Abstract

Institutional discourse has always been an important topic for the linguists and scholars home and abroad to study. This paper is going to talk about the relationship between grammar and institutional discourse， referring to the paper “Grammar and Institutional Discourse” written by Guliana Diani. This paper mainly consists of two parts： One is the definition of institutional discourse， the other is about the foreign and domestic research about institutional discourse.

Key words： grammar， institutional discourse， academic communication， legal settings

Introduction

Institutional discourse is the specialized discourse used by social actors in various institutional contexts， such as law courts， universities， and public administrations， among others. This type of discourse can， vary widely： it can be written or oral， formal/informal， use various channels， and exploit various registers and genres. In all these varieties， the discourse is very “managed” in the sense that lexical， grammatical， and rhetorical choices made by speakers and writers are crucial in implementing their goals. As Roberts （2011， p. 81） puts it： “the study of institutional discourses sheds light on how organizations work， how ‘lay’ people and experts interact and how knowledge and power get constructed and circulate within routines， systems and common-sense practices of work-related settings.” The focus of this entry is to describe the grammatical features of institutional language in both written and spoken mode.

The definition of institutional discourse

Guliana Diani summarized the definition of institutional discourse put forward by different scholars： Drew and Heritage （1992） describe “institutional interaction” as task-oriented and involving at least one participant who represents a formal organization： “talk-in-interaction is the principal means through which lay persons pursue various practical goals and the central medium through which the daily working activities of many professionals and organizational representatives are conducted. We will use the term “institutional interaction” to refer to talk of this kind.” And Heritage （2005） points out that the difficulty of definition is further compounded by the fact that institutional talk is not confined to any particular physical or symbolic settings such as hospitals， offices， or classrooms， because it can occur anywhere and ordinary conversation can emerge in each and every one of these settings.

Another important contribution to the definition of institutional discourse was developed by Thornborrow （2002， p. 4） who said that Institutional discourse can perhaps be best described as a form of interaction in which the relationship between a participant’s current institutional role and their current discursive role emerges as a local phenomenon which shapes the organization and trajectory of the talk. However， Sarangi and Roberts propose a more restricted definition of institutional discourse， contrasting it to professional discourse. According to them， professional discourse is thus constituted by professionals accomplishing their duties and responsibilities， whereas institutional discourse is comprised of “those features which are attributed to institutional practice， either manifestly or covertly， by professionals” （Sarangi & Roberts， 1999， p. 15）.

Foreign Research about Grammar in Spoken Institutional Discourse

Grammar in Spoken Legal Settings

In a study based on 100 cases in the UK， Heffer （2005） shows that direct examination （known as “examination-in-chief” in British English）， marked by a cooperative and supportive mode， tends to include a higher proportion of open-ended wh-questions， allowing for answers that are more narrative. By contrast， questions in cross-examination， marked by a combative and adversarial mode， tend to be asked differently： yes/no questions and， significantly， narrative statements with question tags. Further， research has highlighted that grammatical forms used to ask questions in law courts may be arranged on scales reflecting increases in coerciveness， information control， information deniability， and so on （Gibbons， 2003）. In order of coerciveness， Danet， Hoffman， Kermish， Rafn， and Stayman （1980） find that declaratives are the most coercive， since rather than to ask a question， they make a statement （e.g.， You did it . . .）. They also note that the next most coercive types of questions are interrogative yes/no questions and “choice” questions. The least coercive are what Danet et al. call “requestions，” questions that on the face of it seem to ask the witness whether or not s/he is able to answer a question， but actually ask for information， although in indirect manner.

Several other studies have focused on the use of discourse markers in courtroom interaction. In her study on the use of discourse markers in lawyers’ questions during examination-in-chief and cross-examination， Hale （1999） finds that markers such as well and right are used as devices of argumentation and confrontation， mostly initiating dis- agreements or challenges during cross-examination， and during examination-in-chief， as devices used to maintain control of the flow of information， and to mark progression in the story line.

