本文選題：漢韓法律術(shù)語(yǔ)　切入點(diǎn)：構(gòu)詞法　出處：《延邊大學(xué)》2011年碩士論文

【摘要】：在法律詞匯系統(tǒng)中,法律術(shù)語(yǔ)占據(jù)重要的地位,沒(méi)有法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的存在,就沒(méi)有法律法規(guī)的存在,更談不上法律的執(zhí)行。法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的研究對(duì)法律語(yǔ)言學(xué)的發(fā)展起著很重要的作用。 本論文在綜述兩國(guó)法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的研究現(xiàn)狀的基礎(chǔ)上,以漢韓法律術(shù)語(yǔ)為研究對(duì)象,以漢韓法律術(shù)語(yǔ)中的漢字詞法律術(shù)語(yǔ)為中心,以描寫(xiě)語(yǔ)言學(xué)和對(duì)比語(yǔ)言學(xué)的理論為指導(dǎo),采用定性與定量相結(jié)合的研究方法,在考察漢韓法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的構(gòu)詞法特征的基礎(chǔ)上,從詞匯形態(tài)和詞匯詞義兩方面入手,對(duì)比漢韓法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的構(gòu)詞法、詞義變化和詞義關(guān)系。 本論文由四個(gè)部分組成。 第一部分,總結(jié)了前人對(duì)漢韓法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的研究?jī)?nèi)容,明確了本論文的研究目的及意義。 第二部分,界定了漢語(yǔ)和韓國(guó)語(yǔ)法律術(shù)語(yǔ)定義,并根據(jù)法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的定義,按學(xué)科、使用范圍及來(lái)源進(jìn)行了術(shù)語(yǔ)分類(lèi)。 第三部分,在搭建了兩種法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的對(duì)比平臺(tái)的基礎(chǔ)上,進(jìn)行了構(gòu)詞法的對(duì)比分析。漢韓法律術(shù)語(yǔ)都使用三種形式的構(gòu)詞法：復(fù)合法、派生法、縮略法。合成詞采用復(fù)合式構(gòu)詞法,即聯(lián)合式、偏正式、主謂式、動(dòng)賓式、動(dòng)補(bǔ)式。在派生法構(gòu)詞法中,兩種法律術(shù)語(yǔ)都存在前綴和后綴構(gòu)詞法�？s略法的對(duì)比存在較大的差距,漢語(yǔ)的縮略語(yǔ)符合專(zhuān)門(mén)術(shù)語(yǔ)言簡(jiǎn)意賅的經(jīng)濟(jì)性要求,而韓國(guó)語(yǔ)法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的縮略語(yǔ)并不發(fā)達(dá),這又與韓國(guó)語(yǔ)的粘著性有聯(lián)系。 第四部分,對(duì)比分析了漢韓法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的詞義。在詞義的縮小、擴(kuò)大、轉(zhuǎn)移等三種詞義變化中,可以看到法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的語(yǔ)義變化大部分是縮小或轉(zhuǎn)移,這是由于法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的單一性特點(diǎn)而產(chǎn)生的。通過(guò)漢韓法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的上下義關(guān)系、同義關(guān)系、反義關(guān)系等詞義關(guān)系的對(duì)比,找出對(duì)等關(guān)系的術(shù)語(yǔ)。
[Abstract]:In the legal vocabulary system, legal terminology occupies an important position. Without the existence of legal terms, there will be no laws and regulations, let alone the enforcement of the law.The study of legal terms plays an important role in the development of forensic linguistics.On the basis of summarizing the current research situation of the legal terms in the two countries, this thesis takes the legal terms of Chinese and Korean as the research object, the legal terms of Chinese characters as the center, and the theories of descriptive linguistics and contrastive linguistics as the guidance.On the basis of investigating the word-formation characteristics of Chinese and Korean legal terms, this paper compares the word-formation, the change of word meaning and the relationship of word meaning between Chinese and Korean legal terms from the two aspects of lexical form and lexical meaning.This thesis consists of four parts.In the first part, the author summarizes the research contents of Chinese and Korean legal terms, and clarifies the purpose and significance of this thesis.The second part defines the legal terms of Chinese and Korean, and classifies the terms according to the subject, scope and source of use.The third part, on the basis of setting up the contrast platform of two kinds of legal terms, carries on the contrastive analysis of word-formation.Chinese and Korean legal terms all use three forms of word-formation: compound method, derivation method, abbreviated method.Compound word formation is used in combination, partial formality, subject-predicate, verb-object and verb-complement.In derivation word-formation, there are prefix and suffix word-formation in both legal terms.There is a big gap in the comparison of abbreviations. The Chinese abbreviations meet the economic requirements of the special terms, while the abbreviations of Korean legal terms are not developed, which is related to the adhesiveness of Korean.The fourth part, the comparative analysis of the meaning of Chinese and Korean legal terms.In the three changes of word meaning, such as narrowing, expanding and transferring, we can see that the semantic changes of legal terms are mostly reduced or transferred, which is caused by the singularity of legal terms.Through the comparison of the relationship between upper and lower meanings, synonyms and antonyms of Chinese and Korean legal terms, this paper finds out the terms of equivalence.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：延邊大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D90-055

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 李?lèi)?ài)華;崔忠;;日語(yǔ)中漢語(yǔ)縮略語(yǔ)的形式——與漢語(yǔ)縮略語(yǔ)相比[J];淮海工學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2007年01期

2 劉曉靜;趙雪;張曉磊;;現(xiàn)代漢語(yǔ)縮略語(yǔ)結(jié)構(gòu)及語(yǔ)法特點(diǎn)探析[J];佳木斯大學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2010年01期

3 張建榮;張強(qiáng);;論范疇化對(duì)法律術(shù)語(yǔ)研究的啟示[J];柳州師專(zhuān)學(xué)報(bào);2006年04期

4 張維侖;論法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的三個(gè)屬性[J];人大研究;1996年06期

5 崔永模;韓、漢語(yǔ)構(gòu)詞法的異同[J];山東教育學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年06期

6 陳炯,錢(qián)長(zhǎng)源;試論法律術(shù)語(yǔ)[J];上海大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2002年03期

7 那日松;揭春雨;馮志偉;;香港“雙語(yǔ)法例資料系統(tǒng)”法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的統(tǒng)計(jì)分析[J];術(shù)語(yǔ)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)化與信息技術(shù);2008年02期

8 陳炯;論法律術(shù)語(yǔ)的命名與選用[J];修辭學(xué)習(xí);2003年06期

9 劉紅嬰;;法律術(shù)語(yǔ)研究方法論要[J];修辭學(xué)習(xí);2006年04期

10 李紅梅;從造詞法看韓國(guó)語(yǔ)漢字新詞的語(yǔ)言經(jīng)濟(jì)性[J];延邊大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年01期

，

本文編號(hào)：1705179