2.1.1 Proposals for Establishing Legal Linguistics as a Discipline

Legal linguistics as an independent discipline was first proposed in the mid-1980s, thanks to the pioneering efforts and promotion of Cheng Jiong and Pan Qingyun, two renowned linguists in China who played a significant role as predecessors, pioneers, and core figures in the field of legal linguistics research, making remarkable contributions and achievements for decades.

As early as 1985, Chen Jiong proposed the establishment of legal linguistics and published influential articles such as ‘Legal linguistics should be established’ (Reference ChenChen, 1985a) and ‘An exploration of legal linguistics’ (Reference ChenChen, 1985b). These articles made indelible contributions to the initiation of the discipline of legal linguistics. In his monograph Introduction to Legal Linguistics, published in 1998, Chen humbly wrote on the title page, ‘For more than two decades, I have often worked at my desk, and my slight attainment can comfort my heart.’ This heartfelt statement reflects his dedication to academic pursuits and his humble nature. Through his pioneering spirit, he inspired numerous scholars to continue building upon the foundations he established, further advancing the field of legal linguistics.

Reference ChenChen (1985a: 77) defined legal linguistics as ‘a discipline that combines the principles and knowledge of linguistics with the use of language in jurisprudence’. He succinctly explained the necessity and feasibility of establishing this discipline. He emphasised that Chinese law teachers increasingly recognised the need to connect language knowledge with legal practice. Reference ChenChen (1985b: 49) clarified that legal linguistics is a discipline that studies legal language, combining the principles and knowledge of linguistics with the study of various legal practices and applications. It aims to explore and summarise the characteristics of legal language and address problems encountered in jurisprudence and linguistics.

Notably, in this paper, Chen mentioned the use of linguistic knowledge in case detection, somewhat similar to the research conducted by Western forensic linguists in the same period on ‘author identification’ and ‘speaker identification’. However, it is not specified whether linguists were involved in this work, and it is presumed that investigators themselves utilised technology (such as voiceprint technology) and basic language knowledge in carrying out this work. Chen pointed out that in China, with the development of document examination techniques, linguistic knowledge (primarily dialectology) is often used in investigative cases to analyse and identify speech in criminal cases. This analysis helps determine the gender, age, origin, occupation, education, personality, and experience of the perpetrator, providing clues and directions for solving the case and serving as strong evidence for identifying the perpetrator. This may be considered the starting point of authorship analysis in forensic linguistics in China.

Chen’s paper proposed a comprehensive system of legal linguistics, including comparative legal linguistics, historical legal linguistics, and descriptive legal linguistics, demonstrating forward-thinking and far-reaching perspectives. Reference ChenChen (2004) provided a comprehensive review of legal language research in China over the past twenty years, dividing the early stages of legal language research in China into three periods: the gestation period, the haymaking period, and the deepening period.

Pan Qingyun has made significant contributions to legal linguistics. He completed his master’s degree in theoretical linguistics under the supervision of the renowned linguist Chen Wangdao at Fudan University in 1982. Throughout his career, he focused on teaching language-related law courses, such as Legal Drafting, Legal Communication, Civil and Commercial Law, and Civil Procedure Law.

Pan’s early research primarily centred around legal stylistics. Reference PanPan (1983) first proposed the concept of ‘legal style’ and the establishment of ‘legal stylistics’. Reference PanPan (1987) further elaborated on the object, scope, and method of legal stylistics, which is akin to the register and genre studies in the systemic functional linguistics (SFL) paradigm. Notably, Pan was an early advocate for integrating ‘speech spectrum analysis and speech recognition’ into legal stylistics. He highlighted how these technologies could assist in determining culprits during criminal investigations (Reference PanPan, 1987: 96).

In addition to numerous articles, Pan has authored several books. In the twentieth century, he published The Art of Legal Language in 1989, An Exploration of Legal Language Styles in 1991, and Chinese Legal Language in the Cross-Century in 1997. Pan continued his research on legal language in the new century and published works such as Chinese Legal Language Assessment in 2004 and Forensic Linguistics in 2017. These publications showcase his ongoing dedication to studying and advancing the field of legal linguistics and will be elaborated on in Section 3.1.

It is worth noting that while Chen Jiong and Pan Qingyun proposed the establishment of legal linguistics as early as the mid-1980s, even before the concept of forensic linguistics emerged in the Western academic context, their focus was primarily on the linguistic features and rhetorical analysis of Chinese legal language. Their work was more concerned with the ontology of legislative language and broader aspects of legal language research, rather than the narrower scope of forensic linguistics as conducted by Western scholars.

2.1.2 Establishment of Legal Linguistics as a Discipline

Early proposals and calls for establishing the discipline of legal linguistics paved the way for its eventual success. In December 1998, a group of legal language researchers held an academic exchange meeting on ‘the use of legal language in legal practice’ in Haikou. This meeting and the subsequent academic exchange meeting on ‘legal language and the construction of disciplines’ held in Shanghai in June 1999 prepared the groundwork for forming an association dedicated to legal linguistics research. In July 2000, the China Association for Forensic Linguistics (CAFL) was formally and officially established during the ‘International Symposium on Legal Language and Rhetoric’ held in Shanghai. Professor Jiang Jianyun was elected as the association’s first President, with Professor Liu Suzhen and Professor Wang Jie as Vice Presidents.

Jiang Jianyun, the first president of CAFL from 2000 to 2004, played a crucial role in shaping legal linguistics in China. Under his leadership, Chinese legal linguistics evolved from individual research to a collaborative community of scholars.

Despite publishing fewer works compared to Chen and Pan, Jiang’s impact was equally profound. In his 1990 publication, Jiang explored the expressive nature of legal language, arguing that it encompasses not only conceptual meaning but also subjective attitudes and feelings. He analysed legal terms with emotional connotations, highlighting their evaluative nature. For example, he discussed how words like ‘abet’, ‘seduce’, and ‘collude’ carry emotional connotations beyond their basic meanings. Jiang recommended avoiding positive rhetorical devices in legal documents, emphasising the need for precise and unambiguous communication.

Jiang recognised the influence of context on the meaning and appropriateness of legal language. In his Reference Jiang1994 work, he proposed that context includes both the linguistic environment and the non-linguistic environment. He emphasised the importance of legal professionals adapting their language to suit the audience’s context and needs. For instance, he suggested using plain and accessible language when communicating with illiterate defendants, aligning with the principles of the Plain Language Movement.

Jiang’s contributions extended beyond legal language. He believed in studying language in conjunction with its users and the context in which it is employed. He also identified two criteria for measuring the accuracy of language use in legal activity: truthfulness and faithfulness. Truthfulness refers to aligning language use with objective reality, laws and regulations, the flow of speech, the situation, and the object of communication. Faithfulness pertains to expressing desired content of thought and achieving the desired result. These criteria provided a framework for evaluating the effectiveness and appropriateness of legal language in practice (Reference JiangJiang, 1995).

Wang Jie has dedicated herself to the study of legal language for an impressive forty years. Her main work, Legal Language Research, published in 1999, is a comprehensive and substantial volume that covers a wide range of topics within the field of legal language. These topics include legislative language, judicial language, police interviewing and interrogation, courtroom debating and cross-examination, mediation language, and more. This extensive work has garnered high praise from renowned linguist Lu Jianming, who describes it as a unique monograph on legal language studies. Reference LuLu (2000) highlighted several key features of Wang’s Legal Language Research. Firstly, he commended the originality of the work, noting that it showcased the author’s unique analysis and insights into legal language. Wang brought a fresh perspective to the study of legal language, offering valuable contributions to the field. Secondly, the book drew on the research results of Chinese linguistics, establishing a diversified structural network for legal language research. This interdisciplinary approach laid a solid foundation for future studies in legal language. Thirdly, while Wang analysed and discussed legal language in a positive manner, she also addressed the existing problems with legal language. This balanced approach allowed for a comprehensive understanding of the subject matter. Lastly, Lu emphasised that the research results presented in this work hold direct and significant implications for legal language practice and further research in the field.

In addition to her groundbreaking research papers and monographs on legal language, Wang Jie also compiled the very first coursebook on ‘forensic linguistics’ in China. This coursebook, published in 1997, represents a pioneering effort in the country. ‘It takes the basic theories of linguistics and jurisprudence as its framework and combines them with legislative and judicial practice by conducting scientific and standardised research on legal linguistics as an interdisciplinary subject’, as introduced in Reference WangWang (1996: 90).

Qiu Daren is a pioneer in the study of legal language and has made significant contributions to the field. With a strong linguistic background from the Institute of Linguistics of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and years of experience at the Beijing Public Security Bureau, Qiu has acquired extensive knowledge and expertise in language analysis and speech identification for detecting and solving cases.

In his early work, Reference QiuQiu (1980) emphasised the use of linguistic analysis to scrutinise phonetics, vocabulary, grammar, and dialects in criminal cases involving written language. This analysis helps identify important information about the perpetrators, such as their origin, age, education, and occupation. Linguistic analysis plays a crucial role in determining the direction and scope of investigations, similar to the concepts of ‘authorship profiling’ and ‘authorship attribution’ in the Western ‘Forensic Authorship Analysis’.

Reference QiuQiu (1981) also explored phonetic differences in Chinese dialects and their reflection in criminal cases to determine the origin and region of the perpetrators. This process is similar to speaker identification conducted by Western forensic phoneticians. Qiu’s research provided numerous examples from authentic cases, illustrating the phonetic, lexical, grammatical, and dialectical features of various dialects, such as Mandarin, Hakka, Minnanese, and Cantonese.

In the early 1990s, Reference QiuQiu (1991) published an article that examined the development of investigative linguistics in China. He identified three stages: the emergence period (1950s–60s), the formation period (1970s), and the development period (1980s–90s). These stages parallel the trajectory of forensic linguistics in the West. Initially, research focused on dialect issues in cases, then shifted to the recognition function of written language and its integration with criminal investigation. Finally, research focused on the identification function of language, enabling direct identification of the perpetrator through written language.

Qiu’s work also highlighted the interdisciplinary nature of investigative linguistics, intersecting with sociolinguistics, dialectology, criminal investigation, and disciplines such as social psychology, neurophysiology, neuropsychology, criminal psychology, psychiatry, and judicial psychiatry.

Qiu authored two notable books: Speech Recognition (Reference Qiu1985) and Investigative Linguistics (Reference Qiu1995). Speech Recognition explores methods for identifying linguistic elements in case-related contexts. Qiu explained the role of language identification in case detection and covered various identification methods. Investigative Linguistics, the first comprehensive work in China on the theories and methods of investigative linguistics, probed the theoretical basis for identifying linguistic features and determining perpetrators. The book covered language recognition, language variation, cant, cryptic decipherment, coded language interpretation, and linguistic characteristics of mentally ill and deaf individuals.

In conclusion, Qiu Daren’s contributions to legal language research and investigative linguistics have highlighted the crucial role of linguistic analysis in detecting and solving criminal cases. His meticulous examinations of linguistic elements and interdisciplinary collaboration have paved the way for further advancements in this field.

3.1.1 Contributions by Professor Pan Qingyun

Pan’s book, Chinese Legal Language Assessment, published in December 2004 by the Chinese Dictionary Publishing House, offers a comprehensive and scientific evaluation of the Chinese legal language. It explores the nature, characteristics, and research methods of legal language, as well as its application in legislation, legal documents, criminal investigation, courtroom debates, and more. The book draws on knowledge from various disciplines and combines it with the practice of legislation, judiciary, and the construction of a democratic legal system in China.