In this section we have seen that all the grammatical features described do not simply function as mere structural constituents of legal talk. Rather， they play a dynamic and vital part in determining the outcome of spoken institutional discourse in legal setting， reflecting the goals of the institution in which such exchanges take place， as well as reflecting the shifting roles and identities negotiated by the participants throughout interaction.

Grammar in Spoken Academic Settings

Over the past twenty years， most studies have approached the study of grammatical features of English academic speech from an applied corpus linguistics perspective.

One of the major contributions to this research area is the book University Language by Douglas Biber （2006）. More specifically， in chapter 5， he provides a detailed corpus-based description of grammatical stance devices in English， based on the T2K SWAL Corpus （TOEFL 2000 Spoken and Written Academic Language Corpus; see Biber et al.， 2004）. In particular， his investigation focuses on complement clause constructions， stance adverbials， modal verbs， and stance noun + prepositional phrase constructions （see Biber et al.， 1999， pp. 966–86） in a range of spoken registers （e.g.， classroom teaching， office hours， classroom management， lab sessions， study groups）.

The use of metadiscoursal expressions in academic speech has been a popular area of research. For example， Mauranen （2001） discusses discourse reflexivity as a key feature of the MICASE lecture corpus （Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English， see Simpson-Vlach & Leicher， 2006）. She finds an abundance of expressions used to structure ongoing speech. These include prospective devices to signal what is about to come， as well as retrospective ones to indicate what is being put aside for the moment. Crawford Camiciottoli （2007， p. 84） speaks of “macromarkers” referring to multiword metadiscoursal expressions used in lectures for discourse structuring.

Other studies have concentrated on the use of discourse markers in academic lectures such as so， now， ok， right， well （e.g.， Chaudron & Richards， 1986; Swales & Malczewski， 2001）. According to Chaudron and Richards （1986）， discourse markers indicate intersentential relations， but also function as pause fillers which give listeners more time to process what they hear. In the MICASE lecture corpus， Swales and Malczewski （2001） find that so indicates a causal relation， but also functions as a new episode flag to mark a change of direction in discourse. As regards Okay， they find that it is used to focus attention on the shift to new topics， along with right， well and now.

As the studies discussed in this section demonstrate， mainstream research in spoken academic language has focused primarily on English. In recent years we have witnessed a surge of interest in contrastive corpus studies， including data on other languages in addition to English. Diani （2013） analyzes first person pronouns in English and Italian academic lectures （I/io， we/noi）. The approach has contributed to an understanding of the language in academic contexts in different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.

Domestic research about institutional discourse

Domestic research mainly focuses on these aspects： the types and features of institutional discourse， speech act and identity construction in institutional discourse， communication behaviors in institutional discourse and constructing strategies of institutional discourse. Besides， substantial research about institutional discourse has never left behind， which shall be focused in this paper.

Domestic substantial research on institutional discourse

The substantial research on legal discourse has been a popular topic for domestic researchers.

The lexical form and question form in legal discourse represent the relationship between legal discourse and hierarchy. The forms of address in courtroom are the prototype show the power， status，which represent the identity relation. For example， in ancient Chinese courtroom， the judge was always been called “青天大老爺“，while the appellant or appellee may call himself “ 草民“， which shows the hierarchy of Chinese old society. However， in modern word， the phenomenon that shows the hierarchy still exists， even the feudal hierarchy has been canceled already. In today’s courtroom， the appellant or appellee may call the judge ”法官大人“. The above two examples show the asymmetric identity relation in the forms of address. However， when mention the titles of “陪審團(tuán)”，“辯護(hù)律師”，it represent the symmetric identity relation in the legal discourse.

What shows more obvious hierarchy of power and status is the lexical forms with emotion. Take the following conversation in courtroom as an example：

Judge： 從2004年10月份到2005年5月份期間一直靠這個(gè)謀生是嗎？

Appellee： 是。

Judge： 你平常有什么不良的嗜好嗎？

Appellee： 沒有。

Judge： 確定這個(gè)劉某這些犯罪事實(shí)是不是他被抓以后然后通過向相關(guān)機(jī)關(guān)調(diào)取那個(gè)報(bào)案記錄然后確定的，對(duì)吧？由他自己坦白然后找你……

The underlined expressions represent the presupposition that the appellee or those mentioned people had made mistakes. These presupposed forms can be used only by the judge， who represents the highest power in courtroom. The lexical strategies used in courtroom by the strong side also shows the hierarchy， such as the words of command “stop” or “speak louder”.

