Previous Studies on Interruption in China
..............................
3 Theoretical Framework................................13
3.1 Discourse Power Theory..................................13
3.2 Appraisal Theory.................................14
4 Research Methodology........................................ 17
4.1 Data Collection............................................... 17
4.2 Research Methods and Research Instrument........................ 17
5 The Pragmatic Functions of Judge’s Interruption in Court Trial.......................19
5.1 The Classification and Pragmatic Functions of Judges’ Interruption..............19
5.1.1 Quantitative Studies...................................19
5.1.2 Qualitative Studies.......................................19
5 The Pragmatic Functions of Judge’s Interruption in Court Trial
5.1 The Classification and Pragmatic Functions of Judges’ Interruption
5.1.1 Quantitative Studies
In the trial, power is the guarantee for the powerful party to interrupt[43]. The percentageof judges interrupting the discourse of others is the highest among court participants, and thegeneral feature of this interruption is conflict[44]. Based on the analysis of the video data of 40trials, according to the discourse power theory, the author summarizes three types of judges’interruption behavior in the discourse of the trial, the statistics in various situations and thenumber of pragmatic functions and their respective proportions, the results are shown in thetable below.
It can be seen that the interruption behavior most commonly used by judges in courtsessions is the interruptions for limiting content, accounting for 51.11% of the totalinterruption behavior. The court is the institution that is most restricted by rules. The law hasa set of procedures and rules to maintain and achieve the order of court trials. Interruptionscommonly used by judges in court trials include interruptions for clear qualifications (30.37%)and interruptions for adjusting and controlling speeches and acts (18.52%). Because thecourt’s trial activities have a clear purpose-oriented and clear task-oriented feature, the judgesin the trial conversation interaction will inevitably take certain interruptions to limit thecontent of the trial conversation to ensure the normal progress of the trial process.Interventions account for the largest proportion of pragmatic functions, about 37.04%. Thepercentages of verification, questioning, and ordering are 25.19%, 22.22%, and 15.55%,respectively. The author will exemplify the interruption of judges in the following parts.
Tab. 5. 1 The proportion of the judge’s interruptions and their pragmatic functionsin the court trial
.................................
6 Conclusion
6.1 Summary
The procedural law stipulates that in the process of producing evidence in court, theevidence submitted by the parties must specify the object of proof and the presiding judgeshall request the opposite party to cross-examine. If the parties do not state what the evidenceproves, the court shall question the content and request additional information. That is to say,the judges should require them to explain.
When the expression ability is insufficient, that is to say, it is lengthy and repetitive,wordy, and even appears speech language retardation, this kind of expression is not clear andhas logic chaos. What’s more, sometimes the participants can’t accurately state their points ina short time up to a point of view, in other words, their language resources are not very rich,participating in the trial experience of legal knowledge is relatively weak, people whosecultural degree is without high litigation participation often appear in the process of court trial.When the above situation appears, the judge timely interrupts, sums up the main points of theparties’ statements, the fragments of the parties’ statements, the answers that are difficult tounderstand, combining with the trial things to be retold. In addition, t