The book is divided into three parts. The first part, ‘Review of Legal Language Cognition’, examined the origin and development of legal language as an independent discipline in China and other countries. The second part, ‘Contemporary Chinese Legal Language Assessment’, provided a thorough study of the characteristics, structure, and operational mechanisms of contemporary Chinese legal language. It also explored its application techniques in various legal contexts. The third part, ‘Development of Chinese Legal Language’, examined the relationship between legal language and judicial justice, legal system reform, bilingual legal language in Hong Kong and Macau, and legal language in Taiwan.

Chinese Legal Language Assessment is a remarkable book that offers valuable insights into legal language. The author’s extensive research and interdisciplinary approach make it a valuable resource. The book’s structure allows for a comprehensive understanding of legal language and its application in different legal domains. The arguments presented are well-documented, rigorous, and innovative. Furthermore, the author’s fluent writing style enhances the book’s readability. Overall, it is an indispensable resource for anyone studying legal language in China.

In addition to this monumental work, Pan has written several short articles to popularise the research on Chinese and English legal language. Despite specialising in theoretical linguistics with a Chinese language background, Pan possesses proficient English skills and excels in engaging with foreign forensic linguistic researchers. During a personal visit to John Gibbons, they discussed legal language studies in China, forensic linguistics in the West, and Pan’s particular interest in the language disadvantages individuals face within legal systems. This visit inspired Pan to write two articles in 2019 on these topics.

Pan’s article titled ‘A Comparative Examination of the Past and Present Chinese and English Legal Languages and Their Reform and Optimization’ (Reference PanPan, 2019a) was a comparative study to identify the characteristics and limitations of Chinese and English legal languages. He proposed methods for reforming and optimising these languages, aiming to promote mutual understanding, leverage strengths, standardise weaknesses, and enhance judicial cooperation and legal–cultural exchanges. Pan highlighted issues such as the frequent use of remote meanings, archaic words, jargon, ceremonial terms, and cryptic expressions in legal English, which result in obscurity and redundancy. To address this, Pan suggested adopting the ‘Plain English Movement’ advocated by Reference MellinkoffMellinkoff (1963), which emphasises accuracy, conciseness, clarity, and durability in legal language. Regarding China’s legal language problem, Pan attributed it to legislative and judicial language ‘anomie’ and the arbitrary and conflicting nature of legal language. His proposed solutions included standardising legal language, eliminating outdated and ambiguous terms, ensuring strict correspondence between legal terms and concepts, incorporating and standardising useful legal terms from major legal systems worldwide, and abandoning politically and morally charged preaching, slang, and terminology from the Cultural Revolution era.

In another article titled ‘The Language Dilemma of the “Valley People” Facing the Law’ (Reference PanPan, 2019b), Pan explored the difficulties and language barriers faced by disadvantaged individuals (the poor and weak) when encountering the law. Using Li Yu’s term ‘valley people’ to refer to those with low social and economic status, Pan presented specific cases to illustrate this group’s linguistic challenges in dealing with legal issues. The insights from this short article were further elaborated in his article titled ‘The Legal Embarrassment and Language Problems Faced by Vulnerable Groups’ (Reference PanPan, 2019c). Pan pointed out that language serves as a ‘double-edged sword’, acting as both a vehicle and a ‘prison’ for justice. For disadvantaged groups, law-related language creates insurmountable gaps. The article discussed ways to implement discourse rights for these groups, alleviate their language barriers, and address their legal difficulties to achieve judicial justice. Pan emphasised the need to protect the discourse rights of this group, improve their legal difficulties, and proposed specific measures such as strengthening the legal supervision of the judiciary and incorporating the full enjoyment of litigation rights, language rights, and discourse rights into the supervisory vision. This concern for the language capacity of vulnerable groups was also evident in Pan’s conference paper titled ‘Language Rights Comprehensive Protection of Juvenile Criminal Defendants in the Context of Rule-by-Law’ presented at the 12th Biennial Conference of the International Association for Forensic Linguists (IAFL12) held in Guangzhou, China in 2015 (see www.flrchina.com/001/108.htm).

3.1.2 Contributions by Professor Wang Jie

Despite her advanced age, Professor Wang Jie’s passion for the language of law remains undiminished, and she continues to write. In one of her works from 2004, she explored the interactive language used in accusatorial courtroom trials, pointing out that ‘although China’s criminal courts have transitioned from an inquisitorial to an accusatorial trial context, the trial language still carries remnants of the inquisitorial trial and struggles to balance the pursuit of truth and the exercise of power’ (Reference WangWang, 2004: 77). In Reference WangWang (2010), she reflected on the progress of legal language research in mainland China over the past thirty years, focusing on legislative language, judicial language, legal language teaching, and the training of new legal talent. She noted that legal language research in China has evolved alongside the development of Chinese society, shifting from a focus on the ‘legal system’ to the ‘rule of law’, driven by societal needs. Wang Jie stressed the fusion of law and language, content and form in legal language research. She suggested conducting both static research on the discourse system of legal language and dynamic variation research on the application of legal language. Modern and scientific methods, such as statistical quantification and ranking clustering, can be employed to study the discourse system of legal language using legal language corpora. Detailed analysis and description from grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic perspectives can be conducted on specific legal language corpora. Wang Jie also provided a comprehensive overview of early works in forensic linguistics in China before 2000, as well as new influential works that emerged in the first decade of the twenty-first century.

Law-Language-Linguistic Diversity, edited by Wang Jie in 2006, is a collection of academic papers presented at the 9th International Symposium on Law and Language. The symposium centred around the legal protection of diverse languages, the linguistic freedom of individuals, linguistic equality among nations, and how languages can serve legislation and justice. The proceedings of the conference encompassed twelve topics, including the relationship between language rights, language equality, and linguistic diversity in the context of protecting language rights and achieving language equality. It also dealt with the protection of minority languages, various types of language legislation, legal documents on international language rights, language diversity, language legislation and policy in diverse contexts, and language and law issues in multilingual societies. Other areas included the influence of social and cultural factors on linguistic diversity and resulting legal challenges, the study of legal language and the discipline of forensic linguistics, linguistic standardisation of legal texts, linguistic issues in the translation of legal texts, and finally the challenges of language and writing in legal activities.

Wang Jie’s recent interaction with Zhang Jun, the former Procurator General of the Supreme Procuratorate and the incumbent Chief Justice of the People’s Supreme Court of China, is noteworthy. Inspired by an interview transcript of Zhang published in the Legal Daily on 12 May Reference Zhang2020, Wang wrote an article titled ‘The Legality and Humanity in the Interview of the Procurator General of the Supreme Procuratorate’. In this article, Wang analysed Zhang’s language use and its impact on laypeople, highlighting his successful integration of legal reasoning, emotional language, and rational judicial language. Procurator General Zhang Jun appreciated Wang’s linguistic analysis and was interviewed by her, resulting in the publication of ‘The Best Legal Language is the Social Language and Living Language Spoken by Legal People – Excerpts from Professor Wang Jie’s Interview with Procurator General Zhang Jun’ in the Rule of Law News Communication.

During the interview, Zhang Jun made several key points. Firstly, he emphasised that effectively using legal language requires sentiment and respect for the parties involved. Understanding and connecting with people emotionally is important in legal communication. Secondly, he highlighted the significance of language ability, stating that understanding what people say and choosing the right words are essential for effective legal language use. Thirdly, Zhang Jun emphasised that confidence in using legal language comes from understanding the person you are communicating with and their language environment, and then adapting your language accordingly. By combining sentiment, ability, and confidence, legal professionals can create a significant impact through their language. Lastly, Zhang Jun claimed that the best legal language is the language of society and life spoken by legal professionals. He encouraged legal professionals to transform legal language, regulations, and thinking into accessible language that resonates with people’s everyday lives.

Professor Wang Jie deserves applause for her insightful analysis and dedication to the study of legal language. Her linguistic analysis of Zhang Jun’s interview showcased the importance of effectively using language in the legal domain and the significance of language in the legal profession. Their interaction serves as an inspiration to further explore the intersection of law and language, promoting a better understanding of legal concepts and fostering effective communication between legal professionals and the general public.

As we continue navigating an increasingly diverse and interconnected world, studying law and language remains essential. It is through the dedicated efforts of scholars like Pan Qinyun and Wang Jie that we can better appreciate the nuances and complexities of legal language, ensuring that justice is accessible, comprehensible, and fair to all.

3.2.1 Contributions by Professor Du Jinbang and Discourse Information Theory (DIT)

Du Jingbang’s contributions to the disciplinary construction and mentorship of young scholars in forensic linguistics at the GDUFS led to his election as the second President of the Chinese Association for Forensic Linguistics (CAFL) in 2004. As a result, GDUFS became the permanent venue for the association’s secretariat.

In addition to his own research, Du Jingbang dedicated a considerable amount of time and effort to mentoring young scholars who pursued doctoral research in various areas of forensic linguistics under his supervision. Notable monographs based on their doctoral theses have been published, including Reference YuanYuan’s (2010) study on police interrogation, Reference ZhangZhang’s (2011) exploration of lawyer evaluation, Reference ZhaoZhao’s (2011) investigation of information structure and language realisation in legal discourse, Reference ChenChen’s (2011) analysis of judges’ trial discourse processing, Reference GeGe’s (2013) examination of courtroom questioning, Reference GeGe’s (2018) study on Civil Court hearings, and Reference XuXu’s (2013) research on court conciliation, just to mention a few.

Under Professor Du’s guidance, several PhD graduates have received research project funding from the National Social Science Foundation of China. These projects include topics such as the multimodal study of new media discourse on legal literacy, social cognition of courtroom discourse, research on online judicial opinion discourse based on evaluation theory, research on translation legislation from the perspective of national strategy, research of corpus-based discourse identification of telecommunication fraud, research on social media users’ language fingerprint identification and language fingerprint database construction, and research on the corpus-based rule of law communication discourse of the Communist Party of China in the past century. These monographs and projects have significantly advanced the development of forensic linguistics in China, and Professor Du Jingbang’s contributions have been invaluable.

Apart from these achievements, Professor Du has devoted himself to developing a new theory called Discourse Information Theory since Reference Du2005. Forensic linguistics, which combines the fields of law and language, plays a crucial role in promoting justice by identifying, analysing, and resolving language-related issues in legal activities (Reference DuDu, 2004: 18). Over the past three decades, forensic linguistics has benefited from various theories, particularly those from the field of linguistics. Equipped with a ‘linguistic toolkit’ (Reference Coulthard, Johnson and WrightCoulthard et al., 2017: 121), forensic linguists have provided language evidence to the court and offered valuable insights to legal professionals. However, to fully realise its potential as an independent discipline and make significant contributions to society in the twenty-first century, there is an urgent need for a theory specifically tailored to forensic linguistics (Reference XuXu, 2016).

Among the efforts made in this regard, Professor Du Jinbang has proposed the DIT (Reference DuDu, 2007, Reference Du2011, Reference Du2014, Reference Du2022). This theory offers a fresh perspective on analysing legal discourse and provides a theoretical framework for examining information structures, contents, and relationships at a broader discourse level. The DIT has found wide acceptance and application across various branches of forensic linguistics (Reference DuDu, 2022: 24). This section will explain the fundamentals of the DIT and explore its applications in forensic linguistics.

(1) The basics of the DIT

The DIT draws on various sources, including studies on linguistic information (Reference MathesiusMathesius,1929; Reference Prince and ColePrince,1981), discourse structures (Reference van Dijk and Kintschvan Dijk & Kintsch, 1983; Reference RobertsRoberts, 1996; Reference Büring, Krifka and van der SandtBüring, 1999), communication models (Reference Lasswell and BrysonLasswell, 1948; Reference BraddockBraddock, 1958), and knowledge categories (Reference Labov and FanshelLabov & Fanshel, 1977; Reference van Dijkvan Dijk, 2008). This theory paves a new way for the study of forensic linguistics by offering fresh insights and approaches. In the following discussion, working definitions of discourse and information in the DIT will be presented first, followed by a brief introduction to the macro tree information structure, where detailed information properties will be introduced.

