中英訴訟文書(shū)中銜接手段的比較研究.pdf_第1頁(yè)
已閱讀1頁(yè),還剩56頁(yè)未讀, 繼續(xù)免費(fèi)閱讀

下載本文檔

版權(quán)說(shuō)明:本文檔由用戶(hù)提供并上傳,收益歸屬內(nèi)容提供方,若內(nèi)容存在侵權(quán),請(qǐng)進(jìn)行舉報(bào)或認(rèn)領(lǐng)

文檔簡(jiǎn)介

1、 Abstract Cohesive devices, on which the production of discourse is based, can be found in every natural language. There are a large number of previous studies focusing on cohesive devices both at home and abroad, howeve

2、r, most of them just targeted on cohesive devices in literature or poetry instead of in legal texts. A particular genre has its own particular cohesive devices. This paper explores the cohesive devices in litigation writ

3、ing which are different from others. The author conducts a comparative investigation into cohesive devices between Chinese and English litigation writing and examines what the more frequently employed cohesive devices ar

4、e as well as what the similarities and discrepancies of these cohesive devices between Chinese and English litigation writing are. According to Halliday and Hasan’s cohesion theory, this paper conducts a comparative stud

5、y on cohesive devices between Chinese and English litigation writing by using quantitative method. The following conclusions are drawn from the analysis of the thesis: the cohesive devices more frequently employed in Chi

6、nese and English litigation writing are reference, nominal substitution, conjunction, repetition and collocation. Meanwhile, they have distinct characteristics in litigation writing such as using archaic words as demonst

7、rate reference and high frequency of repetition. In addition, the archaic word “where” is frequently used in English litigation writing to express causal relation. The comparative study provides a new perspective to stud

8、y cohesive devices among different languages. Moreover, it is meaningful since it offers a theoretical framework and practical reference in the field of legal translation, which could raise the translator’s awareness whi

9、le translating litigation writing between Chinese and English. This paper may help to better understand the similarities and discrepancies between Chinese and English Litigation writing, which contributes to the communic

溫馨提示

  • 1. 本站所有資源如無(wú)特殊說(shuō)明,都需要本地電腦安裝OFFICE2007和PDF閱讀器。圖紙軟件為CAD,CAXA,PROE,UG,SolidWorks等.壓縮文件請(qǐng)下載最新的WinRAR軟件解壓。
  • 2. 本站的文檔不包含任何第三方提供的附件圖紙等,如果需要附件,請(qǐng)聯(lián)系上傳者。文件的所有權(quán)益歸上傳用戶(hù)所有。
  • 3. 本站RAR壓縮包中若帶圖紙,網(wǎng)頁(yè)內(nèi)容里面會(huì)有圖紙預(yù)覽,若沒(méi)有圖紙預(yù)覽就沒(méi)有圖紙。
  • 4. 未經(jīng)權(quán)益所有人同意不得將文件中的內(nèi)容挪作商業(yè)或盈利用途。
  • 5. 眾賞文庫(kù)僅提供信息存儲(chǔ)空間,僅對(duì)用戶(hù)上傳內(nèi)容的表現(xiàn)方式做保護(hù)處理,對(duì)用戶(hù)上傳分享的文檔內(nèi)容本身不做任何修改或編輯,并不能對(duì)任何下載內(nèi)容負(fù)責(zé)。
  • 6. 下載文件中如有侵權(quán)或不適當(dāng)內(nèi)容,請(qǐng)與我們聯(lián)系,我們立即糾正。
  • 7. 本站不保證下載資源的準(zhǔn)確性、安全性和完整性, 同時(shí)也不承擔(dān)用戶(hù)因使用這些下載資源對(duì)自己和他人造成任何形式的傷害或損失。

評(píng)論

0/150

提交評(píng)論