There are two patterns for asking questions in courtroom interaction： direct examination and cross examination. wh- questions， yes/no questions， or-questions and rhetorical questions are involved in the question forms in legal discourse. Direct examination is likely to be cooperative， by using wh- questions， in order to ask information. On the other hand， cross examination is likely to be suspicious and opposed， with the forms of yes/no question and rhetorical question， aiming at ensuring the information. Coerciveness is also embodied in the question forms， among which rhetorical questions show the most coercive attitude.

The courtroom discourse participants mainly realize the multi-pragmatic functions such as courtroom discourse control， purpose implementation， power game， identity construction and role reconstruction by interpreting discourse behavior， indicating the interpretation of the courtroom discourse. While promoting the "simplification" and "popularization" of the judicial language， we actively use the discourse of "ruling by law" to explain the pragmatic function.

Identity construction in institutional discourse

The research on identity construction in institutional discourse is mainly focus on courtroom discourse and news discourse. In general， courtroom discourse can be divided into two major aspects. The first is the ontological research on the courtroom discourse， focusing on the discussion of language and discourse structure， such as the turn-taking （Harris， 1984）， questioning and response （Xu Zhanghong， Li Bing， 2006）， speech act （Kryk-Kastovsky， 2006a， 2006b）， Interruption （Zhang Luping， 2006）， Retelling （Liao Meizhen， 2006）， Evaluation Resources （Wang Zhenhua， 2004; Zhang Liping， 2007）， Modal System （Shi Guang， Xin Bin， 2008） Etching. Most of the researches focus on the gender identity of judges and lawyers， some of which female legal practitioners were found to be discriminated against because of stereotypes in society. In short， identity construction “is in power relations and is obtained through power relations， while discourse in a certain context often describes current power relations and individual identities.” （岑瑋， 2011： 77）

An important area of research on identity in news discourse is political discourse. The topics of research are more concentrated， most of them refer to the terminology and personal pronouns to examine how the parties in the election debate refer to each other， thus constructing the different identities of each other. Kuo （2002）， in his article， based on the corpus， focuses on the distribution and function of the second person singular in the debate discourse， pointing out that the use of "you" expresses the candidate’s desire to establish consistency， or the idea of a contradictory view to draw a line.

In recent years， the research on identity of news discourse has further advanced in depth， overcoming the shortcomings of discussing the issue of identity construction only from language items such as address terms and personal pronouns. In theory， scholars have begun to try new theoretical perspectives， such as relationship management theory; the analysis of identity construction is also more elaborate， such as the specific identity of the host. In addition， Yuan Zhoumin and Fang Zongxiang （2009） took the inauguration speech of President Clinton as the research object， and analyzed the different identity characteristics of Clinton's inaugural speech from three aspects： cultural pragmatics， lexical pragmatics and sentence French.

The relationship between identity and language has always been the focus of psychologists and sociologists. In natural conversations， language is the mark of identity and an important criterion for identity based on self-awareness. In courtroom interaction， the language use of participants is also the primary means of constructing institutional identity.

Conclusion

This entry has revealed the importance of grammar in written and spoken institutional discourse. The analysis has revealed how professionals in those contexts are able to marshal particular grammatical structures to help achieve discursive goals， while also managing macro level interpersonal relationships through discourse. At present， institutional discourse research is not an independent discipline， and there is no unified theoretical framework and methodology. This will also help solve a series of problems and challenges faced by institutional discourse research， develop a more systematic and clear discourse research system suitable for the institutional level， and have a more comprehensive understanding and interpretation of institutional discourse， making institutional discourse research is not at the academic level， but has greater practical and practical significance.

Reference

[1] Afros， E.， & Schryer， C. F. （2009）. The genre of syllabus in higher education. Journal of English for Academic Purposes， 8（3）， 224–33.