Discourse: The DIT views discourse as an umbrella term encompassing written and spoken texts. It considers discourse as a continuum, regardless of its size or medium. By exploring the common features of different types of legal discourse across languages, the DIT ensures the compatibility of the theory in forensic linguistics. Additionally, the DIT recognises the social nature of discourse, acknowledging it as both a product of social activities and a tool for influencing society.

Information: In contrast to the systemic functional view that analyses information at the clause level (Reference HuHu, 1994), the DIT takes a discourse perspective. It defines information as propositions, which are minimal communication units with relatively independent and complete structures. This definition highlights the semantic, pragmatic, and cognitive attributes of information, enabling the DIT-based analysis to not only depict the linguistic features of legal texts, but also provide cognitive and psychological explanations of language use within them.

Macro information tree structure: According to the DIT, each discourse can be seen as a hierarchical network resembling an information tree. At the top of this tree is the kernel proposition, serving as the trunk carrying the main idea of the discourse. Detailed information units at lower levels further develop this idea. Each information unit corresponds to a proposition, which can be an incomplete sentence or a question. These information units act as carriers of different properties of discourse information. Furthermore, each information unit can be further divided into three types of information elements: process, entity, and condition.

Figure 1 illustrates the structure of the information tree in the DIT. It visually represents how the discourse unfolds, with the kernel proposition at the centre. This structure facilitates the exchange of information within the discourse, ensuring coherence. The DIT’s framework systematically analyses legal texts, considering the levels, combinations, and the linguistic realisation of information elements. It also allows for exploring how discourse users achieve their communicative purpose of influencing cognition, attitude, or behaviour at a cognitive level.

Figure 1 The information tree structure.

(Reference DuDu, 2007)

In the DIT, the relationship between an information unit and its higher-level unit is referred to as an ‘information knot’. Like branches in a tree, these knots connect the information units (leaves) to the trunk, ensuring coherence throughout the discourse. There are fifteen types of information knots, which are represented by various interrogative abbreviations: WT (what thing), WB (what basis), WF (what fact), WI (what inference), WP (what disposal), WO (who), WN (when), WR (where), HW (how), WY (why), WE (what effect), WC (what cause), WA (what attitude), WG (what change), and WJ (what judgement).

In the same way that trees transport water and nutrients, the discourse information tree also exhibits different patterns of information flow. The communicative needs, roles, and competence of discourse users influence the information flow within a discourse. Analysing the categories of information sharing (whether information is known to only one person or both) and the types of information flow helps uncover the discourse dynamics.

To summarise, the information tree structure in the DIT vividly represents the macrostructure of discourse. Each genre of legal texts exhibits unique tree structures, and analysing these structures can reveal similarities and differences between the legal texts. Additionally, studying the types and functions of information knots, levels and combinations of information units, and the linguistic realisation of information elements contributes to a systematic description of legal texts. Furthermore, by focusing on information as the stable intersection, linguistic features of legal texts can be analysed at the surface-level, uncovering how discourse users achieve their communicative purpose of changing cognition, attitude, or behaviour at the cognitive level.

3.2.2 Contributions by Professor Liao Meizhen and Principle of Goal

After completing his PhD dissertation and publishing his monographs in the early 2000s, Professor Liao Meizhen began to actively participate in the international academic community. As a Fulbright Research Scholar, he was invited to deliver academic lectures at prestigious institutions such as Brooklyn Law School, Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, University of California, Santa Barbara, and University of California, San Diego in 2006 and 2007. Liao also attended the 6th Biennial Conference of the IAFL held at the University of Sydney, Australia in 2003, the 8th Biennial Conference held at Seattle University, Washington, USA in 2007, and delivered a keynote speech at the 12th Biennial Conference held at GDUFS, Guangzhou, China in 2015.

Liao has produced abundant research results and has published over sixty academic papers in addition to his monographs. Notable works in English include Reference LiaoLiao (2009c) on interruptions in Chinese criminal courtroom discourse, Reference Liao, Tiersma and SolanLiao (2012b) on courtroom discourse in China, Reference Liao, Christopher and TessutoLiao (2013b) on the power dynamics of interruption, and Reference Liao, Solan, Ainsworth and ShuyLiao (2015) on speech and silence within and beyond language and law. The article ‘A study of interruptions in Chinese criminal court discourse’ published in Text & Talk is particularly noteworthy. This article examined interruptions in Chinese criminal court discourse using court transcripts from four Chinese criminal courts as a corpus. The study focused on the frequency, function, causes, and distribution of interruptions, and their relationship to the Chinese legal system and legal culture. The findings highlighted a substantial asymmetry in the interruptions in Chinese court trials, with prosecutors interrupting the most, defence lawyers interrupting the least, and judges falling in between. The author explained this imbalance in terms of China’s judicial system and legal culture and compared interruptions in Chinese criminal trials with those in American courtrooms.

Liao’s productivity is even more remarkable in his Chinese writings, with over fifty papers mainly related to legal language, courtroom discourse, interruption, and the Principle of Goal. Some of his early representative articles include Reference LiaoLiao (2002) on the status quo of Chinese courtroom trials from a linguistic perspective, Reference LiaoLiao (2004b) on the Principle of Goal and cooperation in interactive courtroom discourse, Reference LiaoLiao (2006) on ‘Formulation’ in Chinese courtroom interaction, and Reference LiaoLiao (2007) on the application of the principle of cooperation in legislative communication.

These articles report on an in-depth study of ‘interactive courtroom discourse’, particularly the phenomenon of interruptions (Reference LiaoLiao, 2004b, Reference Liao2009c, Reference Liao, Christopher and Tessuto2013b). The main points highlighted include:

1. (1) Courtroom interruptions serve four main functions: control, dominance, competition, and cooperation. Interruptions in the courtroom primarily aim to exert control and dominance, resulting in conflict and confrontation as the main outcomes, while cooperation plays a secondary role.

2. (2) Judges and prosecutors have the highest proportion of interrupting others’ speech among courtroom participants, and the overall characteristic of these interruptions is conflict. Judges’ interruptions can be procedural or substantive, involving both intervention as a third-party arbitrator and implementation as an entity investigator. However, the proportion of the latter is higher than the former.

3. (3) In civil trials, interruptions are primarily attributed to judges, while in criminal trials, judges and prosecutors are the main interrupters. Interruptions also serve as a strategy. Interruptions between defense counsel and defendants are rare and predominantly cooperative. Interruptions in cross-examinations are predominantly adversarial, while interruptions in direct questioning are minimal and mostly cooperative.

4. (4) The reasons for interruptions are as follows: excessive speech, prompting, irrelevant speech, verification or clarification of information, and verbose or redundant speech.

5. (5) The study of interruption phenomena in courtroom discourse involves not only linguistic issues but also procedural and substantive justice issues, rights, power, and the rule of law.

6. (6) There is a close relationship between courtroom interruptions and impoliteness. The degree of impoliteness varies systematically based on interruption patterns, interruption location, accompanying speech behaviour, the function of interruption, and the roles of courtroom participants. The formation of impoliteness is influenced by legal systems, courtroom roles, legal culture, and other factors.

Furthermore, the author also conducted research on the interruption phenomenon in criminal courtrooms and gender, finding that ‘women exhibit more aggression and power than men in the courtroom. Moreover, women with higher status and positions of greater power demonstrate a more assertive demeanour in professional activities compared to men’ (Reference Liao, Solan, Ainsworth and ShuyLiao, 2015: 54). The author further analysed the reasons behind this, pointing out that

In disciplinary construction, Reference LiaoLiao’s (2004a) article titled ‘A Review of the Study of Forensic Linguistics Abroad’, published in Contemporary Linguistics, was particularly instructive. This paper is a review of forensic linguistics abroad with an emphasis on the period after the 1970s and on countries where the Anglo-American law system is practised, specifically the United States and Australia. The examination was organised around three perspectives, namely the study of language as an object, process, and instrument, which also characterised the process of forensic linguistics abroad or represented the three stages in the development of the discipline. This high-quality review article offers a comprehensive and systematic overview of the prominent figures, research fields, and achievements in forensic linguistics abroad.

The article begins by highlighting the significance of Reference MellinkoffMellinkoff’s (1963) masterpiece, Legal Language, as the classic work on the ontology of legal language. It points out that Mellinkoff’s book was the first comprehensive and in-depth study of English and American legal languages, making it an influential work in the history of legal language studies. Furthermore, the book was crucial in promoting the ‘plain English movement’ in law during the 1970s.

The article then examines the research trends and priorities in legal language studies after the 1970s. During this period, the focus shifted to courtroom discourse and oral interaction in legal activities. The research interests revolved around three main areas: legal language as a process, legal language as an instrument, and the involvement of linguists in providing linguistic evidence in legal interactions. The author provides a detailed overview of the main researchers’ contributions during this period. For example, Reference Charrow and CharrowCharrow and Charrow’s (1979) study on ‘jury instructions’, Reference Levi and WalkerLevi and Walker’s (1990) and Reference OʾBarrO’Barr’s (1982) research on courtroom discourse strategies, discourse styles, and structures, as well as studies on legal language as a process by Reference Atkinson and DrewAtkinson and Drew (1979), Reference Bennett and FeldmanBennett and Feldman (1981), and Reference StygallStygall (1994). Studies on legal language as an instrument include Reference MatoesianMatoesian’s (1993) and Reference Conley and O’ BarrConley and O’Barr’s (1998) works on power dynamics in rape and divorce trials, Reference Walsh and GibbonsWalsh’s (1994) and Reference Eades and GibbonsEades’ (1994) works on Aboriginal land rights litigation, and Luchjenbroers’ (1997) study on the power dynamics of witnesses (defendants). The article also highlights studies on applying linguistic evidence in legal trials, including Jones’ (Reference Jones and Gibbons1994) research on legal phonology and Reference Eagleson and GibbonsEagleson’s (1994) investigation of written spelling, diction, grammatical morphology, and syntactic structure. At the discourse level, the article discusses Reference ShuyShuy’s (1987) analysis of recorded evidence, Reference Berk-Seligson, Levi and WalkerBerk-Seligson’s (1990) study on legal translation, and Hibbitts’ (1994) examination of visual and auditory metaphors in American law and legal practice.

Overall, the article offers a comprehensive and objective overview of the key figures, major research areas, and practical applications in legal linguistics over the past century. It serves as a valuable reference for domestic legal linguistics researchers and enthusiasts, particularly for Chinese forensic linguistics scholars. However, one limitation of the article was its overemphasis on American and Australian scholars, neglecting the contributions of British forensic linguists like Coulthard, who is considered the founder of the discipline and has made significant contributions.

Another significant contribution by Professor Liao Meizhen is his role as the Forensic Linguistics Translation Series Editor. This series aims to translate classical works on foreign forensic linguistics into Chinese and publish them through Law Press. The seven translations include Conley and Obar’s Law, Language, and Power (2007), Solan’s The Language of Judges (2007), Goodrich’s Legal Discourse (2007), Bix’s Law, Language, and Legal Certainty (2007), Gibbons’ Introduction to Forensic Linguistics (2007), Melinkoff’s The Language of Law (2014), and Tiersma’s Legal Language (2014). The publication of these translations has undeniably expanded the horizons of the Chinese forensic linguistics community and advanced the research and development of the discipline. It provides an excellent opportunity for legal linguists in the Chinese-speaking community, who may not have direct access to the original texts, to understand the field of foreign forensic linguistics. Moreover, it promotes the exchange and mutual learning between Chinese and foreign legal linguists and legal linguists in the Chinese-speaking and foreign language communities in China.

