinions. Leyden:AW Sythoff.
Wilson, T.P.1991. Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure:Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Oxford:Polity Press.
Yule, G 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
彼得·古德里奇著,赵洪芳、毛凤凡译：《法律话语》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
伯特兰·罗素著,吴友三译：《权力论》,北京：商务印书馆,1991年。
布赖恩·比克斯著,邱昭继译：《语言与法律的确定性》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
查尔斯·奥哈拉著,庄继禹译： 《刑事侦察学基础》,北京：群众出版社,1990年。
陈炯：《法律语言学概论》,西安：陕西人民教育出版社,1998年。
陈炯：《法律语言研究中的几个问题》,《江南学院学报》,2000年第9期。
陈炯：《论法律术语的命名与选用》,《修辞学习》,2003年第6期。
陈炯：《论立法语言的风格特征》,《毕节师范高等专科学校学报(综合版)》,2005年第1期。
陈兴良：《刑法学：向死而生》,《法律科学》,2010年第1期。
陈兴良：《中国古代律学是法律语言学》, 《法律科学》,2010年第1期。
丁世洁：《警察语言修辞》,郑州：河南人民出版社,2002年。
董敏：《论当前中国民事一审判决书的语类结构潜势》,《修辞学习》,2006年第4期。
杜金榜：《法律语言的模糊性到司法结果的确定性》,《现代外语》,2001年第3期。
杜金榜： 《法律语言学》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004年。
杜金榜：《法律语言学》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004年。
弗雷德·英博著,何家弘等译：《审讯与供述》,北京：群众出版社,1992年。
福柯著,严锋译：《权力的眼睛》,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年。
何勤华：《秦汉律学考》,《法学研究》,1999年第5期。
何兆熊：《语用学概要》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,1989年。
何自荣：《法律中的国家权力和个人权力》,《甘肃联合大学学报》,2008年第1期。
侯英奇：《侦查讯问》,北京：中国民主法制出版社,2007年。
胡春阳：《话语分析：传播研究的新路径》,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2007年。
胡曙中：《英语语篇语言学研究》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005年。
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子：《系统功能语言学概论》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年。
华尔赓等：《法律语言概论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1995年。
黄伯荣：《陈述句疑问句祈使句感叹句》,上海：新知识出版社,1958年。
黄华新、王继同：《新逻辑学》,浙江大学出版社,1999年。
黄华新：《略论汉语预设》,《杭州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,1994年第4期。
季广茂：《舌头的诡计与权力》,《书屋》,2005年第6期。
姜剑云：《法律语言与言语研究》,北京：群众出版社,1995年。
江振春：《浅析法律语言的模糊性》,《广西社会科学》,2004年第7期。
兰霞,吕尚彬：《法律语体的修辞特征》,《四川师范学院学报》,1995年第1期。
劳伦斯·M·索兰著,张清、王芳译：《法官语言》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
李辉凡等译：《巴赫金全集》(第二卷),石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998年。
李战子：《身份理论和应用语言学研究》,《外国语言文学》,2005年第4期。
李振宇：《边缘法学论丛：法律语言学新论》,北京：中国检察出版社,2006年。
李振宇：《法律语言学初探》,北京：法律出版社,1998年。
廖美珍：《从问答行为看中国法庭审判现状》,《语言文字应用》,2002年第11期。
廖美珍：《答话研究——法庭答话的启示》,《修辞学习》,2004第5期。
廖美珍：《法庭问答及其互动研究》,北京：法律出版社,2003年。
廖美珍：《国外法律语言研究综述》,《当代语言学》,2004年第1期。
刘富丽：《英汉翻译中的主位推进模式》,《外语教学与研究》,2006年第9期。
刘红婴：《法律语言学》,北京：北京大学出版社,2003年。
刘建明：《新闻学前沿》,北京：清华大学出版社,2005年。
刘愫贞：《法律语言：立法与司法的艺术》,西安：陕西人民出版社,1990年。
刘愫贞：《论中国法律语言的渊起》,《语言与文学研究》,2003年第3期。
刘蔚铭：《法律语言学研究》,北京：中国经济出版社,2003年。
刘蔚铭：《语言证据范畴下的法律语言学研究》,《广东外语外贸大学学报》,2009年第1期。
龙宗智：《威胁、引诱、欺骗的审讯是否违法》,《法学》,2000年第3期。
吕叔湘：《疑问·否定·肯定》,《中国语文》,1985年第1期。
吕叔湘：《中国文法要略》上卷,北京：商务印书馆,1942年。
罗伯特·A·达尔著,王沪宁、陈峰译：《现代政治分析》,上海：上海译文出版社,1987年。
马建忠：《马氏文通》,北京：商务印书馆,1983年。
马克斯·韦伯著,林荣远译：《经济与社会：下卷》,北京：商务印书馆,1998年。
宁致远：《有关法律语言风格特点的几个问题》,《语言文字应用》,1995年第2期。
潘庆云：《法律语言是一种有别于自然语言的技术语言》,《江汉大学学报(人文科学版)》,2004年第2期。
潘庆云：《跨世纪的中国法律语言》,上海：华东理工大学出版社,1997年。
