语料库方法下的立法语言情态模糊限制语研究

发布时间：2019-04-19 06:28

【摘要】：在语言学飞速发展的今天，人类对语言本质的了解逐步深入，而法律语言学在对语言本质的研究不断增加和深入的情况下也在不断的发展，它的产生是语言学研究成果在法学领域的推广使用，也是法律活动和法律语言发展的迫切需求。法律语言对法律活动具有制约作用，，而对法律语言的研究目的则是解释法律中人与人的社会关系并最终改善人与法律的关系以及人与人的关系。情态模糊限制语的使用在立法语言乃至任何语言中都是不可避免的现象，但是，作为法律语言的核心部分，立法语言具有较为固定的语篇结构、语句结构和清晰的词语使用倾向，因此在情态模糊限制语的使用上也有与通用语言相区别的独特性，而这种独特性则通过它们在立法语言中的语义特征和语用功能呈现出来。本研究利用英国成文法数据库(The UK Statute Law Database)创建容量为100万词连续文本的立法语言语料库，以情态模糊限制语为切入点，借助wordsmith软件对海量的立法语言样本进行检索与统计，并进一步在可以代表通用语言的语料库Brown和LOB中查询和统计相同的情态模糊限制语(should, shall, could, can,might, may, would, will, must)，在分析和观察的基础上，总结和归纳立法语言中情态模糊限制语的使用特点以及原因，并把情态模糊限制语在立法语言语料库中与通用英语语料库中的使用相对比其使用特点的相同点和不同点，进一步着重探讨情态模糊限制语在立法语言中的角色和功能,以及在立法语言和通用英语中的使用倾向。通过对比和分析，本文得出以下结论：1.立法语言和通用语言一样，都具有不可避免的模糊性。2.立法语言中情态模糊语的使用比通用语言中情态模糊限制语的意义要更明确，更具有强调意义，从而显示出立法语言的权威性和制约性。3.立法语言虽然在使用模糊性极强的情态模糊限制语时较为慎重，但是却是必须的，这些模糊性极强的情态模糊限制语也具有其他的词语不可代替的语用功能。4.立法语言具有不可避免的模糊性，但立法语言还是尽力追求精准，立法语言其本身就是模糊性和精准性的共同体。
[Abstract]:Nowadays, with the rapid development of linguistics, the understanding of the essence of language has been gradually deepened, and legal linguistics has also been developing under the circumstances of increasing and deepening the study of the essence of language. Its emergence is the popularization and use of linguistic research results in the field of law, and it is also the urgent demand of legal activities and legal language development. The purpose of the study of legal language is to explain the social relationship between people in law and finally improve the relationship between human and law as well as the relationship between human beings and human beings. The use of modal hedges is an inevitable phenomenon in the legislative language and even in any language. However, as the core part of the legal language, the legislative language has a relatively fixed discourse structure. Because of the structure of sentence and the clear tendency of use of words, there are distinctions between modal hedges and general language in the use of modal hedges, which are shown by their semantic features and pragmatic functions in legislative languages. In this study, a 1 million-word continuous text legislative language corpus was created by using the British written grammar database (The UK Statute Law Database). With modal hedges as the starting point, a large number of legislative language samples were retrieved and counted with the help of wordsmith software, and a large number of legislative language samples were retrieved and counted with the help of wordsmith software. Furthermore, on the basis of analyzing and observing the same modal hedges (should, shall, could, can,might, may, would, will, must), in the corpus Brown and LOB, which can represent the general language, The characteristics and reasons of modal hedges in legislative language are summarized and summarized, and the similarities and differences between the use of modal hedges in legislative language corpus and that in general English corpus are compared with those in general English corpus. The role and function of modal hedges in legislative language and the tendency to use modal hedges in legislative language and general English are further discussed. Through comparison and analysis, this paper draws the following conclusions: 1. Legislative language, like common language, has inevitable fuzziness. 2. The use of modal ambiguity in legislative language is clearer and more important than modal hedges in general language, thus showing the authority and restraint of legislative language. 3. Although legislative language is more cautious in the use of modal fuzzy restriction language with strong vagueness, it is necessary, and these highly fuzzy modal hedges also have other pragmatic functions that cannot be replaced by other words. 4. Legislative language has inevitable fuzziness, but legislative language still tries its best to pursue precision. Legislative language itself is a community of fuzziness and precision.
【学位授予单位】：重庆大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2012
【分类号】：H030

【参考文献】