【摘要】：自從韓禮德于1985年在其《功能語(yǔ)法導(dǎo)論》一書中提出“語(yǔ)法隱喻”的理論,許多語(yǔ)言學(xué)家和學(xué)者都對(duì)語(yǔ)法隱喻產(chǎn)生了極大的興趣,并對(duì)語(yǔ)法隱喻的進(jìn)一步研究做出了很大貢獻(xiàn)。語(yǔ)言學(xué)家對(duì)科技語(yǔ)篇和歷史語(yǔ)篇中的語(yǔ)法隱喻現(xiàn)象都進(jìn)行了大量的研究。但是,很少有研究能從系統(tǒng)功能語(yǔ)法的角度對(duì)法律語(yǔ)篇進(jìn)行語(yǔ)法隱喻研究。另外,中國(guó)的法律英語(yǔ)研究還處于起始階段。許多對(duì)法律英語(yǔ)的研究還僅僅停留在詞匯語(yǔ)法和文體特點(diǎn)上。因此,本文試圖從功能語(yǔ)法的角度來(lái)分析英語(yǔ)法律語(yǔ)篇語(yǔ)法隱喻的特點(diǎn)。 本文基于系統(tǒng)功能語(yǔ)言學(xué)的理論框架,分析了約14000字的英語(yǔ)法律文本,其中包括《人權(quán)宣言》(1998),《刑事公正法》(2003),《公司法》(2004),《刑事訴訟法》(1996),《金融服務(wù)與市場(chǎng)法》(2000),《地方政府法》(2003)和《美國(guó)憲法》。受到篇幅和時(shí)間的限制,作者僅對(duì)每部法律的前十條條文進(jìn)行了語(yǔ)法隱喻分析。 本文以韓禮德重新分類的13類語(yǔ)法隱喻(1996)作為辨別語(yǔ)法隱喻的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)。在分析語(yǔ)料時(shí)分了兩步：首先,作者進(jìn)行了定量研究以說(shuō)明在英語(yǔ)法律語(yǔ)篇中是否大量存在語(yǔ)法隱喻。然后,作者又進(jìn)行了定性研究以分析說(shuō)明英語(yǔ)法律語(yǔ)篇中語(yǔ)法隱喻的主要特點(diǎn)和功能。 通過(guò)對(duì)所選定的英語(yǔ)法律語(yǔ)篇進(jìn)行語(yǔ)法隱喻分析,本文得出以下結(jié)論： (1)作為一類典型的成人書面語(yǔ)篇,法律語(yǔ)篇里存在著大量的語(yǔ)法隱喻。法律語(yǔ)篇中的語(yǔ)法隱喻給許多試圖研究法律的非專業(yè)人士帶來(lái)了很大困難。法律語(yǔ)篇中的語(yǔ)法隱喻增加了法律語(yǔ)言的復(fù)雜性。 (2)在英語(yǔ)法律語(yǔ)篇中,除了名詞化,還大量存在著形容詞化以及從“實(shí)體”到“擴(kuò)展”的語(yǔ)法隱喻模式。 (3)隱喻式的語(yǔ)言實(shí)現(xiàn)形式要比和它們相對(duì)應(yīng)的一致式的語(yǔ)言實(shí)現(xiàn)形式更為復(fù)雜。隱喻式中高度壓縮的語(yǔ)法結(jié)構(gòu)和詞匯密度的增加導(dǎo)致了法律語(yǔ)言的難度。 (4)作者分析發(fā)現(xiàn)英語(yǔ)法律語(yǔ)篇語(yǔ)法隱喻有三大功能：即壓縮功能,話語(yǔ)功能和意識(shí)形態(tài)功能。 本文的分析也進(jìn)一步證明了從系統(tǒng)功能途徑來(lái)進(jìn)行語(yǔ)篇分析的可行性。然而,由于受到語(yǔ)料范圍和時(shí)間的限制,本研究只分析了英語(yǔ)法律語(yǔ)篇中的語(yǔ)法隱喻現(xiàn)象,未來(lái)研究可以對(duì)漢語(yǔ)法律語(yǔ)篇中的語(yǔ)法隱喻現(xiàn)象進(jìn)行分析,還可以進(jìn)行英漢對(duì)比研究,以找到英漢法律語(yǔ)篇語(yǔ)法隱喻方面的異同。希望本研究能對(duì)未來(lái)的研究起到拋磚引玉的作用,使這方面的研究有更大的發(fā)展。
[Abstract]:Since Halliday put forward the theory of grammatical metaphor in his introduction to functional Grammar in 1985, many linguists and scholars have had great interest in grammatical metaphor and have made great contributions to the further study of grammatical metaphor. Linguists have done a great deal of research on grammatical metaphor in both scientific and historical discourse. However, there are few studies on grammatical metaphor in legal texts from the perspective of systemic functional grammar. In addition, the study of legal English in China is still in its infancy. Many studies on legal English only focus on lexical grammar and stylistic features. Therefore, this paper attempts to analyze the features of grammatical metaphor in English legal discourse from the perspective of functional grammar. Based on the theoretical framework of systemic functional linguistics, this paper analyzes about 14000 words of English legal texts. These include the Declaration of Human Rights (1998), the Criminal Justice Act (2003), the Company Law (2004), the Code of Criminal procedure (1996), the Financial Services and Markets Act (2000), the Local Government Act (2003) and the Constitution of the United States. Due to the limitation of space and time, the author makes a grammatical metaphorical analysis of the first