Skip to content
Licensed Unlicensed Requires Authentication Published by De Gruyter Mouton March 24, 2020

Multimodal Discourse Analysis of Judges’ Footing Shifts in Criminal Courtroom

  • Jinshi Chen

    Jinshi Chen is Professor of English (forensic linguistics) at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. His research efforts have focused on forensic linguistics, discourse analysis, and ESP teaching.

    EMAIL logo

Abstract

The paper, based on the concept of FOOTING, makes a multimodal discourse analysis of the relationship between the judge’s discourse and his footing shifts in a criminal courtroom. The results show that in the interaction, multimodal resources in judges’ discourse include conversational features (prolonging keywords, interrupting, repeating, taking turns, etc.), acoustic ones (ascending F0 for pitches and dB for intensity, transition tracks between consonants and formants of vowels, duration of some keywords in important sentences, etc.), and visual ones (facing other parties, facing the materials, etc.). The multimodal resources activate different judges’ footings, including ANIMATOR, ANIMATOR + AUTHOR and ANIMATOR + AUTHOR + PRINCIPAL, and identify the judge’s footing shifts in the courtroom. The results also demonstrate that the judge’s footing shifts perform the functions of trial organizing, information confirming, fact investigating, spokesperson of the collegial panel, law educating and so on in criminal trials.


1 This paper is funded by the National Social Science Foundation of China [Project No.: 18BYY073].


About the author

Jinshi Chen

Jinshi Chen is Professor of English (forensic linguistics) at Guangdong University of Foreign Studies. His research efforts have focused on forensic linguistics, discourse analysis, and ESP teaching.

References

Berk-Seligson, S. (1990). The role of the court interpreter. In J. N. Levi, & A. G. Walker (Eds.), Language in the judicial process (pp. 155-201). New York: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4899-3719-3_6Search in Google Scholar

Bian, J. (2007). Discrimination and analysis of “lawsuit” in criminal proceedings. People’s Procuratorial Semimonthly (8), 36-40.Search in Google Scholar

Bian, J., & Li, J. (2004). The improvement of criminal trial structure from the aspect of the settings of criminal courts in China. Chinese Journal of Law (3), 82-93.Search in Google Scholar

Boersma, P., & Weenink, D. (2018). Praat: Doing phonetics by computer [Computer program]. Version 6.0.4.1.Search in Google Scholar

Chen, J. (2011). The construction of prosecution-defense-judge relationship: A frame analysis of judges’ courtroom discourse processing Beijing: Science Press.10.1558/ijsll.v18i2.309Search in Google Scholar

Chen, J. (2012). The presumption of guilt in judges’ discourse: A study from an information structure perspective. Language Teaching and Linguistic Studies (2), 104-111.Search in Google Scholar

Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O. J. Simpson trial New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230006010Search in Google Scholar

Du, J. (2007). A study of the tree information structure of legal discourse. Modern Foreign Languages 30(1), 40-50.Search in Google Scholar

Du, J. (2008). A study on judge’s manipulation of information flow in courtroom interaction. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies (2), 36-40.Search in Google Scholar

Du, J. (2009). A study of the functions of courtroom questioning and answering and participants’ communicative objective attainment. Modern Foreign Languages 32(4), 360-368.Search in Google Scholar

Du, J. (2010). Realization of persuasive reasoning in courtroom discourse: From the perspective of transaction-oriented information processing. Modern Foreign Languages 33(4), 363-370, 436-437.Search in Google Scholar

Duranti, A. (1997). Linguistic anthropology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511810190Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press.Search in Google Scholar

Iedema, R. (2003). Multimodality, resemiotization: Extending the analysis of discourse as multi-semiotic practice. Visual Communication 2(1), 29-57.10.1177/1470357203002001751Search in Google Scholar

Ji, X. (2007). Analysis and understanding of modern connotation of equality between prosecution and defense. Tribune of Political Science and Law 25(6), 89-101.Search in Google Scholar

Jones, S. E., & LeBaron, C. D. (2002). Research on the relationship between verbal and nonverbal communication: Emerging integrations. Journal of Communication 52(3), 499-521.10.1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02559.xSearch in Google Scholar

Kinney, C. J. (1998). Role, stance, and footing: A frame analysis of leaders’ talk in a small group discussion Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University.Search in Google Scholar

