香港基本法双语文本的衔接手段对比研究

发布时间：2018-05-12 01:20

本文选题：法律翻译 + 英汉法律平行文本　；参考：《湖北工业大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：随着经济全球化的发展,随着信息化的加剧,每年都有大量的英语法律文件被翻译成汉语。由于法律文本具有独特性,这使得法律译员面临巨大的挑战。鉴于这种状况,国内很多学者开始将法律语言和翻译理论结合起来进行研究。然而,纵观CNKI论文库,笔者发现很少有人运用韩礼德和哈桑的衔接理论对比研究英汉法律平行文本。由此,笔者意识到完善这一领域的研究很有意义,这点可以视为本文的创新点。所以,本文试图用韩礼德和哈桑的衔接理论,对比分析英汉法律平行文本中的语法衔接手段,然后总结出这两个文本在语法衔接手段方面的异同点。首先,笔者回顾英汉语言对比,衔接理论,衔接和翻译,以及法律语言的特点的研究成果。然后,笔者以韩礼德的衔接理论作为理论框架,以语法衔接手段（指称,省略,替代,连接）作为分类方法,以香港基本法平行文本中的160条条例作为语料,进行定量和定性分析,旨在解决如下两个问题：（1）英汉法律平行文本中的语法衔接手段的相同点是什么?（2）英汉法律平行文本中的语法衔接手段的不同点是什么? 经过定量和定性分析,笔者得到如下几点结论：（1）相同点：首先,三种类型的指称频繁地出现在所挑选的英汉法律平行文本中。进一步可以发现,这两个文本都频繁地使用了第三人称代词和选择性指示代词；两个文本都没有出现指示副词；两个文本在一般比较方面的指称项目的数量相同。第二,三种类型的替代和动词省略在这两个文本中都没有出现。最后,三种类型的连接手段,诸如阐述,延伸,增强在这两个文本中都是主要的衔接手段。而且,这两个文本中的连词的功能相同。换言之,这些连词不仅可以用来连接句子中的单词,而且可以用来连接句子或小句。最后,在这三种类型的连接中,解释型连接词,转折型连接词,变换型连接词以及时空型连词在这两个文本中出现的频率相同。（2）不同点：一方面,英文文本中的指称出现的频率高于中文文本。同时,女性的人称代词只出现在英文文本中。另一方面,名词性省略和小句省略出现在英文文本中,而汉语文本中却没有。最后,整体上,英文法律文本中连接词的数量高于中文法律文本。两个文本中的连接手段的差异主要体现在增补型连接词和因果/条件型连接词上。因此，，作者期待本文能够帮助读者阅读英汉法律平行文本、促进法律英语的教学，并能够服务于英汉法律文件互译。
[Abstract]:With the development of economic globalization and the aggravation of informatization, a large number of English legal documents are translated into Chinese every year. Due to the uniqueness of the legal texts, legal interpreters are faced with great challenges. In view of this situation, many domestic scholars began to study the legal language and translation theory. However, looking at the CNKI paper library, the author finds that few people use Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory to study the parallel texts of English and Chinese laws. Therefore, the author realizes that it is very meaningful to perfect the research in this field, which can be regarded as the innovation of this paper. Therefore, this paper attempts to use Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory to compare and analyze the grammatical cohesive devices in English and Chinese legal parallel texts, and then sums up the similarities and differences between the two texts in the grammatical cohesive devices. First of all, the author reviews the research results of English and Chinese language contrast, cohesion theory, cohesion and translation, as well as the characteristics of legal language. Then, the author uses Halliday's cohesion theory as the theoretical framework, grammatical cohesion (reference, ellipsis, substitution, connection) as the classification method, and 160 ordinances in the parallel text of the basic Law of Hong Kong as the corpus. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, this paper aims to solve the following two questions: 1) what are the similarities of grammatical cohesive devices in English and Chinese legal parallel texts? 2) what are the differences of grammatical cohesive devices in English and Chinese legal parallel texts? Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, the author draws the following conclusions: Similarities: first, three types of references frequently appear in the selected English-Chinese legal parallel texts. It can be further found that the third person pronouns and selective deixis pronouns are frequently used in both texts; there are no demonstrative adverbs in both texts; and the number of referential items in general comparison between the two texts is the same. Second, three types of substitution and verb ellipsis do not appear in these two texts. Finally, three types of connectors, such as elaboration, extension and enhancement, are the main cohesive devices in both texts. Moreover, the conjunctions in the two texts have the same function. In other words, these conjunctions can be used not only to connect words in sentences, but also to connect sentences or clauses. Finally, in these three types of connections, explanatory connectives, turning connectives, transformational conjunctions and spatiotemporal conjunctions appear in the same frequency in these two texts. Difference: on the one hand, the frequency of references in English text is higher than that in Chinese text. At the same time, female personal pronouns only appear in English texts. On the other hand, nominal ellipsis and clause ellipsis appear in English text, but not in Chinese text. Finally, on the whole, the number of connectors in English legal texts is higher than that in Chinese legal texts. The differences of connective means in the two texts are mainly reflected in additive connectives and causal / conditional connectives. Therefore, the author hopes that this paper can help readers to read English and Chinese legal parallel texts, promote the teaching of legal English, and serve the translation of English and Chinese legal documents.
【学位授予单位】：湖北工业大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：H314;H146

【参考文献】