Professor Liao’s editorship of the Forensic Linguistics Translation Series has significantly impacted the accessibility and development of forensic linguistics in China. By translating and publishing these seven classical works, Professor Liao has provided Chinese legal linguists with a valuable resource to enhance their understanding of foreign forensic linguistics. This not only facilitated their research and academic growth but also promoted cross-cultural exchanges and mutual learning between Chinese and international legal linguists.

Throughout Liao’s study of courtroom discourse, he placed great importance on theoretical innovation and enhancement. Particularly, he proposed the ‘principle of goal direction and discourse analysis’, later developed into the ‘Principle of Goal’ or simply ‘Goal Principle’. This principle asserted that any rational and normal speech behaviour of individuals is purposeful. The principle encompassed various aspects, including goal expression, goal pursuit, goal relationship, goal interaction, goal and discourse coherence, goal realisation means, goal realisation conditions, goal and power relationship, goal realisation, and goal and meaning (Reference LiaoLiao, 2004b, Reference Liao2005a, Reference Liao2005b, Reference Liao2005c, Reference Liao2007, Reference Liao2009a, Reference Liao2009b, Reference Liao2010, Reference Liao2012a, Reference Liao2013a). This principle holds ‘that human verbal communication is goal-oriented or goal-driven and the process of communication is a process of pursuit of respective goal(s)’ (Reference LiaoLiao, 2009a: 62–63). It suggests that communication without a goal is meaningless, and that pursuing a goal is essential for effective communication (Reference LiaoLiao, 2009a, Reference Liao2009b).

To exemplify the application of his principle and verbal communication, Reference LiaoLiao (2009b: 106–107) illustrated the process of pursuing goal(s) with authentic data taken from a court trial.

Liao argued that communication is often not completed or concluded with a single exchange of words, making it a process that is inherently complex. In some communicative events, the ultimate outcome is success, but the process is filled with failures – from partial failures to eventual success. On the other hand, there are instances where the final outcome is failure, yet the process is not devoid of successes – from partial successes to eventual failure. And he finally concluded that the ultimate success or failure, as well as the complexity and twists of the process, are inseparably linked to the speaker’s goals.

Over the past decade, Professor Liao and his fellow researchers have dedicated themselves to developing and refining this theory. They have published numerous papers exploring different dimensions of the Goal Principle, such as its relationship to discourse coherence, communicative patterns, contextual dynamism, speech acts, and context. Key works in this series include ‘The Principle of Goal and Analysis of Discourse Coherence – A New Approach to the Study of Discourse Coherence’ (Reference LiaoLiao, 2005c), ‘The Principle of Goal Direction and Goal Analysis’ (Reference LiaoLiao, 2009a, Reference Liao2009b), ‘The Principle of Goal and Dynamics of Context’ (Reference LiaoLiao, 2010), ‘The Principle of Goal Direction and Interaction of Speech Acts’ (Reference LiaoLiao, 2012a), and ‘The Principle of Goal and Contextual Studies: On Human Beings as the Key Factor of the Context’ (Reference LiaoLiao, 2013a). Additionally, other scholars have contributed to the field with works like ‘An Analysis of the Purpose Relations in the Courtroom Discourse’ (Reference ZhangZhang, 2010) and ‘Interpretation and Application of the Pragmatic Goal Principle’ (Reference Huang and WangHuang & Wang, 2013). Interested readers can study the aforelisted’ literature in depth.

In conclusion, the Principle of Goal has served as a foundation for understanding the purposeful nature of communication and its significance in achieving effective discourse. It has made valuable contributions to forensic linguistics and courtroom discourse analysis.

3.2.3 Functional Linguistics and Functional Forensic Discourse Analysis

As mentioned earlier, forensic linguistics in the West does not have its own theory and methods. Instead, it adopts theories and methods from various branches of linguistics, such as phonetics, lexicology, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, sociolinguistics, psycholinguistics, corpus linguistics, and computational linguistics, to analyse and study legal language and discourse. Reference Coulthard, Johnson and WrightCoulthard et al. (2017: 121) metaphorically referred to these linguistic theories that linguists can select and use as a ‘linguistic toolkit’ in their seminal work. In recent years, this toolkit has been continuously updated with new tools, like the DIT and the Principle of Goal discussed in the last two sections, or the honing of existing tools, among which SFL is becoming an increasingly sharpened tool.

Reference HallidayHalliday (1985, 1994) mentioned that functional grammar can be applied to legal practice, stating that it can ‘assist in legal adjudications by matching samples of sound or wording’. This was a hot topic in the emerging field of forensic linguistics at that time, and it still is in current international forensic linguistics. It is the area of authorship analysis and speaker identification. However, few scholars in SFL have responded to Halliday’s vision to explore legal language, except for Reference KörnerKörner (2000), who conducted a doctoral dissertation on the evaluative language analysis of judgements in the common law system, which is a remarkable work in the application of SFL to legal language research. On the other hand, forensic linguists mostly favoured theories of phonetics, semantics, pragmatics, and sociolinguistics to analyse the ‘idiolect’ of speakers. Few people applied functional linguistic theories and methods to relevant research and practice, except for John Gibbons, who was one of the few forensic linguists adopting SFL.

Entering the new century, with increasing exposure, some forensic linguists have gradually realised the power of SFL and developed a growing interest in its theoretical framework (Reference Heffer, Kredens and Gozdz-RoszkowskiHeffer, 2007; Reference Felton-RosulekFelton-Rosulek, 2009, Reference Felton-Rosulek2015; Reference GalesGales, 2010, Reference Gales2011, Reference Gales2015; Reference Gales and SolanGales & Solan, 2017; Reference BartleyBartley, 2017, Reference Bartley2018, Reference Bartley2020, Reference Bartley2022). Notably, Reference Nini and GrantNini and Grant (2013) first described two contrasting approaches to authorship analysis in forensic linguistics: the cognitive and the stylistic approaches. Then they proposed using aspects of SFL, such as Hasan’s codal variation, to bridge the apparent differences between the two. This research strongly supported Coulthard’s theory of idiolect, demonstrating that SFL is an effective theory for authorship attribution, bridging the gap between stylistic and cognitive approaches to authorship analysis. Reference Hurt and GrantHurt and Grant (2019) studied the evaluative language of pledging to harm, primarily analysing the differences in language expression between realised and unrealised violent fantasies. Reference Hunter and GrantHunter and Grant (2022) examined the relationship between attitudinal resources and psychopathological characteristics in writings by serial killers.

Aston University has been at the forefront of research into forensic linguistics and has found that it is no longer limited to the description of criminal discourse but is attempting to integrate language description with language services. The research by Hurt and Hunter aimed at providing linguistic clues for law enforcement in solving cases, in accordance with Coulthard’s consistent advocacy and representations on the future direction of forensic linguistics. As Reference Coulthard, Johnson and WrightCoulthard et al. (2017: 215) have stated, while many forensic linguists consider their work to be essentially descriptive, others believe that they are working within a ‘critical discourse’ framework. Their purpose is not merely to describe but to attempt remedies when problems are identified, actively serving the purposes of judicial practice, and promoting the realisation of fairness and justice.

In December 2016, the Martin Centre for Appliable Linguistics at Shanghai Jiao Tong University held an interdisciplinary international conference on SFL and forensic linguistics, inviting the SFL linguist James Martin and forensic linguists Edward Finegan, Gale Stygall, and Chris Heffer. At the symposium, Martin presented his discourse research on the practice of ‘Youth Justice Conferencing’ (YJC) that he conducted with Zappavigna and others. This research focused on an alternative judicial practice outside of court trials, namely the negotiation of dispositions for young offenders and the healing of victims through roundtable conferencing, embodying the concept of ‘restorative justice’. Martin paid attention to the language and multimodal resources used by participants in such judicial practices. In addition to conducting exchange structure analysis, appraisal language analysis, and multimodal discourse analysis of the participants’ language, Martin specifically focused on the concept of restorative justice underlying such judicial practices (Reference Martin, Zappavigna, Dwyer, Martin and WangMartin et al., 2012, Reference Martin, Zappavigna, Dwyer and Cléirigh2013; Reference Martin and ZappavignaMartin & Zappavigna, 2016). This line of research has broadened the scope of forensic linguistics.

Reference Zappavinga and MartinZappavigna and Martin (2018) summarised the advantages of YJC as follows:

1. 1. Compared to traditional imprisonment, the conferencing format is more flexible and adaptable. The conference’s content can be adjusted according to specific cases to achieve the desired outcomes.

2. 2. The conferences provide an opportunity for victims to voice their concerns and have a direct impact on the outcomes of the case. This promotes a sense of empowerment and healing for the victims.

3. 3. The conferencing format encourages dialogue and communication between all parties involved, fostering understanding and empathy.

4. 4. Restorative justice aims to address the underlying causes of the offending behaviour, focusing on rehabilitation and reintegration rather than punishment.

This approach has positively reduced recidivism rates among young offenders (Reference Martin and ZappavignaMartin & Zappavigna, 2016). However, the effectiveness of restorative justice, particularly regarding young offenders’ genuine expression and engagement in the conferences, has been questioned. Some researchers have argued that there is a power imbalance in the conferences, with convenors exerting control over the discourse and young offenders feeling limited in their ability to express themselves authentically (Reference Martin, Zappavigna, Dwyer and CléirighMartin et al., 2013). This raises concerns about the true effectiveness of restorative justice practices in achieving its intended goals.

In China, the intersectional research between SFL and forensic linguistics is primarily conducted by Professor Yuan Chuanyou and his team at the GDUFS, and Professor Wang Zhenhua and his team at Shanghai Jiao Tong University. This section will focus on Yuan’s work, and Wang’s contributions will be introduced in the next section.

Professor Yuan has long been engaged in integrating SFL with forensic linguistics for interdisciplinary research, which can be labelled as ‘functional forensic discourse studies’. Before pursuing a doctoral degree in forensic linguistics, Yuan had extensively studied works and literature in functional linguistics, particularly Halliday’s Systemic Functional Grammar, which laid the theoretical foundation for his doctoral research. During his doctoral studies under the supervision of Professor Du Jingbang, he was fortunately mentored by Professor John Gibbons, who was then working at Hong Kong Baptist University and had introduced Martin’s recently proposed Appraisal System theory to him. Yuan applied this theory to the study of Chinese police interrogative discourse for his doctoral dissertation and published a monograph titled Avoiding Revictimization: A Study of Police Interrogative Speech (Reference YuanYuan, 2010).

After completing his doctoral degree, he continued to draw upon new theories of functional linguistics and apply them to lawyer discourse (Reference Yuan and LiaoYuan & Liao, 2010; Reference Yuan and HuYuan & Hu, 2011), as well as analysing appraisal resources in prosecutor discourse (Reference Yuan and HuYuan & Hu, 2012). In 2012, he was awarded a research grant from the National Social Science Foundation to study multimodal legal education discourse, with a particular focus on the study of anti-corruption discourse and the discourse of the rule of law (Reference LiuLiu, 2019a, Reference Liu2019b; Reference Yuan, He and LiuYuan et al., 2021; Reference Liu and YuanLiu & Yuan, 2022). He has participated in numerous international conferences on forensic linguistics and SFL, presenting on the multimodal features of anti-corruption and rule of law discourse in China. Professor Yuan qualified as a doctoral supervisor in 2013 and since 2014 he has enrolled twelve doctoral students in forensic linguistics. They have used the theoretical underpinnings of SFL to address various issues in Legal and Forensic Linguistics, such as Reference LiuLiu (2019) on the multimodal construction of ‘Rule of Law’ in Chinese anti-corruption discourse, Reference TaoTao (2018) on the discursive construction of presumption of innocence in legal news, Zheng (2019) on the discourse analysis of psychological correction in community corrections, Reference LuLu (2021) on the legal reasoning of judicial opinions, Reference WangWang (2023) on the genre of police interrogation discourse, Reference GuoGuo (2023) on the media reports of self-defence cases, and Reference LuoLuo (2023) on the tenor negotiation in community corrections discourse.

