Despite their constrained discursive space, defendants in Chinese criminal trials often resist interrogators’ domination in pursuit of favorable judgments. This article delves into defendants’ deployment of discursive resistance strategies and strategic clusters in courtroom interaction and examines the impact of gender, education, and penalty on strategic choices. A corpus of Chinese criminal trial discourse, totaling 15,388 minutes of recordings and 3.3 million transcribed Chinese characters, was constructed for analysis. Quantitative and qualitative analysis demonstrate that defendants’ discursive practice are predominantly characterized by covert resistance strategies, supplemented by overt resistance strategies, and their strategic clusters demonstrate marked preferential patterns, generating synergistic resistance effects that optimize defensive efficacy. Additionally, gender, education and penalty significantly shape strategic choices, with the impact of penalty particularly pronounced. This study elucidates the bidirectional operation of power between dominant and subordinate parties in courtrooms, providing valuable insights particularly for research on conflict-laden institutional interactions.
AinaOAAnowuAE (2023) Some pragmatic points of description of conducive questioning in courtroom interrogation. Journal of Universal Language24(2): 1–30.
2.
AlloA (2015) The courtroom as a space of resistance: Reflections on the legacy of the Rivonia Trial. In: AlloA (ed.) The Courtroom as a Space of Resistance: Reflections on the Legacy of the Rivonia Trial. Farnham, UK: Ashgate Publishing Limited, pp.1–19.
3.
AronssonK (2018) Negative interrogatives and adversarial uptake: Building hostility in child custody examinations. Journal of Pragmatics136: 39–53.
4.
BenattiRSeveriFAvilaS, et al (2024) Gender bias detection in court decisions: A Brazilian case study. In: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM conference on fairness, accountability, and transparency, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3–6 June 2024, pp.746–763. New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery.
5.
Berk-SeligsonS (2017) The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in the Judicial Process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BodyCLCollinsPMRinghandLA (2025) Gender, race, and interruptions at Supreme Court confirmation hearings. American Political Science Review119(1): 492–499.
7.
BourdieuP (1991) Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge, MA: Polity Press.
8.
BrownPLevinsonSC (1987) Politeness: Some Universals in Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
9.
CampbellAObengSG (2024) Language and power: Discursive strategies employed by interpreters in Ghanaian district courts. Interpreting26(1): 55–79.
10.
ChaemsaithongK (2014) Interactive patterns of the opening statement in criminal trials: A historical perspective. Discourse Studies16(3): 347–364.
11.
ChengLeChengWinnieLiJian (2015) Jury instructions in Hong Kong: A Gricean perspective. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law22(2): 35–55.
12.
ClairM (2020) Privilege and Punishment: How Race and Class Matter in Criminal Court. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
13.
ClairM (2021) Being a disadvantaged criminal defendant: Mistrust and resistance in attorney-client interactions. Social Forces100(1): 194–217.
14.
ClarkH (1991) Responding to indirect speech acts. In: DavisS (ed.) Pragmatics: A Reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press, p.202.
15.
ConleyJO’BarrWRinerR (2019) Just Words: Law, Language and Power, 3rd edn.Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
16.
ConleyR (2016) Confronting the Death Penalty: How Language Influences Jurors in Capital Cases. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
CotterillJ (2003) Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O. J. Simpson Trial. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.
18.
EadesD (2010) Language analysis and asylum cases. In: CoulthardMJohnsonA (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge, pp.411–422.
19.
EhrlichS (2016) Post-penetration rape-coercion or freely given consent? In: EhrlichSEadesDAinsworthJ (eds) Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.47–70.
20.
FoucaultM (1978) The History of Sexuality: Volume 1, An Introduction. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.
21.
GalatoloRDrewP (2006) Narrative expansions as defensive practices in courtroom testimony. Text & Talk26(6): 661–698.
22.
GibbonsJ (2003) Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
23.
GriceHP (1975) Logic and conversation. In: ColePMorganJL (eds) Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. London: Academic Press, pp.41–58.
24.
HaleSB (2004) The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
25.
HaleSB (2014) Interpreting culture: Dealing with cross-cultural issues in court interpreting. Perspectives22(3): 321–331.
26.
HaneyC (2003) Mental health issues in long-term solitary and “supermax” confinement. Crime & Delinquency49(1): 124–156.
27.
HeJingqiu (2022) A Study on the Resistance Interaction of the Power of Discourse in Chinese Criminal Court. Beijing: Law Press.
28.
