發(fā)布時(shí)間：2021-01-07 14:38

　　本文通過(guò)對(duì)律師辯護(hù)（代理）詞中語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)進(jìn)行分類和對(duì)其功能的闡釋來(lái)研究律師辯護(hù)（代理）詞中語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)的使用特點(diǎn),旨在從中探究律師在撰寫(xiě)辯護(hù)（代理）詞時(shí)所采用的普遍結(jié)構(gòu)及其策略。 本文是基于30篇律師辯護(hù)（代理）詞的描述性研究,構(gòu)建于以關(guān)聯(lián)理論和元語(yǔ)用意識(shí)為基礎(chǔ)的理論框架內(nèi)。其中,關(guān)聯(lián)理論作為本文主要的理論支撐用來(lái)解釋語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)在律師辯護(hù)（代理）詞中是如何發(fā)揮作用的,即語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)如何對(duì)聽(tīng)者對(duì)辯護(hù)（代理）詞的推理方向進(jìn)行引導(dǎo)和限制,而正是因?yàn)檎Z(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)的限制引導(dǎo)功能,在元語(yǔ)用意識(shí)的趨使之下律師選擇使用語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)來(lái)對(duì)整個(gè)語(yǔ)篇進(jìn)行策劃,編排。語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)根據(jù)其功能可劃分為兩大類別:話語(yǔ)標(biāo)記語(yǔ)和態(tài)度標(biāo)記語(yǔ)。每類標(biāo)記語(yǔ)又可細(xì)分為不同的分支對(duì)辯護(hù)（代理）詞的理解起著不同的作用。 根據(jù)各類語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)的功能,結(jié)合數(shù)據(jù)分析我們發(fā)現(xiàn),律師辯護(hù)（代理）詞的撰寫(xiě)有相對(duì)固定的模式和策略,盡管所有的語(yǔ)料出自六位律師為三十個(gè)不同案件撰寫(xiě)的辯護(hù)（代理）詞。本文旨在將語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)的研究引入新領(lǐng)域的同時(shí)為法律從業(yè)者及學(xué)習(xí)者提供這些模式和策略用以借鑒。 

【文章來(lái)源】：廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué)廣東省

【文章頁(yè)數(shù)】：115 頁(yè)

【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
Declaration
Acknowledgement
Abstract
摘要
List of tables and figures
Chapter 1. Introduction
    1.1 Introduction
    1.2 Definition of the key terms
        1.2.1 Definition of lawyer's statement
        1.2.2 Definition of pragmatic marker
    1.3 Rationale
    1.4 Data and methodology
        1.4.1 Data
        1.4.2 Methodology
    1.5 Organization of the thesis
Chapter 2. Overview of the relevant literature
    2.1 Introduction
    2.2 Overview of literature on PMs
        2.2.1 On English PMs
            2.2.1.1 Coherence- or discourse-based approach
            2.2.1.2 Pragmatic approach
            2.2.1.3 Relevance theoretical approach
        2.2.2 On Chinese PMs
    2.3 Overview of literature on lawyers' statements
    2.4 Critique of the previous researches
Chapter 3. A description of theoretical framework
    3.1 Introduction
    3.2 Procedural meaning or propositional meaning
    3.3 A sketch of theoretical background
        3.3.1 Relevance theory
        3.3.2 Metapragmatic awareness
        3.3.3 Theoretical framework of the present study
    3.4 Summary
Chapter 4. Categorization and functionality of pragmatic markers in lawyers' statement
    4.1 Introduction
    4.2 The categorization of PMs in lawyers' statements
        4.2.1 Discourse marker
            4.2.1.1 Elaborative marker
            4.2.1.2 Contrastive marker
            4.2.1.3 Implicative marker
            4.2.1.4 Reformulation marker
        4.2.2 Attitudinal marker
            4.2.2.1 Commentary marker
            4.2.2.2 Evidential marker
            4.2.2.3 Manner of speaking marker
        4.2.3 Summary
    4.3 Relevance theoretical account for the functionality of PMs in lawyers' statements
        4.3.1 DMs' constraints on the interpretation of lawyers' statements
        4.3.2 AMs' constraints on the interpretation of lawyers' statements
        4.3.3 Summary
Chapter 5. Data analysis and discussion
    5.1 Introduction
    5.2 Data analysis
        5.2.1 Observations on the average distributions of PMs in each part of the statement
        5.2.2 Obeservations of the PMs in each lawyer's writings
        5.2.3 Obeservations of the PMs in statemetns for criminal and civil cases
    5.3 Discussion
Chapter 6. Conclusion
    6.1 Overview
    6.2 Findings
    6.3 Implications
    6.4 Limitations
    6.5 Suggestions for further research
Bibliography
Appendix


【參考文獻(xiàn)】：
期刊論文
[1]漢語(yǔ)語(yǔ)用標(biāo)記語(yǔ)的語(yǔ)義、語(yǔ)用分析[J]. 馮光武.  現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ). 2004(01)
[2]話語(yǔ)標(biāo)記語(yǔ)的元語(yǔ)用分析[J]. 吳亞欣,于國(guó)棟.  外語(yǔ)教學(xué). 2003(04)
[3]話語(yǔ)標(biāo)記語(yǔ)的語(yǔ)用學(xué)研究綜述[J]. 冉永平.  外語(yǔ)研究. 2000(04)



本文編號(hào)：2962740