ten articles of each law. This paper uses Halliday's 13 categories of grammatical metaphors (1996) as the criteria for identifying grammatical metaphors. There are two steps in the analysis of the corpus. Firstly, the author makes a quantitative study to illustrate whether there are a large number of grammatical metaphors in English legal texts. Then the author makes a qualitative study to illustrate the main features and functions of grammatical metaphor in English legal discourse. Based on the grammatical metaphor analysis of the selected English legal discourse, this paper draws the following conclusions: (1) as a typical adult written discourse, there are a large number of grammatical metaphors in legal discourse. Grammatical metaphors in legal discourse pose great difficulties for many lay people trying to study law. Grammatical metaphor in legal discourse increases the complexity of legal language. (2) in English legal discourse, except nominalization; There are also a lot of grammatical metaphorical patterns from "entity" to "extension". (3) the language realization of metaphorical form is more complex than that of consistent language realization form corresponding to them. The increase of highly compressed grammatical structure and lexical density in metaphorical style leads to the difficulty of legal language. (4) the author finds that grammatical metaphor in English legal discourse has three functions: compression function, discourse function and ideological function. The analysis of this paper further proves the feasibility of text analysis from a systemic functional approach. However, due to the limitation of the scope and time of the corpus, the present study only analyzes the grammatical metaphor phenomenon in English legal discourse, and the future research can analyze the grammatical metaphor phenomenon in Chinese legal discourse. A contrastive study of English and Chinese can also be carried out to find the similarities and differences between English and Chinese legal discourse grammatical metaphors. It is hoped that this study will play an important role in the future research.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘭州理工大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2010
【分類號(hào)】：H315

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 楊成虎;語(yǔ)法隱喻與語(yǔ)法化理論對(duì)比分析[J];天津外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2001年01期

2 王彩麗;修辭隱喻、認(rèn)知隱喻和語(yǔ)法隱喻的關(guān)系探討[J];廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2004年03期

3 劉宇紅;Congruence淺議[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2001年06期

4 趙炳;;經(jīng)濟(jì)新聞?wù)Z篇中的語(yǔ)法隱喻分析[J];科技信息;2011年11期

5 趙玉娟;吳雅娟;;建構(gòu)主義學(xué)習(xí)理論在語(yǔ)法隱喻中的體現(xiàn)[J];大家;2011年14期

6 嚴(yán)世清;論韓禮德的語(yǔ)言哲學(xué)思想[J];外語(yǔ)研究;2002年02期

7 董宏樂(lè),邱東林;也談大學(xué)英語(yǔ)閱讀教學(xué)的地位和方法[J];西安外國(guó)語(yǔ)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2004年02期

8 王琳;;論科技英語(yǔ)中的隱喻[J];科學(xué)之友(B版);2006年10期

9 張琬s，

本文編號(hào)：2262195