Fact-finding Evaluation and the Ordering of Speaking Turns in Legal Settings

法律环境中的事实调查评估和发言顺序

• 批准号: 8918678
• 负责人: Robert Hayden
• 金额: $ 6.87万
• 依托单位: University of Pittsburgh
• 依托单位国家: 美国
• 项目类别: Standard Grant
• 财政年份: 1991
• 资助国家: 美国
• 起止时间: 1991-02-01 至 1994-01-31
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=8918678&HistoricalAwards=false
• 关键词: Fact; finding; Evaluation; Ordering; Speaking

In recent years, sociolegal scholars have turned increasingly to the analysis of the language of disputing in order to better understand how law and legal processes work. Some have concentrated on the cultural logic of legal arguments, some have focused on the structure of narrative, and others have been concerned with the formal attributes of speaking styles. The one element stressed in discourse in legal settings is that the structure of the discussion varies with the function of the discussion and, in particular, that fact-finding and evaluation look very different in legal proceedings. This project will look at the relationship between the ordering of speech and fact-finding and evaluation in a cross-cultural study of law in India. It is argued that fact-finding and evaluation are distinct functions, and discussions associated with each have a distinct order. Specifically, the project examines whether speaking-in-turn in legal settings is associated with fact-finding and overlapping speech is associated with evaluation. To test the hypothesis that the ordering of discussion varies by goals, council dispute resolution decisions in two Indian castes will be analyzed and compared. The two castes are of similar cultural background but their councils vary in the degree of fact-finding involved in proceedings. One council focuses on evaluation and the facts are rarely in dispute; the other council is more likely to contain participants unfamiliar with the facts of the dispute. Standard methods of discourse analysis involving audio recording of arguments will be used along with observations, interviews, and analysis of contextual and secondary data. This study should add to our understanding of how the ordering of speech relates to disputing and dispute resolution. The India context permits controlled comparison of the relationship between "formality" and "informality" and dispute processing. In addition, this research will make valuable contributions to the anthropology of law, discourse analysis, and understanding of the social forms and cultural patterns in India.//

近年来，社会法学家越来越多地转向 分析辩论的语言，以便更好地 了解法律和法律的程序如何运作。 有些人 集中在法律的论点的文化逻辑，有些人有 专注于叙事的结构，其他人已经 与说话风格的形式特征有关的。 所述一 在法律的背景下，话语中强调的要素是， 讨论的结构随着会议的功能而变化。 讨论，特别是实况调查和评价， 在法律的诉讼中看起来非常不同。 这个项目将着眼于排序之间的关系 在一个跨文化的， 在印度学习法律。 有人认为，事实调查和 评价是不同的职能， 每个都有不同的顺序。 具体而言，该项目 检查在法律的设置中轮流发言是否与 与事实调查和重叠的讲话是与 评价 为了验证这个假设， 讨论因目标、理事会争议解决决定而异 在两个印度种姓将进行分析和比较。 两 种姓具有相似的文化背景，但其理事会各不相同 在程序中涉及的事实调查的程度。 一 理事会侧重于评估，事实很少在 争议;另一个理事会更有可能包含参与者 不熟悉争议的事实。 的标准方法 话语分析涉及录音的论点将是 沿着观察、采访和分析 上下文和次要数据。 这项研究应该增加我们对如何排序的理解， 演讲涉及争议和争议解决。 印度 上下文允许控制比较 “正式”和“非正式”以及争端处理。 在 此外，本研究还将为 法律人类学，话语分析，以及对 印度的社会形态和文化模式。