經(jīng)過近四十年的法律語言學(xué)理論的引進(jìn)與發(fā)展,我國庭審話語不僅受到了語言學(xué)界的高度重視,也愈加受到法學(xué)界的廣泛關(guān)注。近年來,除熱門話題如預(yù)設(shè)、打斷、標(biāo)記語、模糊語等方面的靜態(tài)文本研究外,學(xué)界也開始轉(zhuǎn)向側(cè)重庭審話語的動態(tài)性研究。因此,為補(bǔ)充及豐富庭審話語的研究內(nèi)容,本文引入廣義的漢語普通話語調(diào)為研究方法,全面考察和探析庭審話語中祈使句的語用功能及其語調(diào)表征,以求深化對祈使句的傳統(tǒng)認(rèn)識,并為庭審話語研究提供新的視角。在焦點理論和語用身份論的架構(gòu)下,本文以央視CCTV12《庭審現(xiàn)場》欄目的審判視頻轉(zhuǎn)寫文本為語料,隨機(jī)選取了刑事案件審判中的488句祈使句,并運用Praat語音分析軟件對其語用功能進(jìn)行有聲性特質(zhì)的實證研究。研究表明:(1)祈使句的焦點類型與其要表達(dá)的語用功能密切相關(guān)。就法官而言,其祈使句的語用功能由調(diào)核的位置與祈使句主語是否一致觸發(fā),可以分為強(qiáng)調(diào)功能和提醒功能,且受到程序性原則、經(jīng)濟(jì)性原則、禮貌性原則和明確性原則的制約;就公訴人而言,其祈使句的語用功能的實現(xiàn)主要受到語用目的的影響,表現(xiàn)為強(qiáng)調(diào)功能,提醒功能和警告功能;就辯護(hù)人而言,其祈使句的語用功能由調(diào)核與祈使表述焦點位置是否一致觸發(fā),...

【文章頁數(shù)】：60 頁

【學(xué)位級別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
摘要
Abstract
1 Introduction
    1.1 Research Background
    1.2 Significance
    1.3 Research Objective and Research Questions
    1.4 Methodology
        1.4.1 Data Collection
        1.4.2 Research Instrument
        1.4.3 Research Procedure
    1.5 Organization
2 Literature Review
    2.1 Previous Studies on Forensic Linguistics
        2.1.1 Overseas Studies on Forensic Linguistics
        2.1.2 Domestic Studies on Forensic Linguistics
        2.1.3 Limitations of Forensic Linguistics Research
    2.2 Previous Studies on Chinese Imperative Sentence
        2.2.1 Definition Studies on Imperative Sentence
        2.2.2 Constituent Studies on Imperative Sentence
        2.2.3 Pragmatic Studies on Imperative Sentence
        2.2.4 Limitations of Imperative Sentence Research
    2.3 Previous Studies on Intonation
        2.3.1 Overseas Studies on Intonation
        2.3.2 Domestic Studies on Intonation
        2.3.3 Limitations of Intonation Research
3 Theoretical Framework
    3.1 Focus Theory and Intonation Approach
    3.2 Pragmatic Identity Theory
        3.2.1 Definition of Pragmatic Identity
        3.2.2 Dynamic Choice of Pragmatic Identity
        3.2.3 Discursive Construction of Pragmatic Identity
    3.3 Overall Theoretical Framework
4 Pragmatic Functions of Imperative Sentence
    4.1 Research Results
    4.2 Pragmatic Functions of Judge’s Imperative Sentence
        4.2.1 Emphasizing Function
            4.2.1.1 Emphasizing Order
            4.2.1.2 Emphasizing Identity
            4.2.1.3 Emphasizing Duty
            4.2.1.4 Emphasizing Information
        4.2.2 Reminding Function
    4.3 Pragmatic Functions of Prosecutor’s Imperative Sentence
        4.3.1 Emphasizing Function
        4.3.2 Reminding Function
        4.3.3 Warning Function
    4.4 Pragmatic Functions of Defender’s Imperative Sentence
        4.4.1 Requesting Function
        4.4.2 Suggesting Function
        4.4.3 Asking Function
    4.5 Brief Summary
5 Conclusion
    5.1 Major Findings
    5.2 Limitations and Suggestions
References
Appendix 1 Basic Information of the 28 Cases
Appendix 2 Transcription Convention
攻讀碩士學(xué)位期間發(fā)表學(xué)術(shù)論文情況
Acknowledgement



本文編號：4036946