Kong, J. (2008). Studies of voice multimodality and multiple phonetics. Chinese Journal of Phonetics (1): 55-63.Search in Google Scholar

Li, C. (2006). On the realization of prosecution-defense equality by judges. Law Application (12), 41-45.Search in Google Scholar

Liao, M. (2005). Court speech techniques (2nd ed.). Beijing: Law Press.Search in Google Scholar

Matoesian, G. (2005). Nailing down an answer: Participations of power in trial talk. Discourse Studies 7(6), 733-759.10.1177/1461445605055424Search in Google Scholar

Matoesian, G. (2010). Multimodal aspects of victim’s narrative in direct examination. In M. Coulthard, & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 541-557). Abingdon and New York: Routledge.Search in Google Scholar

Mondada, L. (2007). Multimodal resources for turn-taking: Pointing and the emergence of possible next speakers. Discourse Studies 9(2), 194-225.10.1177/1461445607075346Search in Google Scholar

O’Halloran, K. L. (2011). Multimodal discourse analysis. In K. Hyland, & B. Paltridge (Eds.), Companion to discourse analysis (pp. 120-137). London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Olsen, M. E. (1991). Societal dynamics: Exploring macrosociology New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs.Search in Google Scholar

Qu, K. (2006). On the role of judge and just administration of justice. Academics in China (1), 79-84.Search in Google Scholar

Ribeiro, B. T. (2006). Footing, positioning, voice: Are we talking about the same thing? In A. de Fina, D. Schiffrin, & M. Bamberg (Eds.), Discourse and identity (pp. 48-82). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511584459.004Search in Google Scholar

Royce, T., & Bowcher, W. (Eds.). (2007). New directions in the analysis of multimodal discourse London: Lawrance Erlbaum Associates.Search in Google Scholar

Sanders, J., & Hamilton, V. L. (2000). Justice and legal institution. In J. Sanders, & V. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Handbook of justice research in law (pp. 3-27). New York: Kluwer Academic / Plenum Publishers.Search in Google Scholar

Solan, L. (1993). The language of judges Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226767895.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Sun, B. (2015). Pragmatic functions of discourse markers in court interaction from the relevance perspective. Contemporary Rhetoric (1), 56-61.Search in Google Scholar

van Dijk, T. A. (1997). Discourse as social interaction: Discourse analysis: A multidisciplinary introduction (vol. 2). London: SAGE.Search in Google Scholar

Wang, J. (2008). On the judge’s role in the usage of evidence under the model of adversary trial. Journal of Yantai University (Philosophic and Social Science Edition), (1), 29-34.Search in Google Scholar

Wu, W. (2002). Language and the law: Linguistic research in the legal field Shanghai: Shanghai Foreign Language Education Press.Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, C. (2008). Interpersonal meanings in police interrogations: An appraisal-engagement perspective. Modern Foreign Languages 31(2), 141-149, 218.Search in Google Scholar

Yuan, C. (2010). A tripartite model of multimodal information and cognition: Trial application on the teaching and learning of legal English. Shangdong Foreign Languages Teaching Journal (4), 10-18.Search in Google Scholar

Zhang, D., & Wang, L. (2010). The synergy of different modes in multimodal discourse and their realization in foreign language teaching. Foreign Language Research (2), 97-102.Search in Google Scholar

Appendix: Transcription Conventions
……ellipsis
stressed sounds
( )comments
▲▼interruption
::prolonged syllable; the more colons, the more elongation
(0.5)(2.6)pause duration (0.5 or 2.6 seconds)
(.)micro pause (shorter than 0.5 seconds)
ºwordºquieter and softer speech
><speeding up utterance
<>slowing down utterance
[ ]the start and end of overlapping speech
Boldspeech that is obviously louder than surrounding speech

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Professor Chen Jianping and Professor Xiong Tao for hosting this special column. He would also like to acknowledge the contributions of anonymous reviewers for their insightful feedback on the drafts of this article and the editors of the Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics for their diligent work.

Published Online: 2020-03-24
Published in Print: 2020-03-26

© 2020 FLTRP, Walter de Gruyter, Cultural and Education Section British Embassy

Downloaded on 25.2.2024 from https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/CJAL-2020-0002/pdf
Scroll to top button