潘庆云：《有关法律语体的几个问题》,《中国人民警官大学学报》,1983年第4期。
潘庆云：《中国法律语言鉴衡》,上海：上海汉语大词典出版社,2004年。
庞继贤、陈明瑶：《英语研究论文的及物性结构与论文交际目的的实现》,《外国语》,2007年第5期。
庞继贤：《语言学在法律中的应用：司法语言学》, 《外国语》,1996年第5期。
庞建荣：《法律语言中的语用模糊》,《外国语言文学》,2003年第4期。
彭京宜：《法律语言研究的回顾与前瞻》,《广西社会科学》,2000年第6期。
戚雨村：《布拉格学派和马泰休斯的语言理论》,《外国语》,1993年第5期。
冉永平：《语用学传统议题的深入研究新兴议题的不断拓展——第十届国际语用学研讨会述评》, 《外语教学》,2007年第6期。
邵敬敏：《现代汉语疑问句研究》,上海：华东师范大学出版社,1996年。
舒国滢：《战后德国法哲学的发展路向》,《比较法研究》1995年第4期。
孙懿华等：《法律语言学》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997年。
谭绍木、黄慧：《论法律语言的精确与模糊》,《江西社会科学》,2004年第3期。
王洁：《法律语言学教程》,北京：法律出版社,1997年。
王洁：《法律语言研究》,广州：广东教育出版社,1999年。
王铼：《侦查讯问中提问的信息控制》,《公安大学学报》,2002年第3期。
王守元、苗兴伟：《预设与文学语篇的建构》,《外语与外语教学》,2003年第3期。
王雨田：《现代逻辑科学导引(上册)》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,1987年。
王治河：《福柯》,长沙：湖南教育出版社,1999年。
吴克利：《审讯心理学》,北京：中国检察出版社,2006年。
吴伟平：《法律语言学：会议、机构与刊物》,《国外语言学》,1994年第2期。
吴伟平：《语言与法律——司法领域的语言学研究》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002年。
徐杰、张陈林：《疑问程度与疑问句式》,《江西师大学报》,1985年第2期。
徐杰：《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》,北京：北京大学出版社,2001年。
杨和德等：《侦查讯问教程》,北京：群众出版社,1999年。
杨敏：《法律语篇权力意志剖析》,《外语与外语教学》,2004年第5期。
杨敏：《立法语篇人际功能的权力意志剖析》,《外语与外语教学》,2008年第4期。
杨敏：《立法语篇文化语境权力意志剖析》,《修辞学习》,2007年第2期。
叶宁：《警察讯问中的语类混合和移植现象探析》,《中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版)》,2009年第4期。
叶宁：《浅谈法律语言学》,《杭州师范大学学报(教育科学版)》,2009年第3期。
殷相印：《法律语体与模糊修辞》,《修辞学习》,2000年第1期。
于奇智：《福柯人论之分析——从知识考古学的观点看》,《中国社会科学季刊(香港)》,1995年春季刊。
余致纯：《法律语言学》,西安：陕西人民教育出版社,1990年。
袁传有： 《警察讯问语言的人际意义——评价理论之“介入系统”视角》, 《现代外语》,2008年第2期。
约翰·M·康利和威廉·M·欧巴尔著,程朝阳译：《法律、语言与权力》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
约翰·吉本斯著,程朝阳、毛凤凡、秦明译：《法律语言学导论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
张德禄：《语类研究的范围及其对外语教学的启示》,《外语电化教学》,2002年第4期。
张新红：《汉语立法语篇的言语行为分析》,《现代外语》,2000年第3期。
赵尔巽等：《清史稿·刑法志》,北京：中华书局,1977年。
赵元任：《汉语口语语法》,北京：商务印书馆,1979年。
朱德熙：《语法讲义》,北京：商务印书馆,1982年。
朱力宇、张曙光：《立法学》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001年。
朱永生： 《语境动态研究》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年。
邹玉华：《语言证据的种类及其语义鉴定》,《中国政法大学学报》,2008年第3期。
左卫民： 《在权利话语与权力技术之间：中国司法的新思考》,北京：法律出版社,2002年。
[2]胡三省(1230-1302),中国宋元之际史学家,著有《资治通鉴音注》294卷及《释文辩误》12卷。古代对于《通鉴》的注释,卷帙浩繁,历来以此书声价最高,是目前研究《通鉴学》最完整的参考资料。
[3]《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》(1996)第九十三条规定：“侦查人员在讯问犯罪嫌疑人的时候,应当首先讯问犯罪嫌疑人是否有犯罪行为,让他陈述有罪的情节或者无罪的辩解,然后向他提出问题。犯罪嫌疑人对侦查人员的提问,应当如实回答。”
[4]《刑诉法》(1996)第四十三条规定：“审判人员、检察人员、侦查人员必须依照法定程序,收集能够证实犯罪嫌疑人、被告人有罪或者无罪、犯罪情节轻重的各种证据。严禁刑讯逼供和以威胁、引诱、欺骗以及其他非法的方法收集证据。”
[1]该期刊于1994年创刊,名为《法律语言学》(Forensic Linguistics)。2003年改为现期刊名,由英国以出版人文社科和艺术闻名的Equinox出版社出版。
[1]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第2171页。讯：①问。②审问。③音信；消息。④告；陈诉。⑤通“迅”。迅速。⑥西周时对俘虏的称谓。
[2]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第2170页。询：①询问；请教。②通“洵”。信。③通“均”。协调。
[1]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第333页。盗：①偷窃；劫掠。《荀子·修身》：“窃货曰盗”。《史记·高祖本纪》：“杀人者死,伤人及盗抵罪。”
[2]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第1501页。窃：①偷取；盗取。《列子·说符》：“人有亡鈇者,意其邻之子,视其行步,窃鈇也,颜色,窃鈇也。”
