对广泛接受的法律英语文体特点的证实和质疑

摘要

许多著名语言学者对法律英语进行研究,提出法律英语文体特点,并得到了广泛的认同。但法律英语是一个十分宽泛的概念,包含了各个亚语类。在此,作者提出本文的研究问题:所有类型的法律语言都具有这些已被广泛认同的文体特点吗?作者以功能文体学为理论框架,选取在立法机构,法律主体,法律内容和实施机制都有别于一般法律文本的国际人权公约作为语料,对照已被广泛认同的法律英语文体特点进行对比研究。国际人权公约在立法机构,法律主体,法律内容和实施机制等几个方面上均有别于一般法律文本。作者以功能文体学为理论框架,将国际人权公约的文体特点与已被广泛认同的法律英语文体特点进行对比,进行个案对比研究。全文共分两部分。
　　第一部分是第一和第二章,主要阐述本文理论框架和研究背景,其中包括:法律英语和国际人权公约概述,功能语言学理论以及法律英语文体特点概述。
　　第二部分是第三、四、五章,作者以上述理论框架为支撑,参照普遍认同的法律英语文体特点进行对比研究,得出两方面结果:首先是呈现。国际人权公约的确呈现了广泛认同的法律英语的文体特点,如词汇层面上的正式词语和情态动词shall的频繁使用,句法层面上的陈述句,长句以及名物化的频繁使用。其次是偏离。国际人权公约的文体特点与广泛认同的法律英语文体特点出现偏离。具体表现在:特点“拉丁词语频繁使用”的缺失,低频使用专业词汇,高频使用模糊词汇,“If X, then Y shall do(or be) Z.”句型的极低频率使用。第五章是研究总结:即国际人权公约在文体特征上并不完全符合已得到广泛认同的法律英语文体特征。同时,本研究进一步在具体的个案研究中证明了功能文体学理论的科学性:即语篇功能决定文体特点,文体特点在语篇中各个方面对语篇功能进行体现,促进语篇功能实现。根据本文研究结果,作者指出:法律英语覆盖面广,下属分支众多,每个语言分支都有其独特的文体表现。在此问题上,概括而笼统的法律英语文体特点研究并不能为进一步的法律英语翻译和法律对比研究提供足够坚实的基础。因此,我们应该进行分门别类的具体研究。

目录

Acknowledgements

Abstract

摘要

CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

1.1 Rationale of the Study

1.1.1 The Importance of Legal English

1.1.2 A Need For Study of Stylistic Features of Legal English

1.2 Purpose of the Study

1.3 Research Methodology and Data Collection

1.4 Organization of the Thesis

CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Legal English

2.1.1 A Brief Introduction to Legal English

2.1.2 Style of Legal English

2.1.3 Functional Classification of Legal Texts

2.2 International Human Rights Convention

2.2.1 International Convention and International Law

2.2.2 International Convention and National Law

2.2.3 International Human Rights Convention

2.3 Studies on Functional Stylistics: A Theoretical Basis

2.3.1 Introduction to Style and Stylistics

2.3.2 Thesis-related Views Proposed by Functional Stylistics

2.4 Previous Studies on Stylistic Features of Legal English

2.4.1 Stylistic Features of Legal English abroad

2.4.2 Stylistic Features of Legal English at Home

CHAPTER THREE CONFIRMATION: CONCRETE REPRESENTATION OF STYLISTIC FEATURES OF LEGAL ENGLISH IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS

3.1 At Lexical Level

3.1.1 Frequent Use of Formal Words

3.1.2 Frequent Use of Modal Verb Shall

3.2 At Syntactic Level

3.2.1 Declarative Sentences

3.2.2 Long Sentences

3.2.3 Nominalization

CHAPTER FOUR QUERY: DEVIATION OF STYLISTIC FEATURES OF LEGAL ENGLISH IN INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS CONVENTIONS

4.1 Absence of the Feature “Frequent Use of Latin Words and Phrases”

4.1.1 Latin Words and Phrases in Legal English

4.1.2 Absence of the Feature “Frequent Use of Latin Words and Phrases”

4.1.3 Reasons Exploration

4.2 Less Professional Terms

4.2.1 The Classification of Terms From Legal Texts and Their Application

4.2.2 Contrastive Study and the Findings

4.2.3 Reasons Exploration

4.3 Highly-frequent Use Of Vague Words

4.3.1 Vague Words in Legal English

4.3.2 Contrastive Studies and the Findings

4.3.3 Reasons Exploration

4.4 Rare Use of the General Formula “If X, Then Y Shall Do (Or Be) Z

4.4.1 The General Formula “If X, then Y shall do (or be) Z

4.4.2 Contrastive Study and the Findings

4.4.3 Reasons Exploration

CHAPER FIVE CONLUSION

5.1 Summary of the Present Study

5.2 Contributions of the Present Study

5.3 Limitations of the Current Research and Recommendations for Further Study

Bibliography