英语法律语篇中的言语行为

论文摘要

当前,国内的法律语言研究十分盛行,主要集中在对法律语言的词汇、句法、及其翻译等方面的探讨,然而却很少涉猎英语法律语篇中的言语行为。基于此种现象,本文借助语用学中的言语行为理论,以英语立法语篇、司法语篇及其他法律语篇为素材,探讨英语法律语篇中的言语行为,即英语法律言语行为。法律言语行为通常是指具有法律效力的言语行为,其主要功能是调节和规范人们的行为,具体表现为赋予权利、规定义务和调节行为。英语法律语篇中常常以“shall”,“may”,“can”,“should”,“ought to”,等情态动词作为辅助手段来表示法律言语行为。当然,很多时候仅仅是法律言语行为动词就足以表示法律言语行为。常见的英语法律言语行为动词包括“enact”,“command”,“repeal”,“entitle”,“amend”,“agree”,“award”,“certify”,“swear”and“affirm”等。在Austin,Searle和Trosborg等前辈对言语行为分类的基础上,本文将英语法律言语行为分为调节类、宣告类、表态类、裁决类、指示类和请求类。本文的写作目的在于运用言语行为理论分析英语法律语篇中言语行为的体现,证实法律言语行为理论,并且揭示出英语法律言语行为规则、功能及特征。这将有利于我们对言语行为的更深层次理解,同时也为法律翻译打下一定的基础。为了达到以上目标,本文首先简要介绍了言语行为理论、当前国内外对法律言语行为的研究状况、研究的理论意义和实践意义;接着对英语法律语篇作了概述,从而为后面对英语法律语篇中言语行为的分析打下基础;然后集中探讨了英语法律语篇中言语行为的具体表现、分类、功能及其特征;一最后综述本文的研究状况。

论文目录

• Acknowledgements
• Abstract in English
• Abstract in Chinese
• Chapter One Introduction
• 1.1. An overview on the speech act theory
• 1.1.1. Austin's speech act theory
• 1.1.2. The development of the speech act theory by Searle
• 1.1.3. Indirect speech acts
• 1.1.4. Summary
• 1.2. The present research states of the legal speech acts
• 1.2.1. The foreign situation
• 1.2.2. The domestic situation
• 1.3. The significance of the study
• 1.3.1. The theoretical significance
• 1.3.2. The practical significance
• 1.4. Questions for study
• 1.5. The framework
• Chapter Two English Legal Texts
• 2.1. The difference between a discourse, an utterance and a text
• 2.2. An introduction to legal texts
• 2.3. An understanding of English legal texts
• 2.4. The categorization of legal texts
• 2.4.1. Legislative texts
• 2.4.2 Judicial texts
• Chapter Three The Speech Acts in Legal Texts
• 3.1. The conditions that a speech act must meet in legal texts
• 3.2. The speech act verbs in legal texts
• 3.3. The conventionalized expressing devices of English legal speech acts
• 3.4. The speech acts in legislative texts
• 3.5. The speech acts in judicial texts
• 3.6. The speech acts in other legal texts
• 3.7. The classification of the speech acts in English legal texts
• 3.7.1. Regulatives
• 3.7.2. Declarations
• 3.7.3. Behabitives
• 3.7.4. Verdictives
• 3.7.5. Directives
• 3.7.6. Requestives
• 3.7.7. Summary
• 3.8. Absence of indirect speech acts in legislative texts
• Chapter Four The Functions of the Speech Acts in Legal Texts
• 4.1. The means by which a speech act performs the functions in legal texts
• 4.1.2. Conferring rights
• 4.1.3. Imposing obligations
• 4.1.4. Regulating behavior
• 4.2. Summary
• Chapter Five The Characteristics of the Speech Acts in English Legal Texts
• Chapter Six Conclusion
• Bibliography