A Study of Evasive Answering Strategy in
Chinese Arbitration Response Based on
Adaptation Theory
Jiang Ting, Ren Xiaoru
Chongqing University
Contents
1. Introduction
2.Theoretical Framework
3. Methodology
4. Results and discussions
5. Conclusions
2
Introduction
1. Introduction
1.1 Research background
•Although arbitration has aroused much attention of numerous
researchers abroad, studies on parties, especially their responding
at home are somewhat neglected .
•Parties frequently apply evasive answering strategies (EAS, for
short） to affect the final adjudication in arbitration.
4
1. Introduction
1.2 Research aims:
• Identify the types, frequencies and distributional features of
EAS
•Explore underlying reasons for the usage of different EAS
5
1. Introduction
1.3 Significance
In theory:
•Expand the research of arbitration in forensic linguistic field
•Broaden the application area of Adaptation theory in
institutional discourse
6
1. Introduction
1.3 Significance
For arbitrators in practice:
•Revise the method of interrogation timely
•Extract crucial information and finally make judicial
adjudication
7
Theoretical Framework
2. Theoretical Framework
Figure 1 Framework of evasive answering strategy
in Chinese arbitration response
9
Methodology
3. Methodology
3.1 Research questions
 What are the types of evasive answers are applied by parties in
arbitration responses?
 What are the operating frequencies and distributional features of
these evasive answering strategies?
 What are the underlying reasons for parties to choose evasive
answer as a strategy in arbitration?
11
3. Methodology
3.2 Research Methods
• Quantitative and qualitative methods
• Corpus-based approach:
① UAM Corpus Tool
② ANTCONC
12
Results & Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
Table 1 Eight types of evasive answering strategies in arbitration
Name
Overt Evasion
Cover t Evasion
Total
Frequency
38
91
129
Ratio
29.46%
70.54%
100%
Denying&
Direct
Indirect
Avoiding
Refusing
Type
Changing the
Providing
Using
Over
Ambiguous
Non-subject
Informative
Answer
Sentence
Answering
Incomplete
Skepticizing
Topic Focus of
Answering
Questions
the Question
Success
4
22
8
14
0
11
3
12
74
100%
91.67%
80%
36.84%
0%
78.57%
60%
38.71%
57.36%
Frequency
4
24
10
38
3
14
5
31
129
Ratio
3.08%
18.60%
7.75%
29.45%
2.32%
10.08%
3.87%
24.03%
100%
Frequency
Success
Rate
4. Results and Discussion
Table 2 General operating features of evasive answering strategies in arbitration response
Note: S1-Direct avoiding; S2-Indirect refusing; S3-Denying or
skepticizing questions; S4-Changing the topic focus of the question;
S5-Incomplete answering; S6-Providing ambiguous answer; S7Using non-subject sentence; S8-Over informative answering
Conclusions
5. Conclusions
• Parties' employment of EAS are manifold and
disproportional.
• General operating features of EAS refelct dynamic
and strongly context-dependent characteristics.
• Dynamic adaptation to context and parties' intention,
EAS are their consciously linguistic choices.
Thank
you
18