本文選題：法律翻譯 + 英漢法律平行文本��； 參考：《湖北工業(yè)大學(xué)》2013年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著經(jīng)濟(jì)全球化的發(fā)展,隨著信息化的加劇,每年都有大量的英語(yǔ)法律文件被翻譯成漢語(yǔ)。由于法律文本具有獨(dú)特性,這使得法律譯員面臨巨大的挑戰(zhàn)。鑒于這種狀況,國(guó)內(nèi)很多學(xué)者開(kāi)始將法律語(yǔ)言和翻譯理論結(jié)合起來(lái)進(jìn)行研究。然而,縱觀CNKI論文庫(kù),筆者發(fā)現(xiàn)很少有人運(yùn)用韓禮德和哈桑的銜接理論對(duì)比研究英漢法律平行文本。由此,筆者意識(shí)到完善這一領(lǐng)域的研究很有意義,這點(diǎn)可以視為本文的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)。所以,本文試圖用韓禮德和哈桑的銜接理論,對(duì)比分析英漢法律平行文本中的語(yǔ)法銜接手段,然后總結(jié)出這兩個(gè)文本在語(yǔ)法銜接手段方面的異同點(diǎn)。 首先,筆者回顧英漢語(yǔ)言對(duì)比,銜接理論,銜接和翻譯,以及法律語(yǔ)言的特點(diǎn)的研究成果。然后,筆者以韓禮德的銜接理論作為理論框架,以語(yǔ)法銜接手段（指稱,省略,替代,連接）作為分類方法,以香港基本法平行文本中的160條條例作為語(yǔ)料,進(jìn)行定量和定性分析,旨在解決如下兩個(gè)問(wèn)題：（1）英漢法律平行文本中的語(yǔ)法銜接手段的相同點(diǎn)是什么?（2）英漢法律平行文本中的語(yǔ)法銜接手段的不同點(diǎn)是什么? 經(jīng)過(guò)定量和定性分析,筆者得到如下幾點(diǎn)結(jié)論： （1）相同點(diǎn)：首先,三種類型的指稱頻繁地出現(xiàn)在所挑選的英漢法律平行文本中。進(jìn)一步可以發(fā)現(xiàn),這兩個(gè)文本都頻繁地使用了第三人稱代詞和選擇性指示代詞；兩個(gè)文本都沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)指示副詞；兩個(gè)文本在一般比較方面的指稱項(xiàng)目的數(shù)量相同。第二,三種類型的替代和動(dòng)詞省略在這兩個(gè)文本中都沒(méi)有出現(xiàn)。最后,三種類型的連接手段,諸如闡述,延伸,增強(qiáng)在這兩個(gè)文本中都是主要的銜接手段。而且,這兩個(gè)文本中的連詞的功能相同。換言之,這些連詞不僅可以用來(lái)連接句子中的單詞,而且可以用來(lái)連接句子或小句。最后,在這三種類型的連接中,解釋型連接詞,轉(zhuǎn)折型連接詞,變換型連接詞以及時(shí)空型連詞在這兩個(gè)文本中出現(xiàn)的頻率相同。 （2）不同點(diǎn)：一方面,英文文本中的指稱出現(xiàn)的頻率高于中文文本。同時(shí),女性的人稱代詞只出現(xiàn)在英文文本中。另一方面,名詞性省略和小句省略出現(xiàn)在英文文本中,而漢語(yǔ)文本中卻沒(méi)有。最后,整體上,英文法律文本中連接詞的數(shù)量高于中文法律文本。兩個(gè)文本中的連接手段的差異主要體現(xiàn)在增補(bǔ)型連接詞和因果/條件型連接詞上。 因此，，作者期待本文能夠幫助讀者閱讀英漢法律平行文本、促進(jìn)法律英語(yǔ)的教學(xué)，并能夠服務(wù)于英漢法律文件互譯。
[Abstract]:With the development of economic globalization and the aggravation of informatization, a large number of English legal documents are translated into Chinese every year. Due to the uniqueness of the legal texts, legal interpreters are faced with great challenges. In view of this situation, many domestic scholars began to study the legal language and translation theory. However, looking at the CNKI paper library, the author finds that few people use Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory to study the parallel texts of English and Chinese laws. Therefore, the author realizes that it is very meaningful to perfect the research in this field, which can be regarded as the innovation of this paper. Therefore, this paper attempts to use Halliday and Hasan's cohesion theory to compare and analyze the grammatical cohesive devices in English and Chinese legal parallel texts, and then sums up the similarities and differences between the two texts in the grammatical cohesive devices. First of all, the author reviews the research results of English and Chinese language contrast, cohesion theory, cohesion and translation, as well as the characteristics of legal language. Then, the author uses Halliday's cohesion theory as the theoretical framework, grammatical cohesion (reference, ellipsis, substitution, connection) as the classification method, and 160 ordinances in the parallel text of the basic Law of Hong Kong as the corpus. Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, this paper aims to solve the following two questions: 1) what are the similarities of grammatical cohesive devices in English and Chinese legal parallel texts? 2) what are the differences of grammatical cohesive devices in English and Chinese legal parallel texts? Through quantitative and qualitative analysis, the author draws the following conclusions: Similarities: first, three types of references frequently appear in the selected English-Chinese legal parallel texts. It can be further found that the third person pronouns and selective deixis pronouns are frequently used in both texts; there are no demonstrative adverbs in both texts; and the number of referential items in general comparison between the two texts is the same. Second, three types of substitution and verb ellipsis do not appear in these two texts. Finally, three types of connectors, such as elaboration, extension and enhancement, are the main cohesive devices in both texts. Moreover, the conjunctions in the two texts have the same function. In other words, these conjunctions can be used not only to connect words in sentences, but also to connect sentences or clauses. Finally, in these three types of connections, explanatory connectives, turning connectives, transformational conjunctions and spatiotemporal conjunctions appear in the same frequency in these two texts. Difference: on the one hand, the frequency of references in English text is higher than that in Chinese text. At the same time, female personal pronouns only appear in English texts. On the other hand, nominal ellipsis and clause ellipsis appear in English text, but not in Chinese text. Finally, on the whole, the number of connectors in English legal texts is higher than that in Chinese legal texts. The differences of connective means in the two texts are mainly reflected in additive connectives and causal / conditional connectives. Therefore, the author hopes that this paper can help readers to read English and Chinese legal parallel texts, promote the teaching of legal English, and serve the translation of English and Chinese legal documents.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖北工業(yè)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2013
【分類號(hào)】：H314;H146

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 曾兆令;從英漢語(yǔ)言結(jié)構(gòu)差異看英譯漢中的意合趨勢(shì)[J];洛陽(yáng)師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2000年03期

2 張德祿;論銜接[J];外國(guó)語(yǔ)(上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2001年02期

3 朱永生;;試論雙語(yǔ)對(duì)比研究的若干原則與方法[J];現(xiàn)代外語(yǔ);1992年04期

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 楊瑞;銜接理論在海商法英漢翻譯中的應(yīng)用[D];哈爾濱工程大學(xué);2010年

本文編號(hào)：1876484