中国立法条款条件的语言表达:语域语法视角

Daohua Hu
{"title":"中国立法条款条件的语言表达:语域语法视角","authors":"Daohua Hu","doi":"10.17507/jltr.1405.29","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is difference in the distribution of grammar phenomena in different registers. This paper has