Furthermore, based on Michel Foucault’s discourse power theory, White and Martin’sappraisal theory and Austin’s speech act theory, this paper analyzes the pragmatic functionsof interruptions by dominant parties - judges in courtroom discourse, in order to reveal therelationship between interruptions and power in the trial process.
........................
2 Literature Review
2.1 Previous Studies on Forensic Linguistics
Forensic linguistics is the interface between linguistics (the science of language) and thelaw, including law enforcement. In a narrow sense, forensic linguistics is rather, theapplication of linguistic knowledge to a particular social setting, namely the legal forum (fromwhich the word forensic is derived). While in its broadest sense, forensic linguistics is theinterface between language, crime and law, where law includes law enforcement, judicialmatters, legislation, disputes or proceedings in law, and even disputes which only potentiallyinvolve some infraction of the law or some necessity to seek a legal remedy.
2.1.1 Overseas Studies on Forensic Linguistics
Foreign research mainly focuses on linguistic evidence research, forensic discourseanalysis, forensic translation, court interpretation, forensic language research and application.On the research topic, foreign countries are more inclined to research on forensic languageevidence. As for the methods, foreign countries often use empirical research.
Forensic linguistics derives from the field of law and linguistics and includes all studiesrelated to the intersecting fields of law and language. As early as the Greek period, scholars inwestern countries had begun to study the use of forensic language. The focus of the study atthat time was legislative language and legal texts, which were closely related to rhetoric.Among them, the representative work is The Language of the Law by David Mellinkoff[15].This book systematically and comprehensively discusses the historical origin, developmentand evolution of Anglo-American forensic language.
In the 1960s, with the development of the field of linguistic research, more and moresociologists, linguists, psychologists and legal scholars realized the key role of language injudicial activities and actively joined the ranks of the study of forensic language.
..................................
2.2 Previous Studies on Interruption
Sociologists Zimmerman and West[22], who were the first to conduct systematic researchon the interruption, defined the interruption phenomenon as “a behavior that disrupts theconstruction of the conversation turn by the current speaker without following the rule ofconversation turn replacement.” In China, the authoritative definition of interruption wasproposed by Liao Meizhen in his research on Chinese court discourse. From LiaoMeizhen[23]’s perspective, interruption is “in the verbal interaction of two or more people of aspeech activity, a party without end session in accordance with the rules that he or she shouldbe the words of a turn, is interrupted by the other party, so that he (she) cannot go on, and he(she) ends the round. In addition, it’s the other party or others that starts to cut in when peoplestops talking.” Interruption means the interrupter ends the current speaker’s conversation andtakes control of the discourse.
2.2.1 Previous Studies on Interruption Abroad
Bogoch and Brendadanet[24] were the first scholars to study court interruption abroad.“Three quarters of interruptions occur in sentences, reflecting the lawyer’s control over thespeech, while 70 percent of interruptions occur at the end of the speech and are likely toreflect active cooperation,” they concluded. The interruption in the courtroom discourse is theinterruptor’s control of the interrupted person’s discourse, which directly reflects amanipulation of the right of dialogue, which is essentially a sign of the power of discourse.Overseas, O’Barr, Bogoch and Danet, and Gibbons conducted in-depth research on theinterrupt
