| So far contrastive analyses in China have been mainly focused on the generalrules concerning differences and similarities between Chinese and English while fewscholars concentrated on legal discourse of these two languages. Even feweracademics conducted contrastive analyses of legal discourse information structure andits linguistic choices on the basis of adequate corpora. The accelerated interculturallegal communication and exchanges between China and other countries call for morein-depth research into the nature of legal discourse. The linguistic communication ofboth English and Chinese legal discourse falls on the very transmission of informationgoverned by the functioning of some general and specific determining factors.With emphasis on the functional perspectives on language, legal discourse istypically of an institutional nature. Information processing and linguistic realizationsin legal communication and exchanges are conducted in a rule-governed andgoal-oriented legal context. The objective of this research is to explore the generalrules governing the configuration of information structure and its linguisticrepresentations or realizations of legal discourse from the perspective ofChinese-English contrastive analysis. Through theoretic deduction and data analysis,the author endeavors to seek answers to the following three research questions.Q1: Within the relatively stable given generic system and register, and withbasically similar discourse functions, what determining factors affect theconfiguration of information structure of legal discourse?Q2: In order to achieve its optimal information transmission, in what ways canlinguistic choices be made at the micro level of legal discourse?Q3: What are the differences and similarities of information structure and itslinguistic realizations between Chinese and English legal discourse?The present research employs both a holistic top-down perspective and detailedbottom-up observations. This functionalist approach incorporates into theobservational research of contrastive nature many a relevant theoretical underpinning of prior advocates. The theoretical foundations cover communication studies, SFLlinguistics and CDA approaches. Accordingly, a "four-bridged" theoretical frameworkis constructed for contrastive analysis of legal discourse between Chinese and English.Besides, this research is based on the CLIPS corpus which provides abundantresources for qualitative exploration and relatively quantitative analysis of legaldiscourse. To overcome the previous limitations of contrastive researches, theoperational parameters as found in the framework contributes to a relativelycomprehensive yet delimited analysis. The institutionality and functionality of legaldiscourse serve as both the orientation and objective of legal communication andexchange, which reflect their very essence.This research concludes that the very nature of institutionality of legal discoursemakes it possible to confine the research within a relatively given scope ofobservation. All legal discourse, whatever its sub-varieties, is rule-governed andgoal-oriented, and involves the participants' orientation of linguistic resources to theirinstitutional identities. The discourse users including legal drafters, judges, lawyersand other litigants all resort to different yet somewhat similar strategies in employingrelevant linguistic resources to apply, interpret and utilize the legal documents toachieve their respective goals in the institutional setting.To begin with, within the relatively stable given generic system and register, andwith basically similar discourse functions, the determining factors that affectinformation processing of legal discourse are socio-cultural systems, linguisticconventions, legal systems as well as the stance or attitude of the discourse users.These "four categories" and their respective sub-parameters can contribute to bridgingthe gap of legal communication and exchanges between different human languages.Besides, in order to achieve the optimal information of legal discourse, it is ofvital importance for the legal drafters or translators to take into account not only themacro determining factors comprising the socio-cultural and legal system "archways"of the information bridge, but also the micro determining factors making up the"archways" of linguistic conventions and the discourse users' attitude. The actualways of linguistic realizations are built upon the sensitivity to and knowledge of the similarities and differences in these determining factors.Moreover, taking advantage of such a functionalist perspective, similarities anddifferences of information structure and realizations between Chinese and Englishlegal discourse are detected both in a holistic way and with attention to more detailedbottom-up analyses. The general rules in this regard may enhance the acute awarenessof legal discourse writers and translators towards the determining factors of legalcommunication, and the possible alternatives to achieve optimal legal discourseinformation transmission, and thus contribute more effectively to their legal practiceand legal exchanges in the long run.The findings and conclusions may shed some light on the legal practice oflegislative drafting and judiciary interactions of litigants in specific judiciaryproceedings and courtroom argumentative presentations. As it is started from acontrastive analysis of information structure and its linguistic realizations in legaldiscourse, this study will also shed some significant light on the practice of legaltranslations, particularly with regard to the assessment of legal translation quality.This study is not without limitations. The proposed analytical framework mayunavoidably neglect some other factors, particularly when more detailed categories ofinformation bridges are concerned. Besides, as such a framework is constructed byincorporating into considerations of functionalist underpinnings and communicationstudies, there might be subjective or even biased configurations of theoreticalconcepts. Secondly, there are mainly qualitative analyses and theoretical examinationsconducted in this study, whereas detailed quantitative investigations are still lacking.Additionally, there is still the subjectivity of the author in conducting the contrastiveanalysis.In a nutshell, the present study is hoped to serve as a pioneering work for futureresearchers who are interested in legal discourse analysis or contrastive studies ofChinese and English, or for legal translators and interpreters, both amateur andprofessional.
|
PDF Full Text Request