Facts of legal cases are formulated in courtroom interactions, where lawyers ground their factual propositions in admissible evidence by construing legal elements and real-world realities. Field is a contextual variable realising ideational meanings through construing phenomena of activities, items, and their properties. Analysing field elements in case facts manifests the internal relations of phenomena, enabling judges to identify key elements in the grounds of lawyers’ reasoning and their logical relations to legal claims. Drawing on the FIELD system from Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and the ideational dimension of the court trial register, this paper proposes a theoretical framework to analyse how lawyers in China’s court trials (particularly civil contract dispute trials) construe case facts through field elements and their interrelations. The findings reveal that lawyers construe different types of field elements and their interrelations to explain the fundamental attributes of evidence: authenticity, relevance, and legality. These field elements distinguish between everyday realities and legally significant facts. By construing case facts through field elements and their interrelations, lawyers could improve the technicality and rationality of trial examination, thereby offering courts or judges key elements to adjudicate facts and promote the efficiency and judicial justice of verdicts.
AlexyR (1989) On necessary relations between law and morality. Ratio Juris2(2): 167–183.
2.
AllenRJSchwartzDSPardoMS, et al (2016) Analytical Approach to Evidence: Text, Problems and Cases, 6th edn.New York, NY: Wolters Kluwer.
3.
AtkinsonJDrewP (1979) Order in Court: The Organisation of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Settings. London: The Macmillan Press.
4.
BjörlingE (2016) The expression of legal argumentation: Towards a methodology for narrative studies of ‘discourses of subsumption’. International Journal of Legal Discourse1(1): 117–132.
5.
CaoHSYuanCY (2023) A study on the ideational meaning of narrative contestation between prosecution and defense attorneys. Foreign Languages and Their Teaching4: 29-39+60+146-147.
6.
ChaemsaithongK (2019) Deconstructing competing courtroom narratives: Representation of social actors. Social Semiotics29(2): 240–260.
7.
ClarkH (1996). Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
8.
ConleyJO’BarrWM (2005) Just Words: Law, Language, and Power. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
9.
CotterillJ (2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the OJ Simpson Trial. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
10.
DanetB (1980) ‘Baby’ or ‘fetus’?: Language and the construction of reality in a manslaughter trial. Semiotica32(3–4): 187–220.
11.
DoranYJMartinJR (2021) Field relations: Understanding scientific explanations. In: MatonKMartinJRDoranYJ (eds) Teaching Science: Knowledge, Language, Pedagogy. New York, NY: Routledge, pp.105–133.
12.
DoranYJMartinJRHerringtonM (2024) Rethinking context: Realisation, instantiation, and individuation in systemic functional linguistics. Journal of World Languages10: 177–220.
13.
DuJB (2010) A study on legal facts constructed via courtroom dialogue. Journal of Guangdong University of Foreign Studies21(2): 84–90.
14.
DurantiL (1995) Reliability and authenticity: The concepts and their implications. Archivaria39: 5–10.
15.
EhrlichS (2001) Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. New York, NY: Routledge.
16.
FeterisE (2017) Fundamentals of Legal Argumentation. The Netherlands: Springer.
17.
HaleSGibbonsJ (1999) Varying realities: Patterned changes in the interpreter’s representation of courtroom and external realities. Applied Linguistics20(2): 203–220.
18.
HallidayMAK (1978) Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold.
19.
HallidayMAKMatthiessenCMIM (1999). Construing Experience Through Meaning: A Language-based Approach to Cognition. London: Cassell.
20.
HallidayMAKMatthiessenCMIM (2014) Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. London and New York: Routledge.
21.
HaoJ (2020) Analysing Scientific Discourse From a Systemic Functional Linguistic Perspective: A Framework for Exploring Knowledge Building in Biology. New York: Routledge.
22.
HeJHMaLS (2020) Reinterpreting principles of evidence’s elements: A talk with Prof. Zhang Baosheng. Tsinghua University Law Journal14(4): 72–88.
23.
HefferC (2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-aided Analysis of Legal-lay Discourse. New York/Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
HefferC (2020) Narrative in the trial: Constructing crime stories in court. In: CoulthardMMayASousa-SilvaR (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp.192–210.
25.
HoodS (2010) Appraising Research: Evaluation in Academic Writing. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
26.
KlambergM (2013) Evidence in International Criminal Trials: Confronting Legal Gaps and the Reconstruction of Disputed Events, vol. 2. Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
27.
LiLHanDM (2002) Interpretation, pragmatics and the rational standard of legal facts. Chinese Journal of Law5: 3–23.
28.
LiW (2020) Between legal knowledge and everyday knowledge: A study on the construction of knowledge in Chinese criminal courtroom discourse under the framework of ideational meaning. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Shanghai Jiao Tong University.
29.
LongZZ (2023) Adjustment and reform of evidence’s attributes and examination in China’s litigation. Chinese Journal of Law45(4): 169–188.
30.
MacNeilHMMakB (2007) Constructions of authenticity. Library Trends56(1): 26–52.
31.
MartinJR (1992) English Text: System and Structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
32.
MartinJR (2017) Revisiting field: Specialized knowledge in secondary school science and humanities discourse. Onomázein2: 111–148.
33.
MartinJR (2020) Ideational semiosis: Field, discourse semantics, lexicogrammar. DELTA-Documentação de Estudos em Linguistica Teorica e Aplicada36(4): 1–27.
34.
MartinJRWhitePRR (2005) The Language of Evaluation: Appraisal in English. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
35.
SchwartzD (2011) A Foundation theory of evidence. The Georgetown Law Journal100(95): 96–171.
36.
ShuGY (2024) Revisiting concepts of facts and case facts: From the perspectives of philosophy and law. Tsinghua University Law Journal18(4): 5–27.
37.
ShuGYWangXHLiangYX (2007) Research on Methodology of Law. Beijing: China University of Political Science and Law Press.
38.
TansO (2018) Knowledge construction in legal reasoning: A three-stage model of law’s evolution in practical discourse. International Journal for the Semiotics Law-Revue Internationale de Sémiotique Jurisdique31(1): 1–19.
39.
ToulminSE (2003) The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
40.
WignellPMartinJREgginsS (1993) The discourse of geography: Ordering and explaining the experiential world. In: HallidayMAKMartinJR (eds) Writing Science. London: Falmer, pp.151–183.
41.
WuQJ (2024) Functional semantic configurations of lawyers’ persuasion in fact reconstruction. Modern Languages2: 197–208.
42.
XiaD (2020) Construction of legal facts in narrative of civil court trial narrative. Study and Practice9: 46–53.
43.
YangB (2019) Discussing the hierarchy of case facts and fact building. Law and Social Development3: 39–54.
44.
YuSQ (2013) A Theoretical Study on Narrative of Fact Construction in Courtroom Trial. Beijing: Peking University Press.
45.
ZhaoYP (2021) On language construction of case facts. PhD dissertation. China University of Political Science and Law, Beijng.
46.
ZhangBS (2018) Zhengju Faxue. Beijng: China University of Political Science and Law Press.
47.
ZhangJW (2014) Orientation and function: The relevance of evidence and its judgment. Journal of Law Application3: 2–10.
48.
ZhengF (2021) Hierarchy of evidence attributes: Rethinking system of evidence rules. Chinese Journal of Law43(2): 123–137.