HouwenFVDJolG (2016). Negotiating the right to remain silent in inquisitorial trials. In: EhrlichSEadesDAinsworthJ (eds) Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.264–288.
29.
JacquemetM (1996) Credibility in Court: Communicative Practices in the Camorra Trials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30.
JeffersonG (2004) Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In: LernerGH (ed.) Conversation Analysis: Studies from the First Generation. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company, pp.13–31.
31.
Kryk-KastovskyB (2009) Speech acts in early modern English court trials. Journal of Pragmatics41(3): 440–457.
32.
LarnerS (2015) From intellectual challenges to established corpus techniques: Introduction to the special issue on forensic linguistics. Corpora10(2): 131–143.
33.
LaVigneMVernonM (2003) An interpreter isn’t enough: Deafness, language, and due process. Wisconsin Law Review2003(844): 843–936.
34.
LiangBinHeNi (2014) Criminal defense in Chinese courtrooms: An empirical inquiry. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology58(10): 1230–1252.
35.
LiaoMeizhenGongJinjun (2015) Interruptions and gender in courtroom discourse. Contemporary Rhetoric1: 43–55.
36.
LyuWanying (2011) A Study on Discursive Power in Court. Beijing: China Social Sciences Press.
37.
MaZJLiuJChenHQ (2017) The prosodic features of modal verbs in Chinese courtroom discourse and its interpersonal function. Contemporary Rhetoric6: 33–41.
38.
MaltzDNBorkerRA (1983) A cultural approach to male-female miscommunication. In: GumperzJA (ed.) Language and Social Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.195–216.
39.
MartinovskiB (2006) A framework for the analysis of mitigation in courts: Toward a theory of mitigation. Journal of Pragmatics38: 2065–2086.
40.
MatlalaR (2024) Rape myths and the language of the law: The need for a feminist jurisprudential approach. Constitutional Court Review14: 137–152.
41.
MatoesianGGilbertK (2018). Let the fingers do the talking: Language, gesture and power in closing argument. In: LeungJHCDurantA (eds) Meaning and Power in the Language of Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.137–163.
42.
MisirHAkinG (2024). Navigating power and impoliteness in criminal court discourse. International Journal of Legal Discourse9(2): 289–312.
43.
MitchellJB (2000) Why should the prosecutor get the last word?American Journal of Criminal Law27(2): 139–216.
44.
NewburyPJohnsonA (2006) Suspects’ resistance to constraining and coercive questioning strategies in the police interview. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law13(2): 213–240.
45.
O’BarrWM (1982) Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York, NY: Academic Press.
46.
ObengSG (1999) Grammatical pragmatics: Power in Akan judicial discourse. Pragmatics9(2): 199–229.
47.
OrtolevaS (2011) Inaccessible justice: Human rights, persons with disabilities and the legal system. ILSA Journal of International & Comparative Law17(2): 281–320.
48.
PanQingyun (2019) The legal embarrassment and language problems faced by vulnerable groups-Taking the poor educated or people of low social and economic status as examples. International Journal of Language, Culture & Law1: 24–39.
49.
SkinnerGCMAndrewsSJLambME (2019) The disclosure of alleged child sexual abuse: An investigation of criminal court transcripts from Scotland. Psychology, Crime & Law5: 458–481.
50.
SønderbergSMortensenSSMortensenJ (2017) Epistemic stance in courtroom interaction. In: PoggiFCaponeA (eds) Pragmatics and Law: Practical and Theoretical Perspectives. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, pp.401–437.
51.
SpencerJRLambME (2012) Children and Cross-Examination: Time to Change the Rules?Oxford: Hart Publishing.
52.
StygallG (1994) Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
53.
StygallG (2001) Different class of witnesses: Experts in the courtroom. Discourse Studies3(3): 327–349.
54.
UwenG. (2023). Objection overruled: Language dynamics and power relations in courtroom interactions. Language Matters54(2): 21–41.
55.
WodakR (1980) Discourse analysis and courtroom interaction. Discourse Processes3(4): 369–380.
56.
YiRan (2024) Justice under microscope: Analysing Mandarin Chinese markers in virtual courtroom discourse. Discourse Studies26(1): 117–135.
57.
YuanChuanyouLiaoZexia (2010) Implicit persuasive power of rhetorical questions in lawyers’ defense statements. Contemporary Rhetoric4: 24–30.
58.
ZhaoXiaoHuangJiahui (2025) Interpreter mediation as other-initiated self-repair in court: Effects on the defence in Chinese bilingual criminal trials. Lingua313: 1–20.
