跳到主要內容

臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

(44.192.94.177) 您好!臺灣時間:2024/07/21 19:01
字體大小: 字級放大   字級縮小   預設字形  
回查詢結果 :::

詳目顯示

我願授權國圖
: 
twitterline
研究生:簡蔓琪
研究生(外文):Man-ChiChien
論文名稱:初次法律諮詢中提問類型與功能之模式探究
論文名稱(外文):Pattern Analyses of Types and Functions of Questions in Initial Legal Consultations
指導教授:高實玫高實玫引用關係
指導教授(外文):Shin-Mei Kao
學位類別:碩士
校院名稱:國立成功大學
系所名稱:外國語文學系碩博士班
學門:人文學門
學類:外國語文學類
論文種類:學術論文
論文出版年:2010
畢業學年度:98
語文別:英文
論文頁數:143
中文關鍵詞:機構言談法律言談律師與當事人間的法律諮詢開放式問題封閉式問題問題分類互動不對稱性
外文關鍵詞:Institutional discourselegal discourseattorney-client consultationopen-ended questionclose-ended questionelicitation classificationinteractional asymmetry
相關次數:
  • 被引用被引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:237
  • 評分評分:
  • 下載下載:0
  • 收藏至我的研究室書目清單書目收藏:1
在法律諮詢過程中,律師藉由提問 (questioning) 來取得發言權而掌控談話內容 (Danet, 1980; Drew 1992)。文獻指出律師和當事人間的互動模式時常產生非對稱現象,此乃由於雙方之社會地位與專業知識的不對等 (Drew & Heritage, 1992; Gnisci & Pontecorvo, 2004)。過去許多文獻探討律師言談風格對當事人之認知與法庭審問的影響,然而鮮少研究直接分類討論律師的提問模式。再者,過去文獻並未對律師的提問提出完整的分析,當事人在法律諮詢中所提出的問題也尚未被仔細探討過。有鑑於法律言談研究之不足,本研究旨在檢視初次法律諮詢中律師與當事人的提問類別與功能,進而探討雙方問題使用的差異。此外,不同類型之法律案件是否影響律師與當事人的問題使用也在本研究的討論範圍內。研究對象為六名民事律師 (六男) 及八名當事人 (三男,五女);語料收集地點為財團法人法律扶助基金會台南分會。本研究以Binder et al. (2004) 的「T型審問方法」(T-funnel questioning method) 及Tsui (1992) 的「提問分類」(Elicitation Classification)為基礎,提出了一個對法律言談提問的分析方法。根據研究結果有以下五點發現:
1. 律師與當事人的提問分佈情形是非對稱的。也因如此,律師和當事人的角色經常分別被定位成提問者與答覆者。
2. 就提問類型來看,相較於開放式問題,律師和當事人皆提出較多的封閉式問題。然而律師與當事人的提問模式卻在各個法律諮詢過程中有些許差異。
3. 在初步法諮階段,律師經常交替使用開放式問題和封閉式問題。然而後續法諮階段雖以封閉式問題為主,卻經常伴隨著多重主題式問詢。結果顯示本研究中律師的提問技巧並不完全符合Binder et al. (2004) 所提出的審問方法論。
4. 就提問功能來看,律師和當事人皆呈現出類似的提問模式,亦即雙方之問題使用著重於從對話者身上尋求新訊息。然而期待對方應允、承諾等二類問題功能鮮少出現於初次法律諮詢中。
5. 就案件本質來看,不同的法律議題並非是決定律師與當事人提問模式之要因;然而同類型之法律案件也不一定能促使律師和當事人產生類似的提問模式。
由此可見,在初次法律諮詢過程中,律師和當事人的提問類型與功能呈現出部分相同和相異之處。這些結果可藉由考慮當事人的過去相關法律經驗、律師個人的質詢風格及案件之敏感程度來解釋。經由量化分析,本研究針對法律諮詢機制提供了一個較明確的認識,研究結果也可作為法律言談上律師提問模式之參考。如何於律師和當事人間,透過不同的提問類型與功能,建構出更有效且對稱的言談模式。
Raising questions is the primary method in which attorneys obtain the speakership and maintain control over legal discourse (Danet, 1980; Drew 1992). Previous research pointed out that owing to the inequality in social status and different states of professional knowledge, the patterns of interaction between attorneys and clients tend to be asymmetrical (Drew & Heritage, 1992; Gnisci & Pontecorvo, 2004). The present study adopts a discourse analysis approach to examine the amount and distribution of question types and functions produced by attorneys and clients in initial legal consultations. Furthermore, this study investigates the relationship between the patterns of questions and the juristic nature of each case. The data were collected from eight counselling sessions conducted by six attorneys (six male) with their clients (three male and five female) at the Tainan branch office of the Legal Aid Foundation, Taiwan. Binder et al.’s (2004) T-funnel questioning method and a modified model based on Tsui’s (1992) Elicitation Classification were applied as the analytical instruments for this study. The findings of this study are summarized as follows:
1. The distribution of the attorneys’ and the clients’ questions were asymmetrical. The roles of the attorneys and the clients were allocated to questioners and respondents respectively.
2. Both the attorneys and clients raised many more close-ended than open-ended questions during the legal consultation. However, divergent patterns of question initiation were found across the legal consultations.
3. Open-ended and close-ended questions were used interchangeably in the initial stage, while close-ended questions with numerous topical inquiries were found in the follow-up stages of the consultations. These findings reveal that the attorneys’ questioning techniques were only partially in line with the principles of the T-funnel questioning method proposed by Binder et al. (2004).
4. Both the attorneys and clients present a similar distribution pattern in the use of elicitation categories. Elicit:inform occurred the most frequently, while Elici:agree and Elicit:commit occurred the least frequently.
5. The distribution of elicitation categories was not determined by the legal topics and the attributes of legal cases did not reveal similar questioning patterns.
These findings demonstrate that there were some similarities and differences between the attorneys’ and clients’ question distribution in the initial legal consultations. These results may be explained by considering the prior experiences of the clients, individual questioning styles of the attorneys, or the sensitivity of the legal cases. In conclusion, this study is of significance in providing a better understanding of questioning mechanisms in legal discourse. Implications are provided for legal practitioners to conduct more effective attorney-client communication.
ABSTRACT (Chinese) i
ABSTRACT (English) iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF FIGURES x