Professor Yuan’s ‘Community Corrections Discourse Studies in China’ is a practical research project initiated in 2015 to align forensic linguistics research with social needs. Drawing on the practical experience and expertise of Martin and his team’s research on YJC discourse in New South Wales, Australia, the project established the ‘Community Corrections Discourse Research and Service Platform’ in Guangzhou, which was jointly constructed by the GDUFS and the Guangzhou Bureau of Justice. Through this platform, a group of master’s and doctoral students conducted in-depth fieldwork and research in judicial institutions and multiple community correction service agencies, working in collaboration with frontline judicial social workers, and collecting a large amount of valuable first-hand data. The team members used the theoretical frameworks of SFL to study the linguistic and multimodal discourse features of judicial social workers and probationers and submitted multiple research reports to the Bureau of Justice, which were endorsed by the bureau leadership. To date, the team members have completed more than ten master’s theses and two doctoral dissertations and published multiple academic papers in domestic and international journals.

One of these projects, reported in Reference Zheng and YuanZheng and Yuan (2021), employed anthropological fieldwork and functional linguistic discourse analysis to analyse the discourse construction of the identity of judicial social workers. Based on the ‘specialisation’ dimension of Legitimation Code Theory, in conjunction with the Appraisal System, Zheng and Yuan proposed an analytical framework for the discursive construction of the identity of judicial social workers. The research showed that judicial social workers exhibit four identities in individual education conversations in community corrections: educators, managers, helpers, and coordinators. These four identities are constructed and reinforced by evaluative resources used by judicial social workers. Zheng and Yuan’s article provided judicial social workers with discursive choices that are in line with their identities, thereby improving the accuracy and effectiveness of individual education conversations in community corrections, and optimising educational and correctional work. An earlier article by Reference Zheng and YuanZheng and Yuan (2018) published in a law journal explored the multimodal discourse construction of the defendant’s identity in community corrections. Zheng (2019) also studied how supervisors use language and body language in their individual semantic repertoire to construct their own identities to influence the court’s judgement on the application of community correction for offenders.

Reference Luo and YuanLuo and Yuan (2019) studied the discourse of initial assessment in community corrections from the perspective of functional linguistic exchange structure, with the aim to reveal the exchange structure patterns and existing problems of social worker discourse, in order to provide social workers with more effective discourse choices and ideal discourse exchange structure models, and thus to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of the initial assessment. Reference Yuan and LuoYuan and Luo (2021) also probed deeper into the two exchange structures of risk assessment discourse in community corrections: K1^(K2 f) and K2^K1 patterns. Their research showed that judicial social workers need to enhance their language awareness, and probationers need more effective language choices to improve the accuracy and effectiveness of risk assessment. Further research results from this project were the doctoral dissertations by Zheng (2019) and Reference LuoLuo (2023), and additional research papers are expected in the near future. Hopefully, these will be of practical use in guiding the discourse practice of community corrections and contributing to the overall improvement of community corrections.

In addition to the research outcomes produced by this project, other research topics are of equal significance in terms of theoretical innovation and practical value. For instance, Reference LuLu (2021) examined, from a genre perspective, the discursive construction of legal reasoning in the high-quality judicial opinions of the US Supreme Court, addressing research questions regarding how legal reasoning is constructed through particulate, periodic, and prosodic structures, and offering a useful reference for Chinese judicial reform regarding judgements writing related to their legal reasoning. Reference GuoGuo (2023) studied the evaluation of media reports on self-defence cases, revealing the active role played by new media in disseminating the concept of justifiable defence and ingraining the ideology that ‘the law shall not compromise with lawlessness’ in people’s minds. It is an excellent doctoral dissertation, which was highly praised by the doctoral defence committee and Professor Martin, who mentored her while she was a visiting student at the University of Sydney.

During his tenure as the third President of the CAFL (2018–2022), Professor Yuan has engaged in promoting the development of forensic linguistics in China and collaborating with international forensic linguists by working as an Ordinary Member of the Executive Committee of the IAFL (2013–2017) and attending seven successive biennial conferences of the IAFL since 2009.

Through the efforts of Yuan and his colleagues, GDUFS successfully obtained the hosting rights for the 12th Biennial Conference on Forensic Linguistics in 2013 and successfully organised a remarkable conference, known as IAFL12 in 2015, receiving high praise from the international legal linguistics community.

IAFL12 was characterised by several notable ‘firsts’: it was the first time that IAFL held its biennial meetings in an Asian country, with an unprecedented scale, numerous expert invitations, intensive exchanges, and interactions between domestic and international scholars, and a wealth of academic content. It was the first time the conference walked into a Chinese court, allowing participants to observe a trial of an international case in China’s courtroom and listen to speeches by Chinese judges, providing insights into the evolution and reforms of China’s judicial system. This facilitated frequent exchange and integration between academia and the judicial community, promoting mutual understanding. It was the first time the conference was interviewed and featured on a provincial television station, with a televised interview program broadcast globally. This academic interview program, titled FACETIME, introduced the field of legal linguistics to audiences worldwide. Furthermore, the university’s leadership attached great importance to the conference, with the then president, Zhong Weihe, meeting the then president of the association, Edward Finegan, at the earliest convenience and expressing strong support from the university. Chen Jianping, the then deputy secretary of the university’s party committee, delivered a welcome speech, while Vice President Liu Jianda attended the welcome banquet and delivered a speech. Vice President Shi Youqi, a professor of law, delivered a keynote speech at the conference, introducing China’s path to legal construction, with a focus on the important concept of ‘rule of law’ from the Fourth Plenary Session of the 18th Central Committee, providing a refreshing perspective for domestic and international scholars.

In addition, the conference showcased another highlight by presenting local theories and research from GDUFS. This allowed the world to gain a better understanding of Professor Du Jinbang’s ‘Theory of Legal Discourse Information’ and Professor Yuan Chuanyou’s research in the new field of ‘multimodal public legal discourse’, meanwhile demonstrating GDUFS’s strength in legal translation and courtroom interpreting, as well as the outstanding research potential of the doctoral and master’s students.

3.2.4 Legal Discourse as a Social Process

Professor Wang Zhenhua is the executive director of the Martin Centre for Appliable Linguistics, which was set up at Shanghai Jiao Tong University in 2013 with the aim of fostering the dialectic of theory and practice that Halliday had envisioned as ‘appliable linguistics’. The Centre’s principal research foci include academic discourse, forensic linguistics, language typology, translation studies, and corpus linguistics. This research has been highlighted in a dedicated forum focusing on one of these areas each year. Since its inception, it has organised two international events on forensic linguistics, one being the International Conference on Appliable Linguistics and Legal Discourse held in 2016, and the most recent Symposium on Appliable Linguistics and Legal Discourse held jointly by the Martin Centre and the CAFL in 2023. The two academic events greatly enhanced the development of forensic linguistics in China. At these events, there were presentations by

• Edward Finegan, on Deposition Testimony by Expert Linguists in US Civil Litigation: A Challenging Genre

• Janet Ainsworth, on Linguistic Issues in the Law of Product Safety Warnings: How Linguistic Research Could Improve the Law’s Response to Dangerous Consumer Products

• Monwabisi K. Ralarala, on Transpreters’ Translations of Complainants’ Narratives as Evidence: Whose Version Goes to Court

• Wang Zhenhua, on ‘Human-Speech-Action’: As a Complex That Everyone Finds Hard to Walk Away With

• Yuan Chuanyou, on the Intersection between Functional Linguistics and Forensic Linguistics: The Functional Linguistic Approach to the Concepts of ‘Rule-by-Law’ and ‘Rule of Law’.

Professor Wang Zhenhua has made tremendous and indelible contributions. Wang studied at the University of Sydney, where he was mentored by Professor Martin, a renowned expert in SFL. During his time in Sydney, he was exposed to Martin’s Appraisal System and introduced it to China at an early stage (Reference WangWang, 2001). While studying in Sydney, he also came into contact with Australian forensic linguists such as Professors John Gibbons and Michael Walsh, who sparked his interest in forensic linguistics. He asked friends in China to send him Pan Qingyun’s Legal Linguistics and Wang Jie’s Legal Language Research, which greatly influenced him and led him onto the path of studying Legal and Forensic Linguistics. For many years, he has been committed to the integration of SFL and forensic linguistics, using functional linguistic theories and methods, particularly discourse semantics, as tools to analyse legal discourse/texts.

Professor Wang’s research on forensic linguistics, particularly his central ideas on ‘legal discourse as a social process’, is embodied in a series of papers funded by the Humanities and Social Sciences Research Innovation Project of Shanghai Jiao Tong University (‘Legal Discourse as a Social Process: A Perspective of Discourse Semantics’). These papers applied Martin’s discourse semantics theory to study different types of legal discourse, including legislative language and judicial discourse. The discourse semantics theory was initially proposed by Martin in 1992 and further developed and refined through collaboration with Rose in 2003 and 2007. This theory inherits Halliday’s classic SFL theory and elevates the study of systemic functions from the lexical-grammatical layer to the discourse semantics layer, focusing on constructing various semantic resources for discourse. The theory proposed six major systems at the discourse semantics level: negotiation, appraisal, ideation, conjunction, identification, and periodicity.

In this series of papers, Professor Wang and his co-authors defined social processes as the interactive process of people constantly making rational or irrational choices, establishing social relationships, forming alliances, and creating different factions and groups during their participation in social activities (Reference Wang and TianWang & Tian, 2017). Social processes were categorised into competition, conflict, adaptation, cooperation, and assimilation. The competition, conflict, adaptation, cooperation, and assimilation experienced by individuals within a legal context are often constructed in discourse and instantiated as various types of legal discourse. In other words, legal discourse is an instantiation of highly generalised social process types within a legal context. Through the analysis of appraisal, negotiation, identification, conjunction, periodicity, and ideation, this series of papers comprehensively examines the process of meaning presentation (ideational metafunctional perspective), meaning negotiation (interpersonal metafunctional perspective), and meaning weaving (textual metafunctional perspective) in legal discourse. Conflict, competition, adaptation, cooperation, and assimilation are realised in the process of meaning presentation, negotiation, and weaving. Language users achieve these social processes by making appropriate choices among the choices available in the six discourse semantic systems already mentioned.

The first paper in this series, Reference Wang and LiuWang and Liu (2014), provided a preliminary exploration of the concept of ‘legal discourse as a social process’. This paper adopted the framework of individuation and Appraisal theory within SFL to investigate the operational mechanisms of constructing social relationships through the individuation of discourse meanings from the perspective of attitude bond and interpersonal harmony in discourse semantics. The research showed that the process of individuation and constructing attitudes is the process of constructing interpersonal relationships. When attitudes are constructed by different individuals conflict, it may lead to interpersonal conflict. On the other hand, when attitudes tend to converge among different individuals, it is easier to achieve interpersonal harmony. Harmonious interpersonal relationships can be built by selecting appropriate discoursal resources, constructing and sharing attitudes, and establishing attitude bonds.

