摘要
基于美国联邦最高法院国际商贸案件庭辩实例,分析庭辩话语中说话人如何运用不同的言据性策略合法化己方论点或非法化对方论点,研究发现:庭辩话语中律师常运用外部来源和共享来源的言据性策略合法化自己的论点,尤其是外部引证据素与共享推理据素;法官则常用否定形式的内部来源言据性策略(包括个人感知据素与个人推理据素)质疑或委婉地非法化律师的论点;律师应谨慎使用个人推理据素,因为两个案例中败诉方律师使用该据素的数量均为胜诉方律师的两倍以上;使用不同来源的据素有助于揭示说话人的话语意图以及他们合法化与非法化策略的主观性、客观性与主体间性。
Based on the authentic international business cases of Supreme Court of the United States, this paper aims to analyze how speakers in court debate discourse legitimize their own arguments or delegitimize their opponents’ arguments with different evidentiality strategies. The results show as follows: 1) Lawyers in court debate discourse often legitimize their own arguments with evidentials from external or shared sources, especially for External Quotative Evidentials and Shared Inferential Evidentials;2) Judges, however, tend to question or delegitimize lawyers’arguments politely with evidentials from internal sources, including Personal Perceptual Evidentials and Personal Inferential Evidentials;3) Lawyers should be prudent in using Personal Inferential Evidentials, as the number of this type of evidentials used by the lawyers from the losing party is more than twice the number used by the lawyers from the winning party in both cases;4) The employment of evidentials from different sources helps to uncover the discourse intentions of the speakers, as well as the subjectivity, objectivity and inter-subjectivity of their legitimization and delegitimization strategies.
作者
徐中意
毛浩然
XU Zhongyi;MAO Haoran(Zhejiang Yuexiu University of Foreign Languages,Shaoxing,Zhejiang 312000;School of Foreign Languages,Huaqiao University,Quanzhou,Fujian 362021)
出处
《绍兴文理学院学报》
2019年第3期82-90,共9页
Journal of Shaoxing University
基金
浙江省哲学社会科学规划课题“国际商贸案件的庭辩话语言据性研究”(14NDJC244YB)
关键词
言据性
庭辩话语
合法化
非法化
策略
evidentiality
court debate discourse
legitimization
delegitimization
strategy