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1
Motivation and Background 1
Purposes of the Study 6
Research Questions 8
Significance of the Study 9
Limitations of the Study 10
Definition of Terms 12

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW 15
Studies of Legal Discourse 15
Legal Discourse as Institutional Talk 19
Characteristics of Attorney-client Communication 20
Roles of Participants 21
Choice of Topic 21
Patterns of Turn-taking and Restriction of Participants 24
Interactional Asymmetries 27
Attorneys’ Questions in Legal Institutions 28
Classification of Questions 31
Types of Questions 32
Open-ended Questions 33
Close-ended Questions 34
Tsui’s (1992) Functions of Questions 36
Elicit:inform 37
Elicit:confirm 38
Elicit:agree 40
Elicit:commit 41
Elicit:repeat 43
Elicit:clarify 44

CHAPTER THREE METHODOLOGY 47
Field Site 47
Participants 48
The Attorneys 48
The Clients 49
Legal Cases 50
Data Collection 52
Setting 53
Procedures 54
Transcription 55
Pilot Studies 55
Analytical Framework 58
Measurement Unit 58
Criteria for the Identification of Types of Questions 60
Binder et al.’s T-funnel Questioning Method as the General Questioning Structur 65
Modifications on Tsui’s Elicitation Classification 66
The Procedures of Analysis 72
Coding Reliability 75
Summary of the Study Procedures 77

CHAPTER FOUR RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 78
Research Question 1: What is the general distribution of question types raised by the attorneys and the clients in legal consultations? 79
Research Question 2: What is the distribution of question types raised by the individual attorneys and the clients? 81
Research Question 3: Do the patterns of attorneys’ question use correspond with Binder et al.’s (2004) T-funnel questioning method? 85
Research Question 4: What is the general distribution of question functions produced by the attorneys and the clients in legal consultations? 96
Research Question 5: What is the distribution of question functions produced by the attorneys and the clients with respect to the nature of the cases? 100
Discussions 108
Discussion on the Proportion of Questions in Legal Consultations 109
Discussion on the Types of Questions in Legal Consultations 110
Discussion on How T-funnel Questioning Method Was Applied 113
Discussion on the Functions of Questions in Legal Consultations 113
Discussion on the Particular Cases in This Study 115

CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS 118
Summary of the Types and Functions of Questions Raised by the Attorneys and the Clients in Legal Consultations 118
Implications of the Study 121
Suggestions for Future Research 122