[3]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第1893页。偷：①窃取。《淮南子·道应》：“楚有善为偷者。”
[1]《辞海》(缩印本),上海辞书出版社,2010年第六版,第825页。机构：②泛指机关、团体或者其他工作单位。亦指机关、团体等的内部组织。如：科研机构；调整机构。
Agar, M.1985. Institutional Discourse. Text,5 (3),147-168.
Ainsworth, J.2008.'You have the right to remain silent...'but only if you ask for it just so:the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law,15,1-21.
Alcaraz, V. E. & Hughes, B.2002. Legal Translation Explained. Manchester:St. Jerome.
Bakhtin, M. M.1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (V. W. Mcgee, Trans.).
Austin:University of Austin Press.
Bazerman, C.1997. The life of genre, the life in the classroom. In W. Bishop & H. Ostrom (Eds.), Genre and Writing. Portsmouth NH:Boynton Cook.
Bazerman, C.2004. Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems:How Texts Organize Activity and People. In C. Bazerman & P. Prior (Eds.), What Writing Does and How It Does It:An Introduction to Analyzing Texts and Textual Practices. New Jersey:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Berg-Seligso, S.1990. The Bilingual Courtroom:Courtroom Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Berk-Seligson, S.2002. The Miranda Warnings and Linguistic Coercion:The Role of Footing in the Interrogation of a Limited-English-Speaking Murder Suspect. In Janet Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the Legal Process. Palgrave Macmillan.
Bhatia, V. K.1993. Analyzing Genre:Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, V. K.1995. Genre-mixing and in professional communication:The case of 'private intentions'v.'socially recognised purposes'. In Bruthiaux, P., Boswood, T., & Bertha,B. (Eds.), Explorations in English for Professional Communication. Hong Kong:City University of Hong Kong.
Bhatia, V. K.2004. Worlds of Written Discourse:A Genre-Based View. London: Continuum.
Bhatia, V. K.2008. Genre analysis, ESP and professional practice. English for Specific Purposes,27,161-174.
Bhatia, V. K., Engberg, J., Gotti, M. and Heller, D.2005. Vagueness in Normative Texts. Bern:Peter Lang.
Bourdieu, P.1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Brumfit, C.1995. Teacher professionalism and research. In Guy Cook & Barbara Seidlhofer (Eds.), Principles & Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford:OUP.
Bryant, M.1930. English in the Law Courts:the Part that Articles, Prepositions and Conjunctions Play in Legal Decisions. New York:Columbia University Press.
Burke, P.1980. The self:measurement requirements from an interactionist perspective. Social Psychology Quarterly,44,18-29.
Butters, R.2001. Forensic Linguistics. London:Blackwell.
Carter, E. K.2009. Policing Talk:an investigation into the interaction of the officer and the suspect in the police interview. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Essex, UK.