In the second paper of the series, Reference Wang and ZhangWang and Zhang (2015) further explicated the viewpoint of Legal Discourse as a Social Process, considering Legal Discourse as a Social Process formed by competition, conflict, compliance, cooperation, and assimilation. Guided by the theories of SFL, particularly Martin’s genre theory, the paper utilised the periodicity and identification systems at the discourse level as the analytical framework for studying the semantic organisation of legal discourse. It explored the five social processes in legal discourse and the patterns in which they are realised. The analysis revealed that legislative discourse pursues structural simplicity at the discourse level, while judicial discourse, especially oral discourse such as cross-examination, tends to be complex and subjective. These characteristics are closely related to the different social process goals to be achieved by different types of legal discourse.

The third and fourth papers in the series respectively studied legislative discourse and judicial discourse as social processes. Reference Wang and WangWang and Wang (2016) selected the Marriage Law of the People’s Republic of China as an example to explore the realisation of the five social processes of competition, conflict, compliance, cooperation, and assimilation in the legislative discourse from the perspective of ideational semantics (ideation system and conjunction system). They discussed how legal discourse regulates social processes and ultimately promotes social harmony through ideational semantics. The paper pointed out that as a social process, legal discourse regulates people’s choices, mediates competition, resolves conflicts, promotes compliance, cooperation, and assimilation, and ultimately achieves social harmony. Reference Tian and WangTian and Wang (2016) analysed the distribution of attitude resources in Chinese criminal defence speeches, considering legal discourse in a competitive social process, carrying a significant interpersonal semantics load. The paper examined the distributional characteristics of attitude resources from the perspective of the Appraisal System and found that the most used attitude resource is Judgement, followed by Appreciation and Affect. The paper argued that Judgement is a mandatory resource in the argumentation section, while Appreciation and/or Affect are optional.

Wang’s theory of ‘legal discourse as a social process’ was further developed in the fifth paper by Reference Wang and TianWang and Tian (2017), forming a discourse semantic view within the framework of SFL. The paper categorised social processes into differentiation-type and integration-type social processes. Differentiation-type social processes include competition and conflict, while integration-type social processes include compliance, cooperation, and assimilation. The paper then interpreted Legal Discourse as a Social Process from the perspective of the social semiotic view of SFL. In this process, there is competition, conflict, compliance, cooperation, and assimilation among legal subjects. The supervenient view of context and discourse semantics is employed to construct a research path to address the formation and realisation of these processes. The former functions as the theoretical scaffolding, and the latter provides specific analytic toolkits. It is argued that the study of Legal Discourse as a Social Process should not only consider the contextual constraints but also the meaning choice. Only in this way can people’s manipulation of legal discourses to realise communicative goals and intentions be comprehensively and thoroughly revealed.

In summary, within the paradigm of SFL, this series of five papers explored the realisation of competition, conflict, compliance, cooperation, and assimilation as social processes in legal discourse from six discourse semantic systems. They investigated how legal discourse achieves different social processes through semantic selection under the constraints (or influences) of social contexts, providing a research perspective of discourse semantics for the study of legal discourse and making significant contributions to Chinese forensic linguistics.

Wang Zhenhua has recently shifted his focus to the multimodal analysis of courtroom discourse. In this line of research, Reference Li and WangLi and Wang (2019) reviewed the relevant achievements in multimodal research on legal discourse and raised the three main topics in this field: the study of multimodal functions, the study of multimodal interaction, and the study of multimodal critical discourse analysis in legal discourse. The authors explored the problems and solutions regarding the theoretical foundation, research methods, and research perspectives in this field. Finally, the article combined the application of digital technology in judicial practice and provided an outlook on future research in this field. Reference Zhao and WangZhao and Wang (2022) focused on the interactivity between language and gesture in the context of lawyer identity construction by adopting the theoretical framework of the language/gesture composite communication system (Goldin-Meadow & McNeill, 1999) and paralanguage system (Reference Martin and ZappavignaMartin & Zappavigna, 2019). They proposed an analytical framework for constructing lawyer identity through observation and discourse semantic analysis. The research results showed that lawyers use language and paralanguage to construct three types of identities in court: expressers of litigation attitudes, maintainers of litigation positions, and enhancers of litigation viewpoints, and that the results suggested practical significance for the analysis and positioning of lawyer identity. Finally, Reference Qu and WangQu and Wang (2022) focused on the multimodality of conflict negotiation discourse. Drawing on the theoretical essence of SFL and social semiotics, they proposed a multimodal design framework for conflict negotiation discourse and applied it to analysing civil litigation cases in China. This framework integrated the analysis of the context, semantics, and lexicogrammar of conflict negotiation discourse and incorporated the process and rationale of multimodal discourse design. It added a multimodal feature analysis to the language negotiation framework and highlighted the subjectivity of symbol users. This study aimed to inspire more multimodal research on conflict negotiation and explored the design concepts from the perspectives of linguistics and semiotics, providing insights into the practice of conflict negotiation.

Wang Zhenhua has made significant contributions to the field of forensic linguistics, particularly in his notion of ‘legal discourse as a social process’ and his research in the area of multimodal analysis of courtroom discourse. His contributions have prepared the way for further research and have practical implications for the analysis and positioning of lawyer identity in forensic linguistics.

3.2.5 Empirical Studies on Language Evidence

As mentioned in the Introduction of this Element, China’s evidence law system has been imperfect. For a long time, the provisions on expert witnesses have been missing until recently when they were written into the Civil Procedure Law in the capacity of ‘persons with specialised knowledge’ or ‘people with expertise’ to act as ‘expert supporters’ or ‘expert assistants’ in court, but there is no mention of linguistic experts as people with expertise; therefore, it is extremely rare for them to testify in court or give expert opinions. Despite these difficulties, there have been some attempts by legal and forensic linguists to contribute to offering language evidence in real cases. A case in point is Yang v. Hu, a reputation infringement case involving language evidence.

A young actress, Hu Xiaoqiong (the defendant and appellant), met a director named Yang Yichao (the plaintiff and respondent) in late 2005 and sought a role in a drama directed by Yang, with whom she was in contact over dinner and text messages. In August 2006, Hu was not cast in the drama. Then Hu opened a blog on Sina (a Chinese social media/blog platform), publishing articles that alleged that Yang had used his position as director to ask Hu to drink with him on several occasions, and that he had sent her sexually suggestive messages, asking her to have sex with him as a condition for her casting. After Hu refused, Yang retracted his promise. In her articles, Hu lashed out at this ‘subterfuge’ between actresses and male directors in the entertainment industry. Yang issued a statement accusing Hu of slander, to which she continued to respond with articles and interviews with journalists accusing Yang of shamelessness and hypocrisy. Yang also spoke to journalists, accusing Hu of speculating for ulterior motives, and later took the case to court because she had infringed his right to reputation. The trial court asked Hu to prove the content of her articles. She submitted to the court as evidence the text messages between Yang and her from the communications company.

The text message evidence between Hu and Yang reads (translated) as follows.

1. (1) Hu: You’ve been busy lately, right?

2. (2) Yang: Yes, I’ve been busy, but it doesn’t stop me from thinking about you!

3. (3) Hu: Haha, then one day when you are free to come out and get together.

4. (4) Yang: I don’t want to go out, I want you to come in!

5. (5) Hu: That’s too profound! I am too stupid to understand it!

6. (6) Yang: Haha, then you don’t understand.

7. (7) Hu: Is your play still on for August 15th?

8. (8) Yang: Of course, it’s not kidding!

9. (9) Hu: Oh that’s good! Do I have any hope of working with you?

10. (10) Yang: How can we work together if you don’t come in?

11. (11) Hu: I am rather obtuse, what do you mean by ‘coming in’?

12. (12) Yang: Think about it, it’s easy!

13. (13) Hu: It’s hard to think! Why don’t you just tell me directly?

14. (14) Yang: Just come to my ‘thinking’ and let my ‘wanting’ come to life!

Neither party disputes the truthfulness of the content. Hu argued that the words were sexually suggestive. Yang argued that this was his flirtatious language used as a poet, that ‘wanting you to come in’ was a way to get Hu to bring money into the production, and that ‘my “wanting”’ was synonymous with this.

The trial court (Beijing Dongcheng District People’s Court) held that the content mentioned was truthful text. However, from the perspective of the general public perception of society, the language of the plaintiff is too intimate, as well as obscure, and may cause ambiguity. But this was not enough to find that the plaintiff issued a sexual innuendo to the defendant. The defendant was found liable for an infringement of the libel law. It was decided that Hu should delete the infringing articles, apologise to Yang, and pay compensation of 10,000 yuan for moral damages. Then Hu appealed to the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court, which held that Hu had failed to provide substantive evidence of the content of her articles. The content of the aforementioned text messages, which were verified to be true, was not sufficient to conclude that Yang had made sexual advances to Hu. The Court dismissed Hu’s appeal and upheld the trial court’s verdict.

After the initial trial, Hu commissioned the Legal Language Research Centre of China University of Political Science and Law to conduct a ‘semantic identification’ of whether the text messages were sexually suggestive. The ‘linguistic evidence analysis’ made by three experts from the said Centre states that ‘a man saying, “I miss you” to a woman of his age or younger than himself is no longer a thought in the usual sense, but a ‘want’ with a special desire for the opposite sex, especially when coupled with an intimate title such as “dear”’. The ‘verbal seduction’ is evident. In response to Yang’s interpretation of ‘come in’ as bringing in funds, the analysis notes that

The opinion points to ‘let my “wanting” come to life’ as a further sexual innuendo, and ‘It is the hidden nature of Yang’s communicative purpose in language that leads him to express it through the linguistic means of suggestion.’ The conclusion is that there was ‘sexual innuendo’ in Yang’s verbal solicitation of Hu. Although commissioned by Hu, this opinion is not neutral but still represents an opinion. Hu submitted the opinion as language evidence to the appellate court but it was not admitted by the court.

In June 2007, at the First National Seminar on Analysis, Authentication and Judicial Application of Language Evidence, chaired by Professor Wang Jie, Director of the Centre, a group of legal language scholars and forensic linguists presented papers on the text message evidence in the Yang v. Hu reputation infringement case. The scholars each used relevant theories of linguistics and communication, such as contextual analysis, discourse analysis, implication analysis, and ambiguity analysis, to analyse the text message evidence. They came to the same conclusion: that the text messages do contain ‘sexual innuendo’.

Based on this case, several academic papers have discussed text messages as language evidence. Reference LouLou (2007) analysed two pieces of verbal evidence in this case by applying knowledge of linguistics (lexicography, semantics, stylistics, and rhetoric) and communication (speech communication and mass communication) and concluded that (1) in the first instance, the plaintiff’s mobile phone text message to the defendant was sexually suggestive; and (2) in the petition for appeal, the defence’s argument that ‘weblogs (blogs)’ are the same as traditional logs is inaccurate. Instead, the defendant’s blog is of the nature of mass communication. In another paper, Reference ZouZou (2008) advocated the concept of language evidence and its semantic examination. She first classified the types of language evidence and deemed the text messages in the case to be valid. She then introduced semantic examination as a linguistic method to examine the contents of the language evidence, including the identification of its nature and purpose. She further conducted a semantic analysis of the language evidence by employing Grice’s Conversational Implicature theory and Speech Act theory to show how disparate interpretations of the language evidence have become the critical cause for judicial disputes. She finally called for judges to consult linguists’ analyses of language evidence, and for a rational and proper judge to guarantee judicial fairness and improve judicial public credibility. The paper by Reference ZhangZhang (2007) focused on the contextual factors, such as time, relationship, and power difference between the disputants in interpreting the text evidence itself. Zhang proposed a contextual analysis of linguistic evidence in the hope that it could be a reference for interpreting such linguistic evidence. Reference WeiWei (2008), taking this case as an example, further explored the issue of the burden of proof for the truth of facts of infringing statements in reputation cases, the paradox in the burden of proof, the standard of proof of evidence, and the question of how to give support to just and critical statements in reputation cases by questioning certain issues in the trial and judgement of this case. Reference WangWang (2011) also made a detailed speech-chain or turn-taking analysis of the text messages and found that they did contain ‘sexual innuendo’.

