从话语权力看庭审中法官的打断现象

he trial participants sortout their ideas, fix in the trial record after consulting the parties. These interrupting strategiesusually begin a break with a concluding conjunction, such as “That is to say......”“ You meanto say......” and so on. These interruptions usually end with a closed question asking for thespeaker’s opinion, such as “Is that what I mean? ”“Is it?”“Right?” etc.

According to the Civil Procedure Law, the main task of the court investigation stage is tocheck and verify evidence through the investigation of the judges and the statements of theparties. Before the trial reform, due to the emphasis on the judge’s responsibility to find outthe truth, there was no process of cross-examination of evidence by parties in the courtinvestigation. The court debate stage is the parties to find out the facts and evidence of thecase, consisting of the true or false debate. With the reform of the way of civil trial, the wayof trial has been introduced into the prosecutor-defense mode. Among them, the “SeveralRegulations” in 2000 put the cross-examination of parties as the focus, thus making thedistinction between court investigation and court debate become blurred. In this situation, thejudge will often interrupt the litigants in the investigation stage of the evidence debatebehavior.

reference(omitted)