| 本文以中国和美国的司法条则为语料，研究英汉立法语篇的连接手腕。作者采取了狭义的连接实际一不只包含韩礼德和哈桑于1976年总结出的5种非构造性连接手腕，还包含了哈桑和我国有名学者胡壮麟提出的构造性连接手腕。作者发明，立法语篇作为一种特别、正式的口语篇，个中主要的连接手腕与其他类型的语篇有很多分歧的地方，法语毕业论文，同时英语立法语篇（ELT）和汉语立法语篇（CLT）中的连接手腕既有类似又有差别。从非构造性连接的角度看，Halliday&Hasan 1976年归结的5种非构造性连接手腕包含指称、替换、省略、衔接和辞汇连接。ELT中很少涌现替换，根本上不涌现省略；CLT根本上没有替换，但省略比拟罕见。其他三种非构造性连接手腕在ELT和CLT中都较为罕见。在人称指称、指导指称和比拟指称这三类指称方面，在ELT中，人称指称显著存在着对“代词化准绳”的偏离；在CLT中，人称指称的词项比拟单一，并与平常用语中的人称词项有很年夜的分歧。指导指称在ELT和CLT中根本只充任润饰语，很少作主词或附加语，CLT中指导指称的词项也分歧于平常用语中的词项。比拟指称中，详细比拟在ELT中较少运用，在CLT中根本没有运用；而普通比拟在两种立法语篇中都被运用，个中，ELT运用普通比拟的次数年夜年夜高于CLT。普通比拟在ELT和CLT中的完成集中在多数几个词项上。在衔接方面，韩礼德曾前后从两个分歧的角度对衔接品种停止了划分，本研究也从这两个角度作了不雅察。研究发明，不管从衔接的品种上照样衔接词的数目和涌现的频率看，英语立法语篇都远远跨越汉语立法语篇，凸起地表现了汉语和英语分离作为意合说话和形合说话的逻辑差别。在辞汇连接方面，立法语篇中重要有反复、下义词、部分词、反义词、搭配。在CLT中近义词涌现频率低，但常常有连接功效，在ELT近义词中年夜量存在，但很少作为连接手腕运用。从构造性连接的角度看，平行构造、主位推动、及物性构造和语气构造在中美立法语篇中在分歧水平上起连接感化。本文对这四种构造只是从语篇连接的角度作商量。平行构造有助于构成语篇的节拍，增强了语篇的连接。主位推动在CLT中的连接感化显著，在ELT的感化只限于部门长句中。在ELT和CLT的及物体系中，物资进程所占比例极高，但及物构造不如其他三种构造不言而喻，对语篇连接的感化易被疏忽。在语气构造方面，ELT和CLT的本质性司法条则中的限制成份老是由特定的几个词项充任，神态值稳固，使语篇在语气上前后连接，法语论文题目，构成全体。本研究对连接手腕在英汉立法语篇中的运用纪律作了综合的摸索，并找出其差异，为译者在司法条则翻译进程中，在详细连接词项的选用上供给参考。本文也能赞助对峙法语篇感兴致的英语进修者更快地掌握英语立法语篇特色，从而更好地舆解英语立法语篇。对于若何使司法条则的表述加倍严谨，本研究也为我国立法说话研究者供给了一个视角。 Abstract: In this paper, we study the connection between English and Chinese legislative texts by using Chinese and American judicial articles as the corpus. Author adopts a narrow connection actually not only contains Halliday and Hasan in 1976 summed up five kinds of non structural connection wrist, also contains the Hassan and our famous scholar Hu Zhuanglin proposed constructive connection wrist. The invention, the legislative discourses as a special, formal oral, medium the main connection wrist and other types of articles have a lot of differences and English legislative discourses (ELT) and Chinese legislative discourses (CLT) connection wrist is similar, but there are some differences between. From the point of view of non constructive connection, 5 kinds of non constructive connection means, which are attributed to Halliday&Hasan in 1976, include reference, substitution, omission, cohesion and lexical connection. ELT in the emergence of a replacement, there is no fundamental omission; CLT is not replaced, but it is relatively rare. The other three types of non structural connections are rare in ELT and CLT. In the personal reference, reference guide and compared to reference the reference, in ELT, personal reference significantly there is a deviation from the pronoun of "principle; in CLT, personal reference in the lexical items is single, and and ordinary language called lexical items have very big differences. Guide reference in ELT and CLT fundamental only acted as modifiers, and rarely as head or adjuncts, CLT guidance reference words also differences in ordinary language. Compared to the reference, detailed comparative rarely applied in ELT, application in CLT, no ordinary compare the two legislative discourses have been applied, medium and ELT application ordinary compared to the number of Nianye Nianye than CLT. General comparison in ELT and CLT in the completion of concentrated in the majority of several lexical entry. In the aspect of cohesion, Halliday had before and after from two different angles of convergence varieties stopped dividing, this research also from the two angles made observations. Considers to discover, whether from the convergence of varieties photogenic convergence frequency of the word number and the emergence of, English French far across the Chinese legislative discourses, raised to the separation of Chinese and English as parataxis speak and speak logical difference. In vocabulary connection, legislative discourse in repeated, hyponyms, some words, antonyms, collocation. In CLT synonyms emergence of low frequency, but often have connection effect, in the presence of ELT synonyms middle-aged night, but rarely as wrist application connection. From the perspective of constructive connection, the parallel structure, the thematic impetus, the transitive structure and the modal structure have played a role in the differences between Chinese and American legislative discourse. In this paper, the four structures are discussed from the perspective of discourse connection. The parallel structure is helpful to the rhythm of the structure of the text, and the connection of the text is enhanced. A push connection role in CLT significantly, in the impact of the ELT is limited to the Department of sentence. In the ELT and CLT and the object system, the material process is very high, but the structure is not as good as the other three constructs is self-evident, the influence of the text connection is easy to be neglected. In the mood structure, ELT and CLT essence of justice a limiting component is always acted as a few words of specific expression value is stable, the discourse in the mood before and after the connection, constitute the whole. This study on the connection of the wrist in English and Chinese legislative texts in the application of discipline for a comprehensive exploration, and find out their similarities and differences, for the translator in the judicial process, in the process of the detailed connection of lexical entry's choice of reference. This article also sponsors the English learners who have a good command of English to make up the English language features, so as to make a better understanding of English and French. On how to make the expression of the judiciary is more rigorous, this study also provides a perspective for the study of China's legislation. 目录: |