Conley, J. M. and O'Barr, W. M.1998. Just Words:Law, Language and Power (2nd edition 2005). Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Conley, J. M. and O'Barr, W. M.1998. Just Words:Law, Language, and Power. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Cotterill, J.2000. Reading the rights:a cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics 7(1),4-25.
Cotterill, J.2003. Language and Power in Court:A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J. Simpson Trial. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A.2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London:Routledge.
Coulthard, R. M.2000. Suppressed dialogue in a confession statement. In R. M. Coulthard, J. Cotterill and F. Rock (Eds.), Working with Dialogue. Tubingen: Niemeyer.
Danet, B.1980. Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review,14(3), 445-564.
Davis, K.1988. Power under the Microscope. Dordrecht:Foris.
Dillon, James T.1990. The Practice of Questioning. London:Routledge.
Drew, P. & Heritage, J.1992. Analyzing talk at work:an introduction. In Drew P. and Heritage J. (Eds.), Talk at Work. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., & Sorjonen, M.-L.1997. Institutional dialogue. In Teun. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as social interaction. London:Sage.
Dudley-Evans, T. & Henderson, W.(Eds.).1990. The Language of Economics:The Analysis of Economic Discourse. London:Modern English Publications/British Council.
Eades, D.1994. Forensic linguistics in Australia:an overview, Forensic Linguistics, 1(2),113-132.
Eades, D.1995. Language in Evidence:Issues Confronting Aboriginal and Multicultural Australia. Sydney:University of New South Wales Press.
Edwards, A. B.1995. The Practice of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Edwards, D.1997. Discourse and cognition. London:Sage.
Fairclough, N.1989. Language and Power. London:Longman.
Fairclough, N.1995. Critical Discourse Analysis. Boston:Addison Wesley.
Firth, J. R.1957. Papers in Linguistics,1934-1951. London:Oxford University Press.
Foster, D.2000. Author Unknown:On the Trail of Anonymous. New York:Henry Holt.
Foucault, M.1984. The Order of Discourse. In M. J. Shapiro (Ed.), Language and Politics. Oxford:Basil Blackwell.
Fries, P.1983. On the Status of Theme in English. In Janos S. Petofi and Emel Sozer (Eds.), Micro-and Macro-connexity of Discourse. Hamburg:Buske.
Galdia, Marcus.2009. Legal Linguistics. Frankfurt:Peter Lang.
Garfinkel, Harold.1967. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Gibbons, J. (Ed.).1994. Language and the Law. New York:Longman.
Gibbons, J.1990. Applied linguistics in court. Applied. Linguistics.,11(3),229-237.
Gibbons, J.2003. Forensic Linguistics:An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford:Blackwell.
Goffman, E.1959. The presentation of self in everyday life. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
Goffman, E.1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia:University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goodrich, P.1987. Legal Discourse:Studies in Linguistics, Rhetoric, and Legal Analysis. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Grice, H. P.1981. Presupposition and Conversational Implicature. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical Pragmatics. New York:Academic Press.
Grice, H. P.1999. Logic and conversation. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (Eds.), The Discourse Reader. New York:Routledge.
Gudjonsson, G H.1999. The Psychology of Interrogations, Confessions and Testimony. Chichester:John Wiley.
Habermas, J.1984. The Theory of Communicative Action (Volume Ⅰ). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hall, P.2008. Policespeak. In Gibbons, J. and M. Teresa Turell (Eds.), Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R.1989. Language, Context and Text:Aspects of Language in a Social Semiotic Perspective. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K.1985. Spoken and Written Language. Geelong, Victoria:Deakin.
Halliday, M. A. K.1994 (first published 1985). An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London:Edward Arnold.
Haworth, K.2006. The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse & Society, Vol 17 (6),739-759.
Heritage, J.1984. A change of state token and aspects of its sequential placement. In J. M. Atkinson and J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of Social Action:Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, J.1985. Analyzing news interviews:aspects of the production of talk for an
"overhearing" audience. In Teun A. van Dijk (Ed.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. Ⅲ. London:Academic Press.
Heydon, G.2004. Establishing the structure of police evidentiary interviews with suspects. Speech, Language and the Law 11(1),27-49.
Heydon, G.2005. The language of police interviewing:a critical analysis. Palgrave Macmillan
Hollien, H.2001. Forensic Voice Identification. San Diego:Academic Press.
Hyon, S.1996. Genre in Three Traditions:Implications for ESL. Tesol Quarterly, Vol. 30, No.4,693-722.