REFERENCES 126

APPENDICES
Appendix A 135
Appendix B 136
Appendix C 137
Appendix D 138
Appendix E 139
Appendix F 140
Appendix G 141
Appendix H 142
Appendix I 143

Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan.
Barclay, S. (2004). A new aspect of lawyer-client interactions: Lawyers teaching process-focused clients to think about outcomes. Clinical Law Review, 11(1), 1-13.
Binder, D. A., Bergman, P., Price, S. C., & Tremblay, P. R. (2004). Lawyers as Counselors: A client-centered approach. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Clayman, S. E. (1992). Footing in the achievement of neutrality: The case of news interview discourse. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 163-198). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. M. (1990). Rules versus relationship: The ethnography of legal discourse. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Coulthard, M. (1992). Advances in spoken discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge.
Coulthard, M., & Montgomery, M. (Eds.) (1981). Studies in discourse analysis. London: Routledge.
Cunningham, C. D. (1992). The lawyer as translator, representation as text: Toward an ethnography of legal discourse. Cornell Law Review, 77, 1298-1387.
Cunningham, C. D., & McElhinny, B. S. (1995). Taking it to the streets: Putting discourse analysis to the service of a public defender’s office. Clinical Law Review, 2(1), 285-314.
Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review, 14(3), 445-564.
Danet, B. (1984). Introduction. Special issue on Studies of legal discourse. Text, 4, 1-3.
Danet, B., Hoffman, K. B., & Kermish, N. C. (1980). Obstacles to the study of lawyer-client interaction: The biography of a failure. Law and Society Review, 14(4), 905-922.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470-520). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (1992). Analysing talk at work: an introduction. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 3-65). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, P., Raymond, G., & Weinberg, D. (2006). Talk and interaction in social research methods. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Edlund, J., Heldner, M., & Gustafson, J. (2005). Utterance segmentation and turn-taking in spoken dialogue systems. In B. Fisseni, H. C. Schmitz, B. Schr?der, & P. Wagner (Eds.), Sprachtechnologie, mobile Kommunikation und linguistische Ressourcen (pp. 576-587). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
Erickson, F., & Shultz, J. (1982). The counselor as gatekeeper: Social interaction in interviews. Neuva York, EUA: Academic Press.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Foster, P., Tonkyn, A., & Wigglesworth, G. (2000). Measuring spoken language: A unit for all reasons. Applied Linguistics, 21(3), 354-375.
Francis, G., & Hunston, S. (1995). Analysing everyday conversation. In M. Coulthard (Eds.), Advances in Spoken Discourse Analysis (pp. 123-161), London: Routledge.
Frankel, R. M. (1990). Talking in interviews: A dispreference for patient-initiated questions in physician-patient encounters. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence (pp. 231-262). Washington, DC: International Institute for Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.
Gellhorn, G. (1998). Law and language: An empirically-based model for the opening moments of client interview. Clinical Law Review, 4, 321
Gibbons, J. (1999). Language and the law. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 19, 156-173.
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
Gnisci, A., & Bakeman, R. (2007). Sequential accommodation of turn taking and turn length: A study of courtroom interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 26(3), 234-259.
Gnisci, A., & Pontecorvo, C. (2004). The organization of questions and answers in the thematic phases of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics, 36, 965-995.
Goffman, E. (1981). Forms of talk. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Goldsmith, J. D. (1980). The initial attorney/client consultation: A case history. Southern Communication Journal, 45(4), 394-407.
Heath, C. (1981). The opening sequence in doctor-patient interaction. In P. Atkinson, & C. Heath (Eds.), Medical work: Realities and routines (pp. 71-90). Aldershot, England: Gower.
Heffer, C. (2005). The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heritage, J. (1985). Analyzing news interviews: aspects of the production of talk for an overhearing audience. In: T. A. Dijk (Eds.), Handbook of Discourse Analysis (pp. 95-119). New York: Academic Press.
Hosticka, C. J. (1979). We don’t care about what happened, we only care about what is going to happen: Lawyer-client negotiations of reality. Social Problems, 26(5), 599-610.
Kearsley, G. P. (1976). Questions and question asking in verbal discourse: A cross-disciplinary review. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 5(4), 355-375.
Kebbell, M. R., & Johnson, S. D. (2000). Lawyers’ questioning: The effect of confusing questions on witness confidence and accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 24(6), 629-641.