Reference Zhang and WangZhang and Wang’s (2022) study of the normalisation of expert opinion based on linguistic evidence demonstrated that an expert support person is often confused with the roles of a lawyer, expert, and witness. This confusion of roles has created a unique dual system of expert supporters and appraisers, with the effect that the opinions provided by expert supporters are considered to lack legal validity and are generally not adopted by judges as the basis for deciding cases. This study touched on the dilemma that arises with the adoption of expert supporters’ opinions as the object of research, focusing on the court trial process, and analysing the reasons for this dilemma and confusion, and possible ways to avoid them. In analysing the expert opinion on linguistic evidence in the case of Beijing Qihu Technology Co. Ltd. v. Wang Xiaochuan, Zhang and Wang’s paper focused on the meanings of ‘regret’ and its Chinese translations, and discussed how to regulate expert opinions and what position expert supporters should adopt in a trial.

Reference Cheng and WangCheng and Wang (2017) introduced the linguistic evidence and expert testimony practised in common law jurisdictions, particularly in the United States. They considered its implications for the newly introduced ‘person with expertise’ in the revised Civil Procedure Law and Criminal Procedure Law in China, which allowed ‘the person with expertise’ to appear in court and render expert opinions. The paper explored civil and criminal cases tried by the federal courts of the United States from four perspectives: manifestations of ‘linguistics evidence’, qualifications to proffer expert testimony, analytical methods adopted by expert witnesses, and judges’ standards and discretions on linguistic evidence. The authors finally drew implications that ‘[T]hough there is a disparity in systems of law and rules of evidence between the PRC and the United States, the comparatively mature judicial experience of the United States is still able to enlighten the future orientation of the quasi-counterpart (“person with expertise”) in the judicial practices of the PRC.’ (Reference Cheng and WangCheng & Wang, 2017: 196).

3.2.6 Legal Translation and Interpreting Studies

Legal translation and interpreting, described as ‘an act of communication in the mechanism of law’ (Reference SarcevicŠarčević, 1997: 3–4), has played a crucial role in facilitating cross-language, cross-jurisdiction, and cross-cultural communication in China (Reference Xu, Yu, Wagner and MatulewskaXu &Yu, 2023). Its significance has become even more pronounced as China endeavours to share stories about its legal system with the world. Taking a comprehensive perspective, Reference Xu, Yu, Wagner and MatulewskaXu and Yu (2023) thoroughly examined the advancements in legal translation and interpreting in China, exploring its role in modernising the Chinese legal system, promoting legal exchanges, and fostering mutual understanding of legal cultures. They discussed recent findings related to theoretical principles and frameworks of legal translation, the protection of language rights for ethnic minorities and foreigners in court, and efforts to standardise legal translation and interpreting practices. In this section, we will first provide an overview of the main research topics in the field of legal translation, offering a comprehensive understanding of the current status quo. Subsequently, we will present the DIT-based theoretical exploration of legal translation and interpreting in China.

4.2.1 Cyberbullying Language Research

Cyberbullying, also known as cyber harassment or online bullying, has emerged as a significant global social issue. Referred to as the first pandemic of the twenty-first century (Reference JacobsJacobs, 2020), cyberbullying has inflicted detrimental physical and psychological effects on its victims, including anxiety, depression, and suicidal ideation (Reference Hinduja and PatchinHinduja et al., 2008; Reference Klomek, Sourander and GouldKlomek et al., 2010; Reference Sampasa-Kanyinga, Roumeliotis and XuSampasa-Kanyinga et al., 2014; Reference Miller and KimberlyMiller &Kimberly, 2017).

Cyberbullying is commonly defined as ‘an aggressive and intentional act perpetrated by an individual or group, utilising electronic means of communication, repeatedly and over time, against a victim who may struggle to defend themselves’ (Reference Smith, Mahdavi and CarvalhoSmith et al., 2008). Key defining properties of cyberbullying include intent, repetition, power imbalance, direct and indirect forms of bullying, and the perception of the victim (Reference Ira-Katharina and PetermannIra-Katharina & Petermann, 2018).

While young students are commonly perceived as the most vulnerable targets of cyberbullying, adults can also fall victim to online harassment. For instance, in July 2022, a girl with pink hair faced relentless cyberbullying after sharing a video online in which she joyfully announced her acceptance into a prestigious master’s program while her grandfather lay in a hospital bed. Hurtful comments like ‘good girls don’t dye their hair pink’ and ‘pink hair is not suitable for serious girls’ haunted her, ultimately leading to her tragic suicide six months later.

Previous studies on cyberbullying have predominantly approached the issue from sociological, psychological, and computer science perspectives, focusing on its nature, detection, and prevention, while paying limited attention to the linguistic aspects of cyberbullying. However, language, acting as an ‘invisible fist’ in cyberbullying, serves as vital evidence for identifying, combating, and regulating such behaviour (Reference XuXu, 2020). Examining one of the most high-profile cyberbullying incidents in China, Reference XuXu (2020) analysed the linguistic features on a weblog. In addition to negative adjectives, Xu observed the use of nouns like ‘beast’ and pronouns such as ‘it’, which are typically employed to describe animals, being applied to describe the victims of cyberbullying. Considering the context-sensitive nature of cyberbullying language, greater attention should be directed towards implicit linguistic expressions and linguistic patterns that could serve as indicators for detecting cyberbullying.

Drawing on the context model proposed by Reference van Dijkvan Dijk (2008), Reference XuXu (2024) analysed the various roles assumed by participants in cyberbullying, based on data collected from three litigated cyberbullying cases in China. She highlighted that seemingly disconnected posts and comments online are interconnected within the cyberbullying discourse. Therefore, carefully examining the textual relationships between posts and comments can provide insights into participant interactions and assist courts in attributing responsibilities to bullies and their supporters based on their roles in the cyberbullying dynamic.

In addition to studies on the features of cyberbullying acts and participant roles, there are also investigations into the intentions of perpetrators in cyberbullying. Reference ZhangZhang (2020) examined flaming language on the social media site WeChat in China, which may incite crimes or moral wrongs. In order to reveal the flaming nature of WeChat accounts, this paper analysed twenty-six suspect articles from a Chinese WeChat subscription account from the perspectives of corpus linguistics and pragmatics. This paper found that linguistic clues to flaming (cyberbullying) could be recognised and revealed in terms of keywords, semantic prosodies, and speech acts. It also discovered that the language crime of incitement requires only the inciter’s illocutionary act, that is, intention, rather than the outcome of the incitement, and that the perpetrator’s intentions heavily influence the speech act of inciting hatred.

Despite the widespread occurrence of cyberbullying globally, very few cases result in legal action. One of the main challenges is the lack of relevant laws and regulations to address this issue. Recognising this problem, many countries have taken steps to enact legislation specifically targeting cyberbullying. For instance, in the United States, nearly every state has either introduced new sections or amended existing laws to combat cyberbullying. In China, a new article was added to the Law of the People’s Republic of China on the Protection of Minors in 2020. This article explicitly prohibits organisations or individuals from insulting, slandering, threatening, or engaging in other cyberbullying acts against minors through various forms of online communication, including text, images, audio, and videos (Article 77). However, it is unfortunate that this article only mentions the option for parents to report cyberbullying incidents to the platform and request the removal of offending content.

While one option to tackle cyberbullying is to filter out offensive words by creating blacklists, it is essential to note that seemingly neutral words and phrases can be used in a derogatory manner within specific contexts. Therefore, collaborative efforts are necessary to decipher the linguistic features that define cyberbullying, establish and update flexible blacklists, and identify effective linguistic parameters for detecting cyberbullying (Reference Xu and TrzaskawkaXu & Trzaskawka, 2021). Only through such efforts can future studies on automated cyberbullying detection and legislative measures regarding cyberbullying become more practical and effective.

4.2.2 Internet Court Discourse Analysis

The rapid advancement of the information age, particularly the integration of Internet technology and the justice system, has sparked a global interest in digitising justice. Various ‘Internet Plus’ trial modes have been developed to leverage Internet technology in streamlining litigation activities. Examples include online mediation programs in Singapore (Reference Cole and BlankleyCole & Blankly, 2006) and video link testimonies in Canada (Reference GluzmanGluzman, 2018). In 2017, the Hangzhou Internet Court was established, followed by the Beijing Internet Court and Guangzhou Internet Court in 2018, making them the world’s first batch of Internet courts (Reference ZhouZhou, 2017).

Adhering to the principle of ‘handling online disputes online’, Internet courts in China handle cases related to the Internet within their jurisdiction. They provide a comprehensive online dispute resolution service, ensuring that the entire process, from case filing and evidence examination to hearings, mediation, adjudication, and judgement enforcement, is conducted online. Consequently, Internet courts are tasked with exploring new avenues for cyber governance and innovating judicial practices in the information era (Reference ZhouZhou, 2017).

Internet courts have introduced several new modes of litigation, such as combined online trials, demonstrative online trials, and asynchronous trials (Reference JingJing, 2022). These trial modes offer advantages such as reducing judicial costs, improving efficiency, and enhancing accessibility to justice. However, as pioneers in cyber justice, Internet courts in China face numerous challenges. For instance, when justice is conducted online (Reference DuDu, 2016), it remains questionable whether litigants have a better opportunity to express their true needs and have their voices heard and emotions felt in Internet courts (Reference SungSung, 2020).

Preliminary linguistic studies have been conducted to uncover the dynamics within Internet courts in China. From a semiotic perspective, Reference Zheng and WangZheng and Wang (2021) compared the physical courtroom with the cyber courtroom in terms of visual elements and layout. They found that traditional semiotic resources in physical courtrooms, such as the elevated bench and face-to-face arrangement of litigants’ tables, are marginalised or even replaced by new visual elements and patterns in Internet courts. Consequently, the traditional sense of authority, legitimacy, rationality, and hierarchy associated with physical courtroom settings may diminish. In contrast, the online courtroom’s fresh image contributed to perceptions of accessibility, openness, and equality in Internet courts.

Similarly, Reference XuXu (2024) explored the (de)construction of judges’ identities in Internet courts from a semiotic perspective. She examined how judges’ traditional centralised identity is semiotically deconstructed, while new identities, such as troubleshooters and procedural adjustors, are constructed. Her data analysis revealed that judges’ centralised dominating identity is jointly deconstructed by a variety of semiotic resources, including the decentralised lineal display of judges’ image on the screen, various background images of parties that introduce daily discourse into the institutional one, and parties’ interruptions, questions, and suggestions. However, her analysis also found that the use of inclusive ‘we’ and flexible change of speakers depict judges’ concerns, understanding, and tolerance for parties, implicitly constructing judges’ new identities as troubleshooters and procedural adjustors.

Empowered by technologies like big data, cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and blockchain, Internet courts are continuously innovating litigation processes and judicial operations in the information era. As an increasing number of unrepresented litigants appear online in Internet courts, it becomes crucial to study how judges can guide lay participants through online litigation without sacrificing efficiency (Reference XuXu, 2021). The impact of new technologies on the justice system is unavoidable (Reference JingJing, 2022). Therefore, it is important to conduct linguistic analyses of Internet court discourse and explore how ‘justice for all’ can be linguistically realised online in smart courts.

