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

近年来，社会法学学者越来越多地转向对辩论语言的分析，以更好地理解法律和法律程序是如何运作的。有的关注法律论证的文化逻辑，有的关注叙事的结构，有的关注演讲风格的形式属性。在法律背景下的讨论中强调的一个要素是，讨论的结构因讨论的功能而异，特别是，事实调查和评估在法律程序中看起来非常不同。这一项目将在印度的跨文化法律研究中考察语言顺序与事实发现和评估之间的关系。有人认为，事实调查和评估是两个不同的职能，与之相关的讨论有不同的顺序。具体地说，该项目考察了在法律环境中轮流发言是否与事实调查有关，重叠发言是否与评估有关。为了检验讨论的顺序因目标而异的假设，我们将分析和比较两个印度种姓的议会争端解决决定。这两个种姓有着相似的文化背景，但其理事会在诉讼中涉及事实调查的程度有所不同。一个理事会专注于评估，事实很少有争议；另一个理事会更有可能包含不熟悉争端事实的参与者。将使用标准的话语分析方法，包括对论点的录音，以及对背景数据和次要数据的观察、访谈和分析。这项研究应该会增加我们对语言顺序如何与争议和争议解决相关的理解。印度的情况允许对“正式”和“非正式”与争端处理之间的关系进行有控制的比较。此外，这项研究将对法律人类学、话语分析以及对印度社会形态和文化模式的理解做出有价值的贡献。

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.//