Komter, M. (2003). The interactional dynamics of eliciting a confession in a Dutch police interrogation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 36(4), 433-470.
Kurzon, D. (1997). ‘Legal language’: Varieties, genres, registers, discourses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 7(2), 119-139.
Levi, J. N., & Walker, A. G. (Eds.). (1990) Language in the judicial process. London: Plenum.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Levinson, S. C. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew, & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470-520). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Li, C. N., & Thompson, S. A. (1981). Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Maley, Y. (1995). From adjudication to mediation: Third party discourse in conflict resolution. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 93-110.
Maley, Y., Candlin, C. N., Crichton, J., & Koster, P. (1995). Orientations in lawyer-client interviews. Forensic Linguistics, 2(1), 42-55.
Merry, S. E. (1990). Getting justice and getting even. Chicago, IL and London: University of Chicago Press.
O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language power and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Perry, N. W., McAuliff, B. D., Tam, P., Claycomb, L., Dostal, C., & Flanagan, C. (1995). When lawyers question children Is justice served? Law and Human Behavior, 19(6), 609-629.
Philips, S. U. (1984). The social organization of question and answer in courtroom discourse. A study of changes of plea in an Arizona court. Text, 4(1-3), 225-248.
Raymond, G. (2003). Grammar and social organization: Yes/no interrogatives and the structure of responding. American Sociological Review, 68, 939-967.
Robinson, W. P., & Rackstraw, S. J. (1972). A question of answers (Vol. 1). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Sacks, H. (1995). Lectures on conversation (G. Jefferson, Eds.). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Sarat, A., & Felstiner, W. L. F. (1986). Law and strategy in the divorce lawyer’s office. Law and Society Review, 20(1), 93-134.
Sarat, A., & Felstiner, W. L. F. (1989). Lawyers and legal consciousness: Law talk in the divorce lawyer’s office. The Yale Law Journal, 98(8), 1663-1688.
Sarat, A., & Felstiner, W. L. F. (1992). Enactments of power: Negotiating reality and responsibility in lawyer-client interactions. Cornell Law Review, 17, 1447-1498.
Schegloff, E. A., Jefferson, G., & Sacks, H. (1977). The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language, 53(2), 361-382.
Schegloff, E. A., & Sacks, H. (1973). Opening up closing. Semiotica, 7, 289-327.
Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D., & Hamilton, H. E. (2003). The handbook of discourse analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Shaffer, T. L., & Elkins, J. R. (2005). Legal interviewing and counselling in a nutshell. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.
Sherr, A. (1986). Lawyers and clients: The first meeting. The Modern Law Review, 49(3), 323-357.
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. London: Oxford University Press.
Smith, L. F. (1994). Interviewing clients: A linguistic comparison of the “traditional interview and the “client-centered interview. Clinical Law Review, 1, 541-583.
Smith, L. F. (2006). Client-lawyer talk: Lessons from other disciplines. Clinical Law Review, 13, 505-533.
Tang, T. C. (1988). 漢語詞法句法論集 [Studies on Chinese Morphology and Syntax]。臺北市:臺灣學生。
Tang, T. C. (1989). 漢語詞法句法續集 [Studies on Chinese Morphology and Syntax 2]。臺北市:臺灣學生。
Tannen, D. (1984). Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Tannen, D. (2007). Talking voices: Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational discourse (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Trosborg, A. (1995). Introduction. Special issue on ‘laying down the law—discourse analysis of legal institutions. Journal of Pragmatics, 23(1), 1-5.
Tsai, M. H. (2000). Companions of elderly patients—A sociolinguistic study of triadic medical encounters in southern Taiwan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Georgetown University, Washington, DC.
Tsui, A. (1992). A functional description of questions. In M. Coulthard (Eds.), Advances in spoken discourse analysis (pp. 162-182). London: Routledge.
Vinten, G. (1995). Open versus closed questions—An open issue? Management Decision, 33(4), 27-31.
Waln, V. G. (1984). Questions in interpersonal conflict: Participant and observer perceptions. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 49, 277-288.
West, C. (1983). “Asking me no questions… An analysis of queries and replies in physician-patient dialogues. In S. Fisher, & A. D. Todd (Eds.), The social organization of doctor-patient communication (pp.75-106). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.
連結至畢業學校之論文網頁點我開啟連結
註: 此連結為研究生畢業學校所提供,不一定有電子全文可供下載,若連結有誤,請點選上方之〝勘誤回報〞功能,我們會盡快修正,謝謝!
QRCODE
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top