Jackendoff, R.1972. Semantic Interpretation in Generative Grammar. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Johnson, A.2002. So...?:Pragmatic Implications of So-Prefaced Questions in Formal Police Interviews. In Janet Cotterill (Ed.), Language in the Legal Process. Palgrave.
Johnson, A.2005. Ask me a story. Police interviewing:The pragmatic effects of questions in elicited narratives. Unpublished PhD thesis. Birmingham, Department of English:University of Birmingham.
Johnson, A.2008a.'From where we're sat...':Negotiating narrative transformation through interaction in police interviews with suspects. Text & Talk,28(3),327-349.
Johnson, A.2008b. Changing stories. Functions of Language,15(1),84-114.
Jones, C. E. L.2008. UK police interviews:a linguistic analysis of Afro-Caribbean and white British suspect interviews. Unpublished PhD thesis. University of Essex, UK.
Kamio, Akio.1994. The theory of territory of information:the case of Japanese. Journal of Pragmatics,21 (1),67-100.
Kamio, Akio.2001. English generic we, you, and they:an analysis in terms of territory of information. Journal of Pragmatics,33 (7),1111-1124.
Kniffka, H.1990. Texte zu Theorie und Praxis forensischer Linguistik. Tubingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
Kniffka, H., Blackwell, S., and Coulthard, M. (Eds.).1996. Recent Developments in Forensic Linguistics. Frankfurt:Peter Lang.
Kredens, K. & Gozdz-Roszkowski, S.2007. Language and the Law:International Outlooks. Frankfurt am Main:Peter Lang.
Labov, W.1972. The Transformation of Experience in Narrative Syntax. In Labov, W. (Ed.), Language in the Inner City:studies in the Black English vernacular. Philadelphia:Pennsylvania University Press.
Lakoff, R. T.1990. Talking Power:the Politics of Language in Our Lives. New York: Basic Books.
Lerner, G.1992. Assisted story telling:deploying shared knowledge as a practical matter. Qualitative Sociology,15,213-245.
Levi, J. N.1982. Linguistics, Language, and Law:a Topical Bibliography. Bloomington:Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Levi, J. N.1994a. Language and Law:A Bibliographic Guide to Social Science Research in the U.S.A. Chicago, Illinois:American Bar Association.
Levi, J. N.1994b. Language as evidence:the linguist as expert witness in North American courts. Foreign Linguistics,1(1),1-26.
Levi, J. N. and Graffam Walker, A. (Eds.).1990. Language in the Judicial Process. New York:Plenum Press.
Levinson, S. C.1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, Stephen C.2000. Presumptive meanings:The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Linfoot-Ham, K.2006. Conversational maxims in encounters with law enforcement officers. Speech, Language and the Law 13 (1),23-54.
Litowitz, D.1997. Postmodern Philosophy and Law. Kansas:University Press of Kansas.
Maley, Y.1994. The Language of the Law. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the Law. London:Longman
Malinowski, B.1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In C. K. Ogden & I. A. Richards (Eds.), Supplement to the Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul.
Martin, J. R.1992. English Text:System and Structure. Amsterdam:John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Martin, J. R.2009. Genre and Language Learning:A Social Semiotic Perspective. Linguistics and Education, No.20,10-21.
Martin, J.R. & White, P.R.R.2005. The Language of Evaluation. New York:Palgrave Macmillan.
Mayr, A.2008. Language and Power:An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London:Continuum.
Mazzi, D.2007. The Construction of Argumentation in Judicial Texts:Combining a Genre and a Corpus Perspective. Argumentation, vol.21,21-38.
McElhinny, B.1995. Challenging Hegemonic Masculinities:Female and Male Police Officers Handling Domestic Violence. In Kira Hall and Mary Bucholtz (Eds.), Gender Articulated:Language and the Socially Constructed Self. New York and London:Routledge.
Mead, R.1985. Courtroom Discourse. University of Birmigham:Birminghamin Press.
Miller, C. R.1984. Genre as Social Action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, Vol.70,
151-167.
Miller, C. R.1994. Rhetorical Community:The Cultural Basis of Genre. In A. Freedman & P. Medway (Eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric. London:Taylor & Francis.
Mumby, D. K. and Clair, R. P.1997. Organizational discourse. In Teun. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse Studies, Volume 2:Discourse as Social Action. London:Sage.
Murphy, H. F.1998. Linguistics and law:an overview of forensic linguistics, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal,1,1-11.
Nakane, I.2007. Problems in Communicating the Suspect's Rights in Interpreted Police Interviews. Applied Linguistics,281,87-112.
