本文是一篇语言学论文，本文仅从评价理论的角度对法官在审判过程中的中断话语进行了初步探讨。在今后的研究中，在不同身份的试验实践中，可以对中断语篇及其功能进行全面的研究，如对威肯中断语篇的语用分析，以获得更具说服力的数据和结论。
1 Introduction
1.1 Research Background
As an institutional discourse, court discourse has become a focus of forensic linguisticsresearch in recent years. Among them, in the interactive part of the trial - question and answersession, the participants form the role of power in the subconscious, which has increasinglyattracted the attention of scholars.[1] As strong parties of the discourse, judges, prosecutorsand lawyers often pose questions to the weak parties during the trial, thus occupying theinitiative of the discourse. As weak parties, plaintiffs, defendants and witnesses often answerquestions of the strong parties during the trial to protect their own rights. Therefore, anunequal right of speech is formed between the strong party and the weak party in the trial.Among them, the interruption in court hearings is an important manifestation of this unequalpower of discourse.
Interruption in the courtroom discourse is the interrupter’s control over the interrupted,which directly reflects the manipulation of discourse power and is essentially a symbol of thepower of discourse. O’ Barr[2], Bogoch and Danet, and Gibbons[3] have made an in-depthstudy of lawyers’ interruptions in court. At present, there are several categories ofinterruptions in trial discourse in China: general interruptions and overlapping interruptions[4];verbal and nonverbal interruptions[5]; conflicting interruptions and cooperative interruptions[6];interruptions without speech markers and interruptions with speech markers[7]; repeatedtermination type, requesting supplementary information type, preventing emotion play type,avoiding deviation type, main points induction type[8]. The theoretical support of the researchon interruption discourse mainly includes the cooperative principle, the relevant theory, thetheory of “making things happen with words”, and the face theory. There are also variousperspectives to study interruption, such as discourse analysis perspective[9], pragmaticdistance discourse strategy[10], discourse power perspective[11], and critical discourseanalysis[12]. It is worth mentioning that Zhang Lei, Wang Zhongcheng and Sun Wei[13] notonly mention the interruption of the strong side, but also discuss the interruption of the weakside. In a word, most of the studies on the phenomenon of interruption in the judicialprocedure remain at the static level, showing an unbalanced situation. Liao Meizen[14] pointsout that intrusive interruptions are a kind of conflict in court discourse, and judges are themost frequent interrupters. In addition, there are few studies on interruptions from theperspective of appraisal theory and their vocal characteristics.
...............................
1.2 Research Objectives
The overall objective of this thesis is to explore the features of different kinds of judges’ interruption in the courtroom discourse and its pragmatic functions by analyzing linguisticmode and non-linguistic mode of interruption in courtroom discourse, and by making it clearhow judge’s effective interruption promotes communication among different participants andis conducive to achieve their communicative purposes. In today’s judicial context, in line withthe background of discourse analysis, the phenomenon of court trial interruption has graduallyattracted the attention of linguists. From the perspective of Michel Foucault’s discourse powertheory, combining with White and Martin’s appraisal theory and Austin’s speech act theory,Praat speech analysis software is used to study the interruptions of dominant parties in courtproceedings, which opens up a new path for the study of linguistics. This paper aims toachieve the following purposes by analyzing the transcripts of 40 public court trial sceneaudio recordings:
First of all, using Michel Foucault’s discourse power theory to classify the interruptionsof dominant parties - judges in court
