轉喻作為人類的一種基本思維方式,普遍存在于人類的話語與行為之中,庭審話語也不例外。作為一門新興的交叉學科,近年來庭審話語相關研究方興未艾。隨著認知語言學的興起與發(fā)展,已有學者從認知視角對其進行了研究,但鮮少有人涉及庭審話語中的轉喻現(xiàn)象。本研究試圖將批評話語分析與認知轉喻結合,構建批評轉喻分析的理論框架,進而探析庭審話語中的轉喻現(xiàn)象�；谂u轉喻分析的理論框架,本文分別從三個步驟對庭審話語中的轉喻進行分析:(1)轉喻識別,即識別出庭審話語中的轉喻;(2)轉喻解釋,即結合語境對庭審話語中的轉喻進行詳盡的解釋,探析轉喻的使用動機以及意識形態(tài):(3)轉喻評價,即對庭審話語中的轉喻進行綜合評價,分析其是否符合轉喻的評價標準。本研究從“中國庭審公開網”中選取五場來自全國各地中級人民法院的刑事審判視頻,將其轉寫為文字語料(約148,000字),結合定性和定量分析,試圖回答以下三個問題:(1)庭審話語中存在哪些類型的轉喻?(2)庭審話語中轉喻的運作機制是什么?(3)如何評價庭審話語中的轉喻?研究發(fā)現(xiàn):(1)根據(jù)庭審話語的特征以及轉喻識別的要素,庭審話語中的轉喻可分為立法性話語中的轉喻、程序性話語中的轉... 

【文章來源】：山東大學山東省 211工程院校 985工程院校 教育部直屬院校

【文章頁數(shù)】：101 頁

【學位級別】：碩士

【文章目錄】：
Abstract
摘要
Chapter One Introduction
    1.1 Research Background
    1.2 Research Questions and Significance
    1.3 Research Methodology
    1.4 Data Collection and Transcription
    1.5 Thesis Layout
Chapter Two Literature Review
    2.1 Previous Studies on Linguistic Features of Courtroom Discourse
    2.2 Previous Studies on Interactions of Courtroom Discourse
    2.3 Previous Studies on Power Relations of Courtroom Discourse
    2.4 Previous Studies on Cognitive Perspective of Courtroom Discourse
    2.5 Summary
Chapter Three Theoretical Framework
    3.1 Critical Discourse Analysis
        3.1.1 The Definition of Critical Discourse Analysis
        3.1.2 Power and Ideology in CDA
    3.2 Conceptual Metonym
        3.2.1 The Definition of Conceptual Metonymy
        3.2.2. The Classification of Conceptual Metonymy
    3.3 Critical Metonymy Analysis
        3.3.1 The Feasibility of Integrating CDA with Metonymy
        3.3.2 The Procedure of Critical Metonymy Analysis
            3.3.2.1 Metonymy Identification
            3.3.2.2 Metonymy Explanation
            3.3.2.3 Metonymy Evaluation
Chapter Four Analysis of Metonymy in Courtroom Discourse from thePerspective of CMA
    4.1 Conceptual Metonymy in Courtroom Discourse
        4.1.1 The Classification of Metonymy in Courtroom Discourse
            4.1.1.1 Metonymy in Legislative Discourse
            4.1.1.2 Metonymy in Procedural Discourse
            4.1.1.3 Metonymy in Substantive Discourse
        4.1.2 The Contrastive Study of the Three Types of Metonymies in CourtroomDiscourse
            4.1.2.1 Similarities of the Three Types of Metonymies
            4.1.2.2 Differences of the Three Types of Metonymies
    4.2 Critical Metonymy Analysis of Metonymy in Courtroom Discourse
        4.2.1 Critical Metonymy Analysis of Metonymy in Legislative Discourse
            4.2.1.1. Referential Metonymy
            4.2.1.2 Predictional Metonymy
        4.2.2 Critical Metonymy Analysis of Metonymy in Procedural Discourse
            4.2.2.1 Referential Metonymy
            4.2.2.2 Illocutionary Metonymy
        4.2.3 Critical Metonymy Analysis of Metonymy in Substantive Discourse
            4.2.3.1 Referential Metonymy
            4.2.3.2 Illocutionary Metonymy
        4.2.4 Summary
Chapter Five Implications for Critical Metonymy Analysis of Metonymy inCourtroom Discourse
    5.1 Theoretical Implications
        5.1.1 Implications for Critical Metonymy Analysis
        5.1.2 Implications for Courtroom Discourse Studies
    5.2 Practical Implications
        5.2.1 Implications for the Normative Expressions of Legal Professionals
        5.2.2 Implications for Defense of Defenders and Self-defense of Litigants
Chapter Six Conclusion
    6.1 Major Findings
    6.2 Limitations and Suggestions for Further Research
Acknowledgements
References
Appendix
Publications
學位論文評閱及答辯情況表


【參考文獻】：
期刊論文
[1]試論認知語言學與批評話語分析的融合[J]. 張輝,江龍.  外語學刊. 2008(05)
[2]中國法庭互動話語formulation現(xiàn)象研究[J]. 廖美珍.  外語研究. 2006(02)



本文編號：2895571