法庭辩论中话语标记语的认知语用研究

发布时间：2018-01-26 06:22

本文关键词： 话语标记语说服法庭辩论话语理解认知语用研究　出处：《山西师范大学》2009年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】： 本文运用描述和解释性的研究方法,对话语标记语(discourse markers)在法庭辩论(courtroom oral arguments)理解中所起的作用进行探讨。法庭辩论中充满了冲突的观点和说服性的论辩。一些话语标记语经常被法官和律师作为一种说服性的语言技巧使用在与对方的辩论中。论文语料来自美国最高法院的法庭辩论。本文以Sperber和Wilson的关联理论为理论基础,分析了话语标记语在法庭辩论中的作用,并重点分析了一些话语标记语的说服功能。本文认为话语标记语对法庭辩论的理解起到了关联制约的作用,即话语标记语有助于我们对这一法律语言现象的理解。不同的研究者对话语标记语的本质的解释也不尽相同,主要形成了三种不同的解释方法,与连贯理论的角度和句法─语用的角度相比较,以关联理论为基础的认知语用方法能为话语标记语在话语产生和理解方面提供心理解释。本文发现在法庭辩论中,法官和律师运用话语标记语来制约对方对话语中关联的寻找,并加强了他们在辩论中的说服力。本文选择了三个话语标记语well, you know, I think做进一步分析。说话者使用well来表达分歧和对立,并试图说服对方。Well也可以用来表示对恰当表达方式的思索和观点的继续。尤其是法官会用这一标记语来打断律师的辩论,因为法官有权力控制审判进程。You know可以用来解释并阐述辩论观点,引导听话者得出说话者所希望的论断,这样就强化了说话者的说服意图。它也可以用来标记错误的话语开头和之后的修正。I think作为话语标记语很少被学者研究,但是它在语料中的频繁出现和丰富的含义却不容忽视。它用来表达说话者的个人观点并在辩论中强调其论点。这个标记语可以巧妙而目的明确地表达同意和异议,并吸引对方的答复。本文揭示了话语标记语在不同的语境中有不同的功能,这一特征值得做进一步的研究。在辩论语境中,话语标记语所执行的功能通常与说服和辩论紧密联系。所以从这一角度讲,话语标记语在动态的辩论过程中有助于影响或改变听话者的思维方式,并强化说话者的交流意图。本研究也将有助于阐明如何运用话语标记语将法庭辩论的过程转化成为一个可以理解的和策略性的交际过程。
[Abstract]:This paper uses descriptive and explanatory research methods. To the discourse Markersin court admonition of courtroom oral arguments). The role of understanding is explored. Court arguments are full of conflicting points of view and persuasive arguments. Some discourse markers are often used by judges and lawyers as a persuasive language technique to argue with each other. This paper is based on the relevance theory of Sperber and Wilson. This paper analyzes the role of discourse markers in court debate, and focuses on the persuasion function of some discourse markers. That is, discourse markers help us to understand this legal language phenomenon. Different researchers have different interpretations of the nature of discourse markers, forming three different interpretation methods, which are compared with coherence theory and syntactic and pragmatic perspectives. The cognitive pragmatic approach based on relevance theory can provide psychological explanations for discourse markers in discourse generation and comprehension. Judges and lawyers use discourse markers to restrict each other's search for relevance in discourse and strengthen their persuasion in the debate. This paper chooses three discourse markers well, you know, I think for further analysis. The speaker uses well to express differences and opposites. And trying to persuade the other side. Well can also be used to express the appropriate expression of reflection and opinion on the continuation, especially the judge will use this marker to interrupt the argument of the lawyer. Because the judge has the power to control the course of the trial. You know can be used to explain and explain the argument and lead the hearer to reach the conclusion that the speaker wants. This strengthens the persuasive intention of the speaker. It can also be used to mark the wrong beginning and subsequent revision of the utterance, I think, as a discourse marker, which has rarely been studied by scholars. But its frequent appearance and rich meaning in the corpus cannot be ignored. It is used to express the speaker's personal views and to emphasize their arguments in the debate. This marker can express agreement and dissent in a clever and purposeful manner. . And attract the other party's reply. This paper reveals that discourse markers have different functions in different contexts, which deserves further study. The functions performed by discourse markers are usually closely related to persuasion and debate, so from this perspective, discourse markers can help to influence or change the way of thinking of hearers in the process of dynamic debate. This study will also help to clarify how discourse markers can be used to translate the process of court argument into an understandable and strategic communicative process.
【学位授予单位】：山西师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2009
【分类号】：D90-055;H030

【共引文献】