| 本文运用批驳性话篇剖析办法，对中外立法语篇中隐蔽的权利关系停止摸索研究，旨在发明立法语篇哪些说话情势表现了权利中的不屈等关系，法语论文，以此加强人们对司法说话的权利认识，并进一步洞察社会实际以取得社会认同。权利关系不只发生于语篇当中，更重要是经由过程介入者、文本、语境之间的互动构建构成的。是以，对权利关系停止周全剖析不只须要掌握语篇、说话情势的特色，更应从社会语篇的角度对其联合韩礼德的体系功效语法作为本文的实际框架。依据费式(1989)提出的语篇剖析形式，我们从三个层面临立法语篇停止剖析。1)“描述”(describe)语篇的说话情势。运用体系功效语法从辞汇、语法、篇章构造三个角度剖析语篇。个中辞汇分类、名词化、及物性、神态、反复等语法情势包含了权利不屈等。2)“阐释”(interpret)语篇与生成、流传、接收它的来往进程之间的互动关系。3)“说明”(explain)外交进程和它的社会语篇之间的关系，这两个层面的剖析使我们发明语法情势的选择本源于介入者两边在社会构造关系中的不屈等位置，这类纰谬等的权利关系决议着语法的表达，同时说话自己也强化了权利关系的完成。本文从说话学的角度对司法说话中权利关系停止了商量，法语论文题目，为说话学家考核社会权利关系供给了一些研究实例。我们愿望这会赞助不法学人士对司法语篇停止批驳性语篇研究，同时丰硕司法任务者的说话实际，以此帮助他们的任务，树立更加有用的司法系统。 Abstract: The application of critical discourse analysis, of Chinese and foreign legislation rights discourses in covert stopped exploring research to invention made discourses which language forms showed unyielding power relations, in order to strengthen the understanding of judicial speak right, and further insight into social practice in order to achieve social recognition. The right relation not only occurs in the discourse, but also is the construction of the interaction between the participants, the text and the context. It is not only necessary to have a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between rights and rights, but also the characteristics of the discourse and the situation of speech. It should be the practical framework of this paper, which is the combination of Hallidy's system and function grammar from the perspective of social discourse. According to the form of discourse analysis proposed by the fee type (1989), we analyze the legal discourse from three aspects. (1) "description" (describe) discourse situation. The application of the system function grammar from three perspectives of vocabulary, grammar and discourse structure. Chinese vocabulary classification, terminology, and physical nature, expression, and other grammatical situation contains the right to unyielding and so on. 2) "interpretation" (interpret) discourse and the interaction between the generation, the spread and the process of receiving it. 3) "explain" (explain) the diplomatic process and its social discourse between the relationship, the two levels of analysis enable us invention grammatical forms of selection originates from the participants on both sides in the structure of social relations of unyielding position, rights and obligations of the PI distort the determines syntactic expressions, also speak for themselves but also to strengthen the relationship between the rights. In this paper, from the perspective of the right to speak, the right to talk about the relationship between the right to discuss, to speak for the assessment of social rights relations to provide some examples of research. We wish it will sponsor legal professionals on forensic discourse stop criticism of textual research and fruitful justice who speaks actually, in order to help their task, and establish the judicial system more useful. 目录: Abstract 3 摘要 4-7 Chapter 1 Introduction 7-11 1.1 Rationale of the study 7-9 1.2 Research purpose 9 1.3 Data and Methodology 9-10 1.4 Organization of the thesis 10-11 Chapter 2 Literature Review 11-26 2.1 Review of Critical Discourse Analysis 11-16 2.1.1 Studies of CDA abroad 11-14 2.1.2 Studies of CD A at home 14-16 2.2 Studies on Power 16-20 2.3 The Relationship between CDA and SFL 20-21 2.4 Forensic Linguistics and Its Research Status quo 21-26 2.4.1 Studies abroad 21-23 2.4.2 Studies in China 23-26 Chapter3 Theoretical Framework 26-42 3.1 Fairclough’s three-dimension model of CDA 26-30 3.1.1 Description 28-29 3.1.2 Interpretation 29-30 3.1.3 Explanation 30 3.2 Analytic tools---Halliday’s metafunctions in the domain of System Functional Grammar 30-40 3.2.1 The Ideational Function 31-36 3.2.2 Interpersonal Function 36-39 3.2.3 Textual Function 39-40 3.3 The Framework for the present study 40-41 3.4 Summary 41-42 Chapte14 Analysis of Legislative Discourse 42-63 4.1 Analysis at the level of description 42-58 4.1.1 Vocabulary 42-47 4.1.2 Grammar 47-51 4.1.3 Nominalizaton 51-53 4.1.4 Modality 53-56 4.1.5 Cohesion 56-58 4.2 Analysis at the level of Interpretation 58-60 4.3 Analysis at the level of Explanation 60-61 4.4 Summary 61-63 Chapter 5 Conclusion 63-67 5.1 Summary of the Present Study 63-64 5.2 Conclusions 64-65 5.3 Limitations and Suggestions for future research 65-67 References 67-70 Acknowledgements 70-71 Publication 71 |