Newbury P. and Johnson, A.2006. Suspects'resistance to constraining and coercive questioning strategies in the police interview. Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, vol 13 (2),213-240.
Nolan, F.1983. The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition. Cambridge:Cambridge UP.
O'Barr, W.1982. Linguistic Evidence, Language, Power and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York:Academic Press.
Rock, F.2001. The genesis of a witness statement. Forensic Linguistics,8(2),44-72.
Rose, P.2002. Forensic Speaker Identification. London:Taylor and Francis.
Russel, S.2000.'Let me put it simply...':the case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation. Forensic Linguistics,7(1),26-48.
Sacks, H.1992. Lectures on conversation (Vols.1-2). Cambridge, Mass. & Oxford: Blackwell.
Sarcevic, S.2009. Legal Language in Action:Translation, Terminology, Drafting and Procedural Issues. Zagreb:Nakladni zavod Globus.
Schane, S.2006. Language and the Law. New York:Continuum.
Shuy, R. W.1984. Linguistics in other professions. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13,419-445.
Shuy, R. W.1986. Language and the law. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics,7, 50-63.
Shuy, R. W.1993. Language Crimes:the Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Oxford:Blackwell.
Shuy, R. W.1998. The Language of Confession, Interrogation, and Deception. Thousand Oaks, CA. and London:Sage.
Shuy, R. W.1998. The Language of Confessions, Interrogation and Deception. Los Angeles:Sage Publications.
Shuy, R. W.2002. Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes. London:Palgrave.
Shuy, R. W.2005. Creating Language Crimes:How Law Enforcement Uses (and Abuses) Language. New York:Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. W.2006. Linguistics in the Courtroom:A Practical Guide. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. W.2010. The Language of Defamation Cases. Oxford:University Press.
Silverman, D.1993. Interpreting Qualitative Data. London:Sage.
Simpson, P. and Mayr, A.2010. Language and Power:A Resource Book for Students. Abingdon:Routledge.
Snedaker, K. H.1991. Storytelling in opening statements. In D. R. Papke (Ed.), Narrative and the Legal Discourse:A Reader in Storytelling and the Law. Liverpool:Deborah Charles Publications.
Solan, L. M.1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Solan, L. M. and Tiersma, P. M.2005. Speaking of Crime:The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago:university of Chicago Press.
Stryker, R.1987. Identity theory:developments and extensions. In K. Yardley and T.
Honess (Eds.), Self and Identity:Psychosocial Perspectives. Chichester:John Wiley.
Stygall, G.1995. Trial Language:Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Amsterdam:Benjamins.
Svartvik, J.1968. The Evans Statements:A Case for Forensic Linguistics. Goteborg: University of Gothenburg Press.
Swales, J. M.1990. Genre Analysis:English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Tajfel, H. (Ed.).1978. Differentiation between Social Groups:Studies in Social Psychology. London:Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. and Turner, J.C.1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. C. Austin and S. Worchel (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Chicago:Nelson-Hall.
Thomas, J.1995. Meaning in Interaction:An Introduction to Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Thornborrow, J.2002. Power Talk:Language and Interaction in Institutional Discourse. London:Longman (Pearson Education).
Tiersma, P. M.1993. Linguistic issues in law. Language,69(1):113-135.
Tiersma, P. M.1999. Legal Language. Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
Timor, Uri and Landau, Rachel.1998. Discourse Characteristics in the Sociolect of Repentant Criminals. Discourse & Society,9,363-386.
Van De Mieroop, D.2005. An integrated approach of quantitative and qualitative analysis in the study of identity in speeches. Discourse & Society,16 (1),107-130.
Van Dijk, Teun A.2001. Critical Discourse Analysis. In Deborah Schiffrin, Deboran
浙江大学博士学位论文 参考文献Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell.
Walton, D.2003. The interrogation as a type of dialogue. Journal of Pragmatics,35, 1771-1802.
Weber, Max.1978. Economy and Society:An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley:University of California Press.
Wetter, J. G.1960. The Styles of Appellate Judicial Opinions. Leyden:AW Sythoff.
Wilson, T.P.1991. Social structure and the sequential organization of interaction. In D. Boden and D.H. Zimmerman (Eds.), Talk and Social Structure:Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Oxford:Polity Press.
Yule, G 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford:Oxford University Press.
