中英诉讼文书中衔接手段的比较研究

论文摘要

衔接是文本的普遍特征,是生成语篇的必要条件。尽管国内外的语言学家在衔接这个领域已经做了很多研究,但其主要是对文学、诗歌等文体中的衔接手段的研究。不同文体所使用的衔接手段不同,诉讼文书是一种法律文本,其衔接手段的运用与这些文学作品存在差异。因此,作者以诉讼文书这种法律文本为视角,探讨了中英诉讼文书中的主要衔接手段及其运用上的异同。本研究在韩礼德和哈桑的衔接理论的基础上用定量分析法对中英诉讼文书中的衔接手段进行了比较分析,初步得出以下结论:中英诉讼文书中使用频率较高的衔接手段是照应、名词性替代、连接词语、重复和搭配,并且这些衔接手段在诉讼文书中有其自身的特点,比如频繁使用古语体词作为指示指称、频繁使用重复手段等。另外,在英语诉讼文书中经常使用“where”来表达因果关系。本研究尝试在诉讼文书这种法律文本中研究衔接手段,提供了研究衔接手段的新视角,为法律翻译工作者提供了一个理论框架和实用性参考,对中英诉讼文书间的互译有一定的指导意义,其中对我国和英语国家诉讼文书中的主要衔接手段进行的对比研究,有利于促进我国和英语国家间的法律交流。

论文目录

• Acknowledgements
• Abstract
• 摘要
• Chapter One Introduction
• 1.1 Purpose and significance of the study
• 1.2 Research questions
• 1.3 Research methodology and data collection
• 1.4 Outline of the study
• Chapter Two Literature Review
• 2.1 Studies on cohesion
• 2.2 Studies on cohesive devices
• 2.3 Studies on characteristics of litigation writing
• 2.4 Studies on cohesive devices in Chinese and English litigation writing
• 2.5 Summary
• Chapter Three The Cohesive Devices More Frequently Employed in Chinese and English Litigation writing
• 3.1 Theoretical framework
• 3.2 Research procedure
• 3.3 Frequency of cohesive devices in Chinese and English litigation writing
• 3.3.1 Frequency of reference in Chinese and English litigation writing
• 3.3.1.1 Personal reference
• 3.3.1.2 Demonstrative reference
• 3.3.1.3 Comparative reference
• 3.3.2 Frequency of substitution in Chinese and English litigation writing
• 3.3.2.1 Nominal substitution
• 3.3.2.2 Verbal substitution
• 3.3.2.3 Clausal substitution
• 3.3.3 Frequency of ellipsis in Chinese and English litigation writing
• 3.3.3.1 Nominal ellipsis
• 3.3.3.2 Verbal ellipsis
• 3.3.3.3 Clausal ellipsis
• 3.3.4 Frequency of conjunction in Chinese and English litigation writing
• 3.3.4.1 Additive conjunction
• 3.3.4.2 Adversative conjunction
• 3.3.4.4 Temporal conjunction
• 3.3.5 Frequency of lexical cohesion in Chinese and English litigation writing
• 3.4 The more frequently employed cohesive devices in Chinese and English litigation writing
• 3.5 Summary
• Chapter Four The Similarities and Discrepancies of the More Frequently Employed Cohesive Devices Between Chinese and English Litigation Writing
• 4.1 Similarities of the more frequently employed cohesive devices between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.1.1 Similarities in reference between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.1.2 Similarities in nominal substitution between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.1.3 Similarities in conjunction between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.1.4 Similarities in lexical cohesion between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.2 Discrepancies of the more frequently employed cohesive devices between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.2.1 Discrepancies in reference between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.2.2 Discrepancies in nominal substitution between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.2.3 Discrepancies in conjunction between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.2.4 Discrepancies in lexical cohesion between Chinese and English litigation writing
• 4.3 Summary
• Chapter Five Conclusion
• 5.1 Summary of the present study
• 5.2 Possible contributions of the present study
• 5.3 Suggestions for further study
• Bibliography