民事法庭原被告辩论词中立场标记语的对比研究

发布时间：2018-04-11 17:03

本文选题：民事辩论词 + 立场标记语　；参考：《黑龙江大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：“作者对文章信息或话语参与者的态度、情感、判断和责任,包括作者对文中信息呈现方式的评价”,这是Biber对立场的定义。本文以法庭话语为研究对象,结合海兰的人际交流模式,描写了法庭辩论词中立场标记语的使用情况,试图找出原被告辩论词中立场标记语的使用特点,以及立场标记语的使用对法庭审判结果的影响。本文通过描写和对比分析原被告辩论词中的立场标记语,得出结论:原告和被告辩论词中的确使用了立场标记语,而且四种立场标记语,即模糊限制语、确定表达语、态度标记语和自我指称均有涉及。自我指称的使用频次最高,态度标记语的使用频次最低;确定表达语的使用居第二,模糊限制语第三。立场标记语的使用存在异同点。相同点是:原被告双方都愿意使用表示可信度的模糊语和表示确定的模糊语;单数第一人称的自我指称的使用频次均比较低,这是因为其表达的观点和态度主观性比较强。不同点在于:原告辩论词中表示精确度的模糊语和评价型态度标记语的使用频次比较高;但被告则倾向于使用情感型态度标记语。原告辩论词中第三人称自我指称居多;而被告则偏向于使用第一人称复数形式的自我指称。本文发现,立场标记语的使用的确会对庭审结果产生影响。胜诉一方的辩论词中,确定表达语的使用频率均比模糊限制语的使用频率高。因此,在法庭辩论词写作中,应尽量减少模糊语的使用,而增加确定表达语的使用,增强说话人辩论词的可信度。同时避免单数第一人称自我指称的使用,增加第三人称自我指称,因为其表达的观点客观性比较强,更具有说服力。
[Abstract]:"The attitude information of the text or discourse participants emotion, judgment and responsibility, including the author of the presentation of information evaluation", this is the Biber position on the definition. The courtroom discourse as the research object, according to Hyland's interpersonal communication pattern describes the use of the position, the court debate word markers try to use to find out the position, the original defendant debate word markers, and the use effect of stance markers on the court. Through the description and comparison of stance markers, the debate in the analysis concluded that: the plaintiff and the defendant debate word stance markers did use, and four kinds of position the markers, hedges, determine the expression of language, attitude markers and self reference are involved. The self referential use of the highest frequency, attitude markers were used to determine the lowest expression; The use of Hedges in second and third. The use of stance markers have similarities and differences. The same point is: both the original defendant said willing to use vague language and vague language to determine the credibility that the first person singular; self referential use frequency is low, this is because the expression of subjective opinions and attitudes relatively strong. The difference is that the plaintiff said debate words hedges and evaluation accuracy of attitude markers use frequency is relatively high; but the defendant will tend to use the emotional attitude markers. Third the debate word person majority self reference; and the defendant tend to use the first person plural form of self reference. This paper found that the use of stance markers will indeed affect the trial results. The winning party debate in the word, determine the frequency of use of expressions than use frequency of hedges rate High. Therefore, the court debate in writing, should minimize the use of vague language, and language expression added to determine the use of enhanced speaker debate words credibility. While avoiding the first person singular self referential use, increase the third person self referential, because its views expressed strong objectivity, more persuasive.

【学位授予单位】：黑龙江大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：H030

【相似文献】