Abstract
This article explores the adversarial nature of Japanese criminal court proceedings by analyzing functions of the questions with X to iu koto ga arimasu ka? (‘Is it the case that X took place?’), based on courtroom discourse data and trial manuals for legal professionals. To discuss the roles of lawyers’ questions with the projection with the frame “Is it the case that … ?” in witness examination, the projection’s ideational, textual and interpersonal functions are analyzed drawing on Halliday’s systemic functional approach to discourse. By analyzing sequential roles of the projection, the article highlights the ways in which it serves as a story-construction device, as well as a signpost marker towards exposing inconsistency in witness’s testimony. The analysis also reveals that the dual ideational meanings of the projection – one everyday and the other technical – may leave lay participants unaware of its legal purposes, thus creating a potentially problematic lay-professional communication gap. The discussion of the interpersonal aspect suggests the projection’s role to neutralize coercive force of leading questions as well as to index an identity of legal authority. The paper concludes that while projection “Is it the case … ?” seems to symbolize the adversarial nature of Japanese criminal trials, its neutralizing effect and arbitrariness in use also imply the pseudo-adversarial and hybrid orientation.
Appendix: Symbols and abbreviations for transcription and interlinear gloss
- ACC
accusative
- CAUS
causative
- COP
copula
- DAT
dative
- GEN
genitive
- HORT
hortative
- IMP
imperative
- INS
instrumental
- IP
interpersonal particle
- LOC
locative
- PAST
past tense
- PASS
passive
- PERF
perfective
- POL
polite
- PROG
progressive
- NEG
negative
- NOM
nominative
- NOMZ
nominalizer
- TE
Te-form
- TEMP
temporal
- TOP
topic
- ()
inaudible speech
References
Atkinson, Maxwell J. & Paul Drew. 1979. Order in court: The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5Search in Google Scholar
Drew, Paul. 1990. Strategies in the contest between lawyer and witness in cross-examination. In Judith. N. Levi & Anne Graffam Walker (eds.), Language in the judicial process, 39–64. New York: Plenum.10.1007/978-1-4899-3719-3_2Search in Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm. M. & Setsuo Miyazawa (eds.). 2002. The Japanese adversary system in context: Controversies and comparisons. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Foote, Daniel H. 2002. Reflections on Japan’s cooperative adversary process. In Malcolm M. Feeley & Setsuo Miyazawa (eds.), The Japanese adversary system in context: Controversies and comparisons, 29–41. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Hale, Sandra & John Gibbons. 1999. Varying realities: Patterned changes in the interpreter’s representation of courtroom and external realities. Applied Linguistics 20(2). 203–220.10.1093/applin/20.2.203Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael. A. K. & Christian M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar, 3rd edn. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael K. 1978. Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael K. 1985. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.Search in Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2002. If you were standing in Marks and Spencers: Narrative and comprehension in the English summing-up. In Janet Cotterill (ed.), Language in the legal process, 228–245. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230522770_14Search in Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The language of jury trial. Basingstoke & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.10.1057/9780230502888Search in Google Scholar
Hirose, Etsuko. 2003. Interpreting Japanese negative questions. Educational Studies, International Christian University 45. 159–168.Search in Google Scholar
Jackson, Bernard S. 1991. Narrative models in legal proof. In David Ray Papke (ed.), Narrative and the legal discourse: A reader in storytelling and the law, 157–178. Liverpool: Deborah Charles.Search in Google Scholar
Japan Federation of Bar Associations. 2009. Hootee Bengo Gijutsu [Art of trial advocacy], 2nd edn. Tokyo: Nihon Hyooronsha.Search in Google Scholar
Johnson, David T. 2007. Criminal justice in Japan. In Daniel H. Foote (ed.), Law in Japan: A turning point, 343–383. Seattle & London: University of Washington Press.Search in Google Scholar
Labov, William. 1997. Some further steps in narrative analysis. Journal of Narrative and Life History 7. 395–415.10.1075/jnlh.7.49somSearch in Google Scholar
Lance, Bennett, W. & Martha S. Feldman. 1981. Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgment in American culture. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Makino, Seiichi & Michio Tsutsui. 1991. A dictionary of basic Japanese grammar. Tokyo: Japan Times.Search in Google Scholar
Maley, Yon. 1994. The language of the law. In John Gibbons (ed.), Language and the law, 159–173. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Maley, Yon & Rhondda Fahey. 1991. Presenting the evidence: Constructions of reality in court. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 4(10). 3–17.10.1007/BF01303504Search in Google Scholar
Maynard, Douglas W. 1990. Narratives and narrative structure in plea bargaining. In Judith N. Levi & Anne Graffam Walker (eds.), Language in the judicial process, 65–95. New York & London: Plenum Press.10.1007/978-1-4899-3719-3_3Search in Google Scholar
Ministry of Justice, Japan. 2013. Hanzai hakusho: Heesee 24 nen ban [White paper on crime: 2014 edition]. http://hakusyo1.moj.go.jp/jp/60/nfm/n_60_2_2_3_1_0.html (accessed 12 September 2014).Search in Google Scholar
Nariyama, Shigeko. 2003. Ellipsis and reference tracking in Japanese. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.66Search in Google Scholar
O’Tool, Margaret. 1994. Lawyers’ response to language constructing law. In John Gibbons (ed.), Language and the law, 188–191. Harlow: Longman.Search in Google Scholar
Scollon, Ron & Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach, 2nd edn. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar
Shinomiya, Satoru. 2002. Adversarial procedure without a jury: Is Japan’s system adversarial, inquisitorial, or something else? In M. M. Feeley & S. Miyazawa (eds.), The Japanese adversary system in context: Controversies and comparisons, 114–127. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Search in Google Scholar
Shuy, Roger. 1995. How a judge’s voir dire can teach a jury what to say. Discourse and Society 6(2). 207–222.10.1177/0957926595006002004Search in Google Scholar
Snedaker, Kathryn Holmes. 1991. Storytelling in opening statements: Framing the argumentation of the trial. In David Ray Papke (ed.), Narrative and the legal discourse: A reader in storytelling and the law, 132–157. Liverpool: Deborah Charles.Search in Google Scholar
Soga, Matsuo. 1983. Tense and aspect in modern colloquial Japanese. Vancouver: The University of British Columbia Press.Search in Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Japan. 2008. Shinri [The Hearing] [DVD]. Tokyo: Supreme Court of Japan.Search in Google Scholar
Supreme Court of Japan. 2013. Keeji daiisshin soshoojiken no gaikyoo [An overview of criminal trials at the first instance]. http://www.courts.go.jp/vcms_lf/20509008.pdf (accessed 12 September 2014).Search in Google Scholar
Terakado, Shin & Toshiya Sato. 2008. Hitee gimonbun ni taisuru nihongo to dokugo, eego no kangaekata no sooi [Differences in approaches to negative questions between Japanese and German/English]. Claritas 21. 80–98.Search in Google Scholar
Legal references
Keeij Soshoo Kisoku [Rules of Criminal Procedure] Article 199 (Japan).Search in Google Scholar
Keeji Soshoohoo [Code of Criminal Procedure] Article 281 (Japan).Search in Google Scholar
© 2017 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston