介入视角下的汉语立法语篇研究

发布时间：2018-07-26 11:39

【摘要】：在过去的三十年里,法律语言学研究发展迅速。就对立法语言的研究而言,绝大多数学者都是遵照传统修辞学的研究模式,着重探讨立法语篇的语义和修辞方法,对其人际意义的探讨还不够全面。因此,本文从介入系统入手,通过讨论中文立法语篇中介入资源的人际意义来揭示立法者与法律听众的多种对话关系。本研究所采用的语料是三部汉语法律,包括《中华人民共和国刑法》、《中华人民共和国刑事诉讼法》、《中华人民共和国物权法》。无论从法律内容还是语言形式上来看,这三部法律都是汉语立法语篇的典型代表。为了便于统计数据,本研究借助UAM Corpus tool 3.0自带的介入系统框架对语料中出现的介入资源进行识别、分类和标注。再结合相关数据,通过说明汉语立法语篇中介入资源的分布特征及其人际功能来揭示立法者的话语立场。为了实现这个目的,本研究将回答以下三个具体问题:(1)汉语立法语篇中的介入资源具有什么样的分布特征?(2)这些介入资源说明立法者持有什么样的话语立场?(3)立法者适时改变话语立场的法理依据是什么?本研究的具体研究结果如下:第一、从介入资源的分布特征来看,汉语立法语篇中介入资源的类别、使用频率及语言实现方式都有其独特性。首先,统计结果显示语料中既有自言又有借言资源。借言主要由接纳、归属、否定和反预期体现。其次,这些介入资源的使用频率各不相同。《中华人民共和国刑法》以自言为主,另外两部法律以借言中的接纳资源为主。再次,多数介入资源都有自己特定的语言实现形式。第二、从介入的人际意义来看,自言意味着拒绝任何协商,立法者主要用其来表达基本的法律规定和原则。借言里的接纳资源最能体现立法者积极协商的话语姿态。归属在立法语篇中并不是用于扩展对话空间,而是力求相似条件获得相同结果,以保证法律的公平公正。否定和反预期由于其消极和迂回的话语表述方式违背了基本的法理要求,因而出现的频率相对较低。第三、从立法者的话语立场来看,他们最愿意与司法者协商,其次是普通公民,几乎不给犯罪分子留下任何话语空间。这说明话语立场的选择与法律听众的权力地位密切相关,进一步详细说明了立法语篇中权力的不平等性。本文以介入为视角,深入探讨了立法者与法律听众的多种对话关系,为说明立法语篇的独特性提供了新的视角,也为多角度理解立法语篇做出了一定贡献。
[Abstract]:In the past three decades, the study of forensic linguistics has developed rapidly. As far as the study of legislative language is concerned, most scholars follow the traditional rhetorical research model and focus on the semantic and rhetorical methods of legislative discourse, but the interpersonal meaning of legislative discourse is not comprehensive enough. Therefore, starting with the intervention system, this paper discusses the interpersonal meaning of intervening resources in Chinese legislative discourse to reveal the various dialogue relationships between legislators and legal listeners. The corpus used in this study is three Chinese laws, including the Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China, the Criminal procedure Law of the people's Republic of China, and the property Law of the people's Republic of China. In terms of legal content and linguistic form, these three laws are typical representatives of Chinese legislative texts. In order to facilitate the statistical data, this study uses the framework of intervention system of UAM Corpus tool 3.0 to identify, classify and label the intervention resources in the corpus. Based on the relevant data, this paper explains the distribution characteristics and interpersonal functions of intervention resources in Chinese legislative discourse to reveal the position of the legislator. To achieve this, The present study will answer the following three specific questions: (1) what are the distribution characteristics of intervention resources in Chinese legislative discourse? (2) what kind of discourse position do these intervention resources indicate? (3) legislators change discourse in due course What is the legal basis of the field? The results of this study are as follows: first, from the perspective of the distribution of intervention resources, the types, frequency of use and language realization of intervention resources in Chinese legislative discourse are unique. First of all, the statistical results show that there are both self-speaking and borrowed resources in the corpus. It is mainly reflected by acceptance, attribution, negation and anti-expectation. Secondly, the frequency of the use of these intervention resources is different. The Criminal Law of the people's Republic of China is based on self-talk, and the other two laws are mainly on the acceptance of resources. Thirdly, most intervention resources have their own specific language implementation forms. Second, from the interpersonal meaning of intervention, self-talk means rejection of any negotiation, and legislators mainly use it to express basic legal provisions and principles. The acceptance of resources in the speech can best reflect the attitude of active negotiation of legislators. Attribution is not used in legislative discourse to expand the dialogue space, but to achieve the same results under similar conditions in order to ensure the fairness and fairness of the law. Negative and negative expectations are relatively low in frequency because their negative and circuitous discourse expressions violate the basic legal requirements. Third, from the standpoint of the legislators, they are most willing to negotiate with the judiciary, followed by ordinary citizens, leaving little discourse space for criminals. This shows that the choice of discourse position is closely related to the power position of the legal audience, and further explains in detail the inequality of power in legislative discourse. From the perspective of intervention, this paper probes into the relationship between legislators and legal listeners, which provides a new perspective to explain the uniqueness of legislative texts and contributes to the understanding of legislative texts from different perspectives.
【学位授予单位】：重庆大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：H15

【相似文献】