Author
Prof ZHANG Qing
Organisation/Institution
China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL)
Country
CHINA
Panel
Miscellaneous
Title
Exploring Judges’ Courtroom Rhetoric Through Narrative Theory: Rhetorical Narratology, Narrative Communication Mode, and Unreliable Narration
Abstract
This study explores the integration of rhetorical narratology, a core school of post-classical narratology, into the research on judges’ courtroom rhetoric, aiming to address two long-standing gaps in existing scholarship: the marginalization of narratological theories in the analysis of judicial narrative practices, and the insufficient attention paid to judges’ rhetorical capabilities within the courtroom rhetorical context. While scholars in evidence law and forensic linguistics have extensively discussed “narrative” in court trials, they have predominantly relied on theoretical tools from cognitive science, psychology, and philosophy, overlooking narratology’s inherent value as the “science of narrative.” Meanwhile, traditional rhetorical studies on courtroom discourse have focused overly on the arguments of prosecutors and defenders, sidelining judges’ dual roles as both narrators and recipients in the rhetorical process. To fill these gaps, this paper first re-examines the theoretical foundation for applying rhetorical narratology to judges’ courtroom rhetoric. It clarifies the misconceptions that narratology is confined to literary analysis and that “narrative” is merely a colloquial equivalent of “storytelling.” By tracing the evolution of rhetorical narratology from Wayne Booth’s The Rhetoric of Fiction to James Phelan’s dynamic rhetorical communication framework, the study demonstrates that this theory—with its emphasis on context, purpose, and interactive communication—offers a systematic analytical tool for non-fictional courtroom discourse. The paper then proposes a tailored “courtroom narrative communication model” by adapting Shen Dan’s revised narrative communication structure, defining key roles such as the “real author” (socio-historical and cultural context), “implied author” (ideal judge adhering to legal norms), “narrator” (specific judge in a trial), “addressee” (litigants), “implied reader” (rationally judgmental audience), and “real reader” (actual trial participants). This model illuminates the multi-layered interaction between judges, litigants, and the broader legal context. Furthermore, the study employs the concept of “unreliable narration”—a pivotal construct in rhetorical narratology—to analyze judicial practice, using the “Liu Huimiao case” (a representative “battered woman who killed her abuser” case) as an empirical example. Through a detailed examination of trial transcripts, it identifies instances of unreliable narration by both the defense attorney and the defendant, including downplaying the victim’s fault and failing to fully articulate mitigating circumstances related to gender-based violence and maternal responsibilities. The analysis reveals how judges’ failure to detect such unreliable narration may lead to inadequate consideration of victim fault, insufficient recognition of mitigating factors, and a lack of gender perspective in judicial decisions—limitations that hinder the achievement of substantive justice. This research makes three significant contributions: First, it expands the methodological repertoire of judicial rhetoric studies by introducing narratological tools, enabling a more nuanced exploration of judges’ rhetorical practices as both speakers and listeners. Second, it responds to the developmental trend of post-classical narratology by emphasizing the contextual embeddedness of courtroom narratives, bridging the gap between narrative theory and legal practice. Third, it provides practical insights for enhancing judges’ rhetorical competence—suggesting that awareness of narrative communication dynamics and unreliable narration can help judges maintain neutrality, balance multiple perspectives, and improve the legitimacy of judicial decisions. Ultimately, this study advances interdisciplinary dialogue between narratology and law, offering a new paradigm for understanding the role of narrative in achieving procedural and substantive justice in contemporary courtrooms.
Biography
I am a Professor at China University of Political Science and Law (CUPL), where I serve as Dean of the School of Foreign Studies, Director of the Center for Legal Discourse Studies, and Supervisor of graduate students in legal culture and legal translation. My academic foundation combines rigorous training in both law and English, supported by advanced degrees and professional certifications in these fields. I hold a Doctor of Laws in Forensic Linguistics from CUPL (2009), a Master of Laws from Indiana University Bloomington (2001), and a Bachelor of Laws with a minor in English from CUPL (1987). I have been admitted to the New York State Bar (2002) and was a Fulbright Visiting Research Scholar at the University of Washington (2015–2016). My research focuses on forensic linguistics, legal discourse studies, legal English, and the intersection of language and law. I have authored or translated several monographs, edited a number of textbooks, and published nearly 100 academic papers. I have attended the Annual Asian Law Institute (ASLI) Conference three times in the past three years. In addition to my roles at CUPL, I hold several academic and professional appointments, including: - Vice Director, Legal English Teaching and Testing Committee, China Academy of Arbitration Law - Vice Director, Committee of Forensic Linguistics, China Association for Comparative Studies of English and Chinese - Executive Member, Foreign Language Teaching and Research Branch, China Association of Higher Education - Executive Member, Graduate English Teaching Branch, Beijing Higher Learning Education Association - Member, Legal Culture Association, China Law Society - Member, Translators Association of China