[2] Biber， D.， & Finegan， E. （1989）. Styles of stance in English： Lexical and grammatical marking of evidentiality and affect. Text， 9（1）， 93–124.

[3] Biber， D.， Johansson， S.， Leech， G.， Conrad， S.， & Finegan， E. （1999）. The Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London， England： Longman.

[4] Chaudron， C.， & Richards， J. C. （1986）. The effect of discourse markers on the comprehension of lectures. Applied Linguistics， 7（2）， 113–27.

[5] Danet， B.， Hoffman， K. B.， Kermish， N. K.， Rafn， H. J.， & Stayman， D. G. （1980）. An ethnography of questioning in the courtroom. In R. W. Shuy & A. Shnukal （Eds.）， Language use and uses of language （pp. 222–34）. Washington， DC： University of Georgetown Press.

[6] Diani， G. （2013）. The construction of academic identity in English and Italian university lectures. In R. Salvi & J. Bowker （Eds.）， Space， time and the construction of identity： Discursive indexicality in cultural， institutional and professional fields （pp. 47–64）. Bern， Switzerland： Peter Lang.

[7] Drew， P.， & Heritage， J. （Eds.）. （1992）. Talk at work： Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge， England： Cambridge University Press.

[8] Gray， B.， & Biber， D. （2012）. Current conceptions of stance. In K. Hyland & C. Sancho Guinda （Eds.）， Stance and voice in written academic genres （pp. 15 – 33）. Basingstoke， England： Palgrave Macmillan.

[9] Hale， S. （1999）. Interpreters’ treatment of discourse markers in courtroom questions. Forensic Lin- guistics， 6（1）， 57–82.

[10] Heritage， J. C.， & Clayman， S. E. （2010）. Talk in action： Interactions， identities and institutions. Oxford， England： Wiley-Blackwell.

[11] Hunston， S.， & Sinclair， J. （2000）. A local grammar of evaluation. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson （Eds.）， Evaluation in text： Authorial stance and the construction of discourse （pp. 75 – 100）. Oxford， England： Oxford University Press.

[12] Mauranen， A. （2001）. Reflexive academic talk： Observations from MICASE. In R. C. Simpson & J.

[13] Swales， J. M.， & Malczewski， B. （2001）. Discourse management and new-episode flags in MICASE. In R. C. Simpson & J. M. Swales （Eds.）， Corpus linguistics in North America： Selections from the 1999 Symposium （pp. 145–64）. Ann Arbor： University of Michigan Press.

[14] Thornborrow， J. （2002）. Power talk： Language and interaction in institutional discourse. London， Eng- land： Longman.

[15] 岑瑋. 權(quán)力關(guān)系與身份建構(gòu)———海爾曼劇作《小狐貍》的批評(píng)性話語(yǔ)分析[J]. 山東外語(yǔ)教學(xué)，2011，（4）： 74 - 78 .

[16] 陳新仁. 語(yǔ)用學(xué)視角下的身份與交際研究 [M]. 北京： 高等教育出版社，2012.

[17] 施光，辛斌. 試析美國(guó)憲法中的情態(tài)系統(tǒng)[J]. 外語(yǔ)學(xué)刊，2008，（2）： 55 -59.

[18] 王振華. 法庭交叉質(zhì)詢中的人際關(guān)系———系 統(tǒng)功能語(yǔ)言學(xué)“情態(tài)”視角[J]. 外語(yǔ)學(xué)刊， 2004，（3）： 51 - 59 .

[19] 徐章宏，李冰. 法庭應(yīng)答語(yǔ)信息過量的順應(yīng)性 研究[J]. 外語(yǔ)研究，2006，（2）：14-18.

[20] 袁周敏. 社會(huì)心理學(xué)與語(yǔ)用學(xué)視角下的身份研究 [J]. 外語(yǔ)學(xué)刊，2011c，（4）： 77 - 81.

作者簡(jiǎn)介：鄭艷萍，吉林大學(xué)外國(guó)語(yǔ)言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語(yǔ)言學(xué)碩士。

（作者信息：吉林大學(xué)）