Abstract
As a highly institutionalized language practice field, the criminal trial not only sees the judge’s discourse as a tool for advancing the procedure but also as the core medium for the operation of judicial power and the realization of justice. Metadiscourse, as “discourse about discourse”, is a key language strategy for judges to organize trials, construct facts, demonstrate authority, and fulfill social functions. Based on Hyland’s metadiscourse theory and combining discourse analysis and functional linguistics methods, this study conducts an empirical analysis of the transcribed materials of the “Chen Benhai Intentional Homicide Case” tried by the Dazu District People’s Court of Chongqing. It systematically examines the types and functions of metadiscourse used by judges at various stages of criminal trials. The findings reveal that the judge employs interactive metadiscourse (such as frame markers and evidentials) to rigorously control procedures and construct factual narratives; they demonstrate judicial authority, maintain courtroom order, and fulfill educational and admonitory functions through interactive metadiscourse (such as self-mentions and engagement markers). The metadiscourse of judges in criminal trials has four major functions: procedural control, fact construction, power demonstration, and educational admonition, reflecting the normativity, authority, and sociality of judicial language.
References
Chen, J. J. (2015). A corpus-based study of interactive metadiscourse in political discourse. Journal of Southwest University of Science and Technology (Philosophy and Social Sciences Edition), 32(4), 57-62.
Hyland, K. (2005). Metadiscourse: Exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2020). Interactive metadiscourse: Argumentation and rhetoric in the changing academic context. Foreign Language Teaching, 1(2), 23-28.
Jiang, F., & Hyland, K. (2023). Conventional approaches and new issues in metadiscourse research: A bibliometric and disciplinary interpretation. Foreign Language Research, 1(2), 19-26.
Jiang, L. (2013). Modality and identity: A functional linguistic analysis of judges’ language. Applied Linguistics, 1(2), 63-71.
Li, S. (2007). An analysis of judges’ courtroom language. Journal of Henan Administrative Institute of Politics and Law, 1(5), 144-147.
Liang, W. J., & Cao, R. L. (2019). A visualized analysis of domestic metadiscourse research (1997-2018). Business Foreign Language Research, 1(2), 12-20.
She, X. (2010). An empirical study of metadiscourse theory in English oral teaching. Journal of Ningbo University, 1(1), 115-118.
Song, B. (2021). A review of domestic metadiscourse research. Journal of Yichun University, 43(11), 85-90.
Yang, R. (2011). The institutional role of judges and language research. Journal of Xianning University, 31(9), 32-34.
Zhu, L., & Yu, L. (2021). A contrastive study of metadiscourse in Chinese and English civil judgment documents: An analysis from the perspective of Perelman’s new rhetoric. Linguistic Research, 1(1), 175-188.
How to cite this paper
A Study on the Metadiscoursal Functions of Judges in Criminal Trials in China
How to cite this paper: Shujin Pan, Xin Fu. (2026) A Study on the Metadiscoursal Functions of Judges in Criminal Trials in China. Journal of Humanities, Arts and Social Science, 10(3), 336-341.
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/jhass.2026.03.016