By delving into the linguistic aspects of Internet court discourse, researchers can gain insights into online justice’s unique features and challenges. Semiotic analyses, as demonstrated by Reference Zheng and WangZheng and Wang (2021) and Reference XuXu (2024), shed light on the visual and symbolic representations within Internet courts, revealing shifts in power dynamics and the construction of new judicial identities. These studies highlight the potential for significant changes in the digital realm’s perception and experience of justice.

Furthermore, linguistic analyses can help identify potential issues and areas for improvement within Internet court proceedings. For example, the question of whether litigants can effectively express their needs and have their voices heard in online settings remains a concern (Reference SungSung, 2020). Examining the linguistic interactions and discourse patterns can provide valuable insights into how communication dynamics may impact the fairness and effectiveness of Internet court proceedings.

Additionally, linguistic analyses can contribute to developing guidelines and best practices for Internet court proceedings. By examining language use, including inclusive pronouns and flexible speaker roles, judges can better understand and address the parties’ needs, facilitating a more collaborative and supportive environment.

4.2.3 Authorship Analysis and Expert Assistance System in China

Authorship analysis serves the purpose of identifying the author of a given text (authorship identification) or providing demographic or psychological group features of the author of an anonymous text to narrow down the scope of the investigation (authorship profiling). The concept of idiolect, which refers to a distinct and individual version of the language, enables authorship analysis by manifesting itself through unique and idiosyncratic choices in texts (Reference CoulthardCoulthard, 2004: 432). However, it is important to note that detecting consistency and determining distinctiveness requires a substantial and diverse body of text before these idiolect features become noticeable or measurable (Reference Grant, Coulthard, May and Sousa-SilvaGrant, 2021: 559).

Authorship analysis has been extensively utilised in various cases in common law countries. Forensic linguists are often called upon to provide expert opinions based on their observations of the frequency or rarity of specific linguistic features in the texts under examination (Reference Coulthard, Coulthard, May and SilvaCoulthard, 2021: 529). Two distinct methodologies, namely the cognitive and stylistic approaches (Reference GrantGrant, 2022), are commonly employed in authorship analysis, with forensic stylistics being a widely used technique that utilises linguistic analysis of writing style for authorship identification (Reference McMenamin, Coulthard, May and Sousa-SilvaMcMenamin, 2021: 539), despite certain limitations.

However, in China, expert opinions on legal language are not admissible in court. Nevertheless, there have been court rulings on plagiarism in literary and translated works where authorship analysis could have played a significant role. One such case is the Qiong Yao v. Yu Zheng (2015) copyright infringement case. In this instance, the plaintiff, Qiong Yao, a renowned writer, accused Yu Zheng, a well-known director, of plagiarism. To support her claim, the plaintiff enlisted the assistance of Wang Hailin, an experienced screenwriter, as an expert assistant to provide opinions on whether the disputed script involved plagiarism. These expert opinions were incorporated into the main text of the court judgement, ultimately contributing to the plaintiff’s victory.

A more recent case occurred in 2023, where a man in China was brutally killed and preserved in a refrigerator by his wife (the defendant) for over fifteen months. Astonishingly, even after the victim’s death, the defendant continued to send messages to his parents and update his social media accounts, and no one suspected anything unusual. In a further twist, the defendant later deceived the victim’s parents of 200,000 yuan. Amidst public outrage over the defendant’s heartless actions, a pressing question arises: if ordinary citizens possessed even a basic understanding of authorship and were attuned to idiolect, how might the outcome have differed? At the very least, the victim’s parents could have detected abnormal messages, alerted the authorities much earlier, and potentially avoided financial losses.

While expert opinions on legal language are not currently admissible in Chinese courts, research interest in authorship analysis has never stopped. For instance, Reference ZhangZhang (2020) conducted a study exploring methods for identifying authors of short texts by examining features in pragmatics, discourse semantics, and discourse information for authorship attribution in Chinese microblogs. The study utilised a set of twenty-eight microblogs written by four authors, each contributing seven articles. Experimental, textual analysis, and statistical methods were employed to test and attribute all possible eleven combinations of the four authors. The findings reveal that five distinct combinations of values extracted from the fields of pragmatics, discourse semantics, and discourse information were able to significantly differentiate all eleven discriminative combinations of the four authors. Consequently, it was concluded that these extracted features in pragmatics, discourse semantics, and discourse information could effectively distinguish microblogs authored by different individuals, with a discrimination accuracy rate ranging from 85.7 per cent to 100 per cent. Based on these results, the text-based classifier for the four authors demonstrated statistical validity and applicability to authorship attribution in other types of Chinese short texts.

Discourse Information Theory presents a fresh perspective in the realm of authorship analysis. Drawing upon the DIT, young scholars have begun to analyse the stylistic features of short messages, literary works, and anonymous tip-off letters from the standpoint of discourse information (Reference LuoLuo, 2012; Reference CuiCui, 2013; Reference XiongXiong, 2016; Reference ZhangZhang, 2020). They aim to identify discourse information features that could serve as parameters in authorship analysis. This approach opens new avenues for exploring the relationship between language use and authorship.

Future studies in this field could focus on assessing the reliability of discourse information parameters in authorship analysis and consider incorporating the Likelihood Ratio technique in drawing conclusions. In recent years, scholars like Zhang Shaomin have utilised experimental methods to simulate language evidence within legal contexts and have achieved some success in analysing suspicious text authors. It is hoped that her research, along with other endeavours, will garner recognition and attention from the legal community, further advancing the field of authorship analysis.

In the field of authorship analysis, expert opinions play a crucial role in litigation, especially when dealing with complex and specialised issues that are beyond the knowledge of judges, lawyers, and the parties involved. In China, the legal system allows for the engagement of expert assistants, sometimes referred to as Chinese ‘expert witnesses’, to provide opinions on professional matters and strengthen the persuasiveness of the parties’ arguments. Although the rules regarding expert assistants need further improvement, they can still be utilised effectively in authorship analysis.

In China, ‘persons with specialised knowledge’ are considered a distinct category of litigation participants. Unlike ordinary witnesses, these individuals possess expertise in specific professional areas and are called upon to make statements in court. However, it is important to note that their opinions are treated as statements from the parties rather than traditional witness testimonies. The costs associated with their appearance in court are borne by the parties who request their involvement. As a result, they do not possess the same level of neutrality as expert witnesses in common law systems.

In the United States, expert witnesses are permitted to provide opinions or other forms of testimony to assist the fact-finder in understanding scientific, technical, or specialised evidence. Similarly, in England and Australia, expert witnesses have specific duties to the court that supersede their obligations to the parties involved in the litigation process. In China, the system of persons with specialised knowledge, also known as expert assistants, was first established in 2001 and subsequently elevated to the level of basic law in civil litigation. The highest judicial authorities have clarified that the role of expert assistants is to assist the parties by providing opinions on specialised issues or cross-examining expert opinions. They do not serve as ‘professional assistants’ to the judge and are distinct from the court’s expert appraisers. This positioning allows the parties to enhance their litigation capabilities by utilising the expertise of professionals in their favour.

Currently, in China, there has been a significant increase in the number of experts testifying in court, particularly in fields such as forensic pathology, forensic clinical identification, forensic psychiatry, DNA identification, handwriting identification, seal identification, and writing formation time identification, but not in the field of forensic authorship analysis. China’s civil and criminal procedural laws have incorporated elements of the expert witness system from European and American legal systems, allowing for the presence of expert supporters or expert assistants. These legal provisions enable the cross-examination of expert opinions by expert witnesses. For example, Article 82 of the Civil Procedure Law allows parties to request the appearance of a person with specialised knowledge to provide an opinion on expert opinions or professional issues. Similarly, Article 197 of the Criminal Procedure Law grants the same right to the public prosecutor, parties, defence, and litigation agents to call upon a person with specialised knowledge to provide an opinion on appraisal opinions made by experts.

The presence of expert assistants in court proceedings has greatly facilitated the development of domestic judicial experts testifying in court. Provisions such as Articles 83 and 84 of the Several Provisions of the Supreme People’s Court on Evidence in Civil Proceedings (2019) outline the process for applying for the appearance of a person with specialised knowledge. Written applications containing the relevant information and purpose of the application must be submitted to the court. The court has the discretion to grant or deny the application. Once granted, the person with expertise appears in court, and the judge has the authority to question them.

In conclusion, utilising expert assistants or persons with specialised knowledge has become integral to the Chinese legal system. While forensic linguistics is not recognised as specialised knowledge, and forensic authorship analysis is not admissible, we are confident in improving the rules and regulations pertaining to linguists as expert assistants. Their involvement can significantly strengthen the parties’ arguments and enhance their litigation capabilities. The presence of linguistic expert assistants contributes to a more comprehensive and effective authorship analysis process in China’s legal proceedings, and this is also supported by their ability to provide opinions and cross-examine expert testimonies.

4.2.4 Speaker Identification and Evidence of Forensic Phonetics in China

Speaker identification, considered more ‘scientific’ than authorship analysis and expert opinions, is highly recognised by law. Scholars in China have been translating the works of Western researchers and conducting domestic research in the Chinese legal context.

Reference Jessen, Cao and WangJessen et al. (2010) provided an overview of forensic phonetics, with a focus on speaker identification as its core task. Speaker profiling and classification are used when the offender has been recorded but no suspect has been found. Auditory speaker identification becomes relevant when no speech recording of the offender is available. It can involve familiar-speaker identification or unfamiliar-speaker identification, and in the latter case, a voice line-up or voice parade can be conducted. When recordings of both the offender and a suspect are available, an expert in forensic speech analysis performs a voice comparison. Research issues and domains in voice comparison analysis include the Bayesian approach, the Likelihood Ratio, formant frequency measurements, non-analytic perception, Exemplar Theory, forensic automatic speaker identification, and the interaction between different methods.

Reference Wang, Li and CaoWang et al. (2012) introduced the concept of the voiceprint, which refers to the image of speech analysed and displayed through spectrograms. It is metaphorically referred to as voiceprint in forensic science, resembling fingerprints. Voiceprint now refers to the collection of sound characteristics that serve as evidence in litigation. Voiceprint identification is an interdisciplinary field that applies knowledge from linguistics, phonetics, physiology, psychology, physics, computer science, and statistics. It involves comparing and analysing auditory and spectral features of evidence sounds with known sounds to determine if they originate from the same source. It also involves comprehensive analysis to determine the nature or source of the sound. This specialised technical method provides evidence for judicial activities and clues for investigative activities.

Reference French, Cao and LeiFrench et al. (2019) reviewed developments in forensic speaker comparison in the UK, highlighting milestones and changes in methodology, conclusion frameworks, regulation of forensic phoneticians, and the development of reference databases. Forensic voice comparison, also known as voiceprint or speaker identification, typically involves comparing and identifying speech and speech patterns in criminal recordings with known suspect recordings.

In China, voiceprint identification can be broadly or narrowly defined. In the narrow sense, it refers to speaker identification or forensic voice comparison. Due to differences in terminology between domestic and international judicial practices, the term ‘声纹鉴定’ (voiceprint identification) is widely used in China instead of a literal translation of the original term ‘forensic speaker comparison’. The major research in this area is summarised in Table 2.

Cao Honglin, an expert appraiser, has been involved in court appearances related to voiceprint and image/video identification. He has contributed to the field with his expertise and has been recognised for his work. He is currently leading a research project to investigate the development of domestic voice identification.

In summary, speaker identification and evidence of forensic phonetics play a significant role in the Chinese legal context. Scholars and experts are actively researching and applying these techniques in courts, providing valuable evidence for judicial activities, and contributing to the development of the field.