基于FCR模型的庭审话语认知分析

发布时间：2018-05-01 22:44

本文选题：认知语言学 + 对话句法　；参考：《四川外国语大学》2017年硕士论文

【摘要】：法庭话语作为一种特殊的机构话语类型,一直受到了学者的高度关注。他们从语用学、功能语言学、认知语言学、修辞学、法学和一些交叉学科的视角对于这类机构话语进行了研究,取得了一些重要成果,但也存在着一些问题:有些研究缺乏充实的封闭语料,有些则缺乏理论框架,只进行简单的阐述分析。此外,从句法、语义、语用整合角度做出的阐释尚且不足。鉴于此,本文以认知语言学和对话句法为理论背景,基于框架理论、认知参照点、共振原则,建立了FCR(Frame-Cognitive Reference Point-Resonance)模型深入探讨以律师为主导的法庭论辩话语。由于真实法庭语料难以获取,笔者选取了美剧《逍遥法外》中的法庭论辩话语片段作为语料进行相关分析,并期望从句法、语义、语用三个层面对其作出较好解释。研究发现,法庭论辩基本以律师主导。律师选取案件中所需要的信息进行框架限定,再从选取的参照点不断获得更多信息,在语言上以共振的方式与证人达成一致,因而影响最终的判决。对话中句子类型主要以提问为主。问句主要分为两类,一类是一般疑问句,律师的语言中包含询问的内容,此类问题占总数的73%;另一类是特殊疑问句,需要由证人提供关键信息,占总数的27%。两类句子中都存在框架共振以及焦点共振的现象。在庭审话语中,律师与证人的问题与回答都必须确保明晰,在法律的严苛制度下,一旦与律师求证的某件事实达成语义上的一致,就无须对其进行过多的解释。但为表达特殊内容,也可能会存在语义相同而形式不同的自我共振现象。由于律师在庭审话语中占据支配地位,他们控制着话轮的主动权、对话推进的速度以及最终结论的判断。有时,律师也会采用看似无关的问题为自己的目的做语用上的铺垫。
[Abstract]:As a special type of institutional discourse, court discourse has been highly concerned by scholars. From the perspectives of pragmatics, functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics, rhetoric, law and some interdisciplinary disciplines, they have made some important achievements. However, there are still some problems: some studies lack substantial closed corpus, others lack theoretical framework. In addition, the explanation from syntactic, semantic and pragmatic integration is still insufficient. In view of this, this paper takes cognitive linguistics and dialogue syntax as the theoretical background, based on frame theory, cognitive reference point, resonance principle, and establishes the FCR(Frame-Cognitive Reference Point-Resonance) model to explore the lawyer-led discourse of court debate in depth. Because the real court corpus is difficult to obtain, the author chooses the discourse fragment of court argument in the American TV series "impunity" as the correlation-related analysis, and expects to make a better explanation from three aspects: syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The study found that the court argument is dominated by lawyers. The lawyer selects the information needed in the case to limit the frame of reference, and then obtains more information from the selected reference point to reach agreement with the witness in the language of resonance, thus affecting the final decision. In the dialogue, the main sentence types are questions. Questions are mainly divided into two categories: one is general interrogative sentence, the lawyer's language contains the content of questioning, such questions account for 73% of the total; the other is special question sentence, which requires witnesses to provide key information, accounting for 27% of the total. Frame resonance and focal resonance exist in both types of sentences. In the trial discourse, the questions and answers of lawyers and witnesses must be clear. Under the strict system of law, once the semantic agreement is reached with the facts verified by lawyers, there is no need to interpret them too much. However, in order to express special content, there may be the phenomenon of self-resonance with the same semantics and different forms. As lawyers dominate the discourse of the trial, they control the initiative of the round, the speed at which the dialogue progresses and the judgment of the final conclusion. Sometimes lawyers use seemingly irrelevant questions to lay the groundwork for their own purpose.
【学位授予单位】：四川外国语大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：H31

【相似文献】