彼得·古德里奇著,赵洪芳、毛凤凡译：《法律话语》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
伯特兰·罗素著,吴友三译：《权力论》,北京：商务印书馆,1991年。
布赖恩·比克斯著,邱昭继译：《语言与法律的确定性》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
查尔斯·奥哈拉著,庄继禹译： 《刑事侦察学基础》,北京：群众出版社,1990年。
陈炯：《法律语言学概论》,西安：陕西人民教育出版社,1998年。
陈炯：《法律语言研究中的几个问题》,《江南学院学报》,2000年第9期。
陈炯：《论法律术语的命名与选用》,《修辞学习》,2003年第6期。
陈炯：《论立法语言的风格特征》,《毕节师范高等专科学校学报(综合版)》,2005年第1期。
陈兴良：《刑法学：向死而生》,《法律科学》,2010年第1期。
陈兴良：《中国古代律学是法律语言学》, 《法律科学》,2010年第1期。
丁世洁：《警察语言修辞》,郑州：河南人民出版社,2002年。
董敏：《论当前中国民事一审判决书的语类结构潜势》,《修辞学习》,2006年第4期。
杜金榜：《法律语言的模糊性到司法结果的确定性》,《现代外语》,2001年第3期。
杜金榜： 《法律语言学》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004年。
杜金榜：《法律语言学》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2004年。
弗雷德·英博著,何家弘等译：《审讯与供述》,北京：群众出版社,1992年。
福柯著,严锋译：《权力的眼睛》,上海：上海人民出版社,1997年。
何勤华：《秦汉律学考》,《法学研究》,1999年第5期。
何兆熊：《语用学概要》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,1989年。
何自荣：《法律中的国家权力和个人权力》,《甘肃联合大学学报》,2008年第1期。
侯英奇：《侦查讯问》,北京：中国民主法制出版社,2007年。
胡春阳：《话语分析：传播研究的新路径》,上海：上海世纪出版集团,2007年。
胡曙中：《英语语篇语言学研究》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2005年。
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子：《系统功能语言学概论》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年。
华尔赓等：《法律语言概论》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1995年。
黄伯荣：《陈述句疑问句祈使句感叹句》,上海：新知识出版社,1958年。
黄华新、王继同：《新逻辑学》,浙江大学出版社,1999年。
黄华新：《略论汉语预设》,《杭州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,1994年第4期。
季广茂：《舌头的诡计与权力》,《书屋》,2005年第6期。
姜剑云：《法律语言与言语研究》,北京：群众出版社,1995年。
江振春：《浅析法律语言的模糊性》,《广西社会科学》,2004年第7期。
兰霞,吕尚彬：《法律语体的修辞特征》,《四川师范学院学报》,1995年第1期。
劳伦斯·M·索兰著,张清、王芳译：《法官语言》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
李辉凡等译：《巴赫金全集》(第二卷),石家庄：河北教育出版社,1998年。
李战子：《身份理论和应用语言学研究》,《外国语言文学》,2005年第4期。
李振宇：《边缘法学论丛：法律语言学新论》,北京：中国检察出版社,2006年。
李振宇：《法律语言学初探》,北京：法律出版社,1998年。
廖美珍：《从问答行为看中国法庭审判现状》,《语言文字应用》,2002年第11期。
廖美珍：《答话研究——法庭答话的启示》,《修辞学习》,2004第5期。
廖美珍：《法庭问答及其互动研究》,北京：法律出版社,2003年。
廖美珍：《国外法律语言研究综述》,《当代语言学》,2004年第1期。
刘富丽：《英汉翻译中的主位推进模式》,《外语教学与研究》,2006年第9期。
刘红婴：《法律语言学》,北京：北京大学出版社,2003年。
刘建明：《新闻学前沿》,北京：清华大学出版社,2005年。
刘愫贞：《法律语言：立法与司法的艺术》,西安：陕西人民出版社,1990年。
刘愫贞：《论中国法律语言的渊起》,《语言与文学研究》,2003年第3期。
刘蔚铭：《法律语言学研究》,北京：中国经济出版社,2003年。
