本文選題：認知語言學 + 對話句法�。� 參考：《四川外國語大學》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：法庭話語作為一種特殊的機構(gòu)話語類型,一直受到了學者的高度關(guān)注。他們從語用學、功能語言學、認知語言學、修辭學、法學和一些交叉學科的視角對于這類機構(gòu)話語進行了研究,取得了一些重要成果,但也存在著一些問題:有些研究缺乏充實的封閉語料,有些則缺乏理論框架,只進行簡單的闡述分析。此外,從句法、語義、語用整合角度做出的闡釋尚且不足。鑒于此,本文以認知語言學和對話句法為理論背景,基于框架理論、認知參照點、共振原則,建立了FCR(Frame-Cognitive Reference Point-Resonance)模型深入探討以律師為主導的法庭論辯話語。由于真實法庭語料難以獲取,筆者選取了美劇《逍遙法外》中的法庭論辯話語片段作為語料進行相關(guān)分析,并期望從句法、語義、語用三個層面對其作出較好解釋。研究發(fā)現(xiàn),法庭論辯基本以律師主導。律師選取案件中所需要的信息進行框架限定,再從選取的參照點不斷獲得更多信息,在語言上以共振的方式與證人達成一致,因而影響最終的判決。對話中句子類型主要以提問為主。問句主要分為兩類,一類是一般疑問句,律師的語言中包含詢問的內(nèi)容,此類問題占總數(shù)的73%;另一類是特殊疑問句,需要由證人提供關(guān)鍵信息,占總數(shù)的27%。兩類句子中都存在框架共振以及焦點共振的現(xiàn)象。在庭審話語中,律師與證人的問題與回答都必須確保明晰,在法律的嚴苛制度下,一旦與律師求證的某件事實達成語義上的一致,就無須對其進行過多的解釋。但為表達特殊內(nèi)容,也可能會存在語義相同而形式不同的自我共振現(xiàn)象。由于律師在庭審話語中占據(jù)支配地位,他們控制著話輪的主動權(quán)、對話推進的速度以及最終結(jié)論的判斷。有時,律師也會采用看似無關(guān)的問題為自己的目的做語用上的鋪墊。
[Abstract]:As a special type of institutional discourse, court discourse has been highly concerned by scholars. From the perspectives of pragmatics, functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics, rhetoric, law and some interdisciplinary disciplines, they have made some important achievements. However, there are still some problems: some studies lack substantial closed corpus, others lack theoretical framework. In addition, the explanation from syntactic, semantic and pragmatic integration is still insufficient. In view of this, this paper takes cognitive linguistics and dialogue syntax as the theoretical background, based on frame theory, cognitive reference point, resonance principle, and establishes the FCR(Frame-Cognitive Reference Point-Resonance) model to explore the lawyer-led discourse of court debate in depth. Because the real court corpus is difficult to obtain, the author chooses the discourse fragment of court argument in the American TV series "impunity" as the correlation-related analysis, and expects to make a better explanation from three aspects: syntax, semantics and pragmatics. The study found that the court argument is dominated by lawyers. The lawyer selects the information needed in the case to limit the frame of reference, and then obtains more information from the selected reference point to reach agreement with the witness in the language of resonance, thus affecting the final decision. In the dialogue, the main sentence types are questions. Questions are mainly divided into two categories: one is general interrogative sentence, the lawyer's language contains the content of questioning, such questions account for 73% of the total; the other is special question sentence, which requires witnesses to provide key information, accounting for 27% of the total. Frame resonance and focal resonance exist in both types of sentences. In the trial discourse, the questions and answers of lawyers and witnesses must be clear. Under the strict system of law, once the semantic agreement is reached with the facts verified by lawyers, there is no need to interpret them too much. However, in order to express special content, there may be the phenomenon of self-resonance with the same semantics and different forms. As lawyers dominate the discourse of the trial, they control the initiative of the round, the speed at which the dialogue progresses and the judgment of the final conclusion. Sometimes lawyers use seemingly irrelevant questions to lay the groundwork for their own purpose.
【學位授予單位】：四川外國語大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2017
【分類號】：H31

【相似文獻】

相關(guān)碩士學位論文 前2條

1 鄒唯銘;基于FCR模型的庭審話語認知分析[D];四川外國語大學;2017年

2 張憶良;《鹿特丹規(guī)則》下FCR在海上貨運貿(mào)易中適用性的研究[D];安徽大學;2014年

，

本文編號：1831325