Judges' reformulations in judicial interpretation in Chinese judgments: A comparative analysis.

In hybrid legal contexts in China, judges' speech acts of reformulating rules serve to demonstrate their ideological and linguistic preferences in law enforcement. A comparative analysis of judges' reformulations in judgments in the traditional (imperial) and contemporary periods in this study discloses a disparity in their speech style over time. Though judges in the two periods both navigate between the ethical discourse and the legal discourse in the negotiation of meaning in law, traditional judges are found to have reformulated rules from various sources, particularly those of Confucian classics, acting as more of a constructive legal interpreter. In contrast, contemporary judges tend to reformulate rules of the codified law in a more monologic style, thereby displaying greater respect for the autonomy of law in their reformulations. These differences are interpreted from a socio-cultural standpoint. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]