刘蔚铭：《语言证据范畴下的法律语言学研究》,《广东外语外贸大学学报》,2009年第1期。
龙宗智：《威胁、引诱、欺骗的审讯是否违法》,《法学》,2000年第3期。
吕叔湘：《疑问·否定·肯定》,《中国语文》,1985年第1期。
吕叔湘：《中国文法要略》上卷,北京：商务印书馆,1942年。
罗伯特·A·达尔著,王沪宁、陈峰译：《现代政治分析》,上海：上海译文出版社,1987年。
马建忠：《马氏文通》,北京：商务印书馆,1983年。
马克斯·韦伯著,林荣远译：《经济与社会：下卷》,北京：商务印书馆,1998年。
宁致远：《有关法律语言风格特点的几个问题》,《语言文字应用》,1995年第2期。
潘庆云：《法律语言是一种有别于自然语言的技术语言》,《江汉大学学报(人文科学版)》,2004年第2期。
潘庆云：《跨世纪的中国法律语言》,上海：华东理工大学出版社,1997年。
潘庆云：《有关法律语体的几个问题》,《中国人民警官大学学报》,1983年第4期。
潘庆云：《中国法律语言鉴衡》,上海：上海汉语大词典出版社,2004年。
庞继贤、陈明瑶：《英语研究论文的及物性结构与论文交际目的的实现》,《外国语》,2007年第5期。
庞继贤：《语言学在法律中的应用：司法语言学》, 《外国语》,1996年第5期。
庞建荣：《法律语言中的语用模糊》,《外国语言文学》,2003年第4期。
彭京宜：《法律语言研究的回顾与前瞻》,《广西社会科学》,2000年第6期。
戚雨村：《布拉格学派和马泰休斯的语言理论》,《外国语》,1993年第5期。
冉永平：《语用学传统议题的深入研究新兴议题的不断拓展——第十届国际语用学研讨会述评》, 《外语教学》,2007年第6期。
邵敬敏：《现代汉语疑问句研究》,上海：华东师范大学出版社,1996年。
舒国滢：《战后德国法哲学的发展路向》,《比较法研究》1995年第4期。
孙懿华等：《法律语言学》,北京：中国政法大学出版社,1997年。
谭绍木、黄慧：《论法律语言的精确与模糊》,《江西社会科学》,2004年第3期。
王洁：《法律语言学教程》,北京：法律出版社,1997年。
王洁：《法律语言研究》,广州：广东教育出版社,1999年。
王铼：《侦查讯问中提问的信息控制》,《公安大学学报》,2002年第3期。
王守元、苗兴伟：《预设与文学语篇的建构》,《外语与外语教学》,2003年第3期。
王雨田：《现代逻辑科学导引(上册)》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,1987年。
王治河：《福柯》,长沙：湖南教育出版社,1999年。
吴克利：《审讯心理学》,北京：中国检察出版社,2006年。
吴伟平：《法律语言学：会议、机构与刊物》,《国外语言学》,1994年第2期。
吴伟平：《语言与法律——司法领域的语言学研究》,上海：上海外语教育出版社,2002年。
徐杰、张陈林：《疑问程度与疑问句式》,《江西师大学报》,1985年第2期。
徐杰：《普遍语法原则与汉语语法现象》,北京：北京大学出版社,2001年。
杨和德等：《侦查讯问教程》,北京：群众出版社,1999年。
杨敏：《法律语篇权力意志剖析》,《外语与外语教学》,2004年第5期。
杨敏：《立法语篇人际功能的权力意志剖析》,《外语与外语教学》,2008年第4期。
杨敏：《立法语篇文化语境权力意志剖析》,《修辞学习》,2007年第2期。
叶宁：《警察讯问中的语类混合和移植现象探析》,《中国人民公安大学学报(社会科学版)》,2009年第4期。
叶宁：《浅谈法律语言学》,《杭州师范大学学报(教育科学版)》,2009年第3期。
殷相印：《法律语体与模糊修辞》,《修辞学习》,2000年第1期。
于奇智：《福柯人论之分析——从知识考古学的观点看》,《中国社会科学季刊(香港)》,1995年春季刊。
余致纯：《法律语言学》,西安：陕西人民教育出版社,1990年。
袁传有： 《警察讯问语言的人际意义——评价理论之“介入系统”视角》, 《现代外语》,2008年第2期。
约翰·M·康利和威廉·M·欧巴尔著,程朝阳译：《法律、语言与权力》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
约翰·吉本斯著,程朝阳、毛凤凡、秦明译：《法律语言学导论》,北京：法律出版社,2007年。
张德禄：《语类研究的范围及其对外语教学的启示》,《外语电化教学》,2002年第4期。
张新红：《汉语立法语篇的言语行为分析》,《现代外语》,2000年第3期。
赵尔巽等：《清史稿·刑法志》,北京：中华书局,1977年。
赵元任：《汉语口语语法》,北京：商务印书馆,1979年。
朱德熙：《语法讲义》,北京：商务印书馆,1982年。
朱力宇、张曙光：《立法学》,北京：中国人民大学出版社,2001年。
朱永生： 《语境动态研究》,北京：北京大学出版社,2005年。
邹玉华：《语言证据的种类及其语义鉴定》,《中国政法大学学报》,2008年第3期。
左卫民： 《在权利话语与权力技术之间：中国司法的新思考》,北京：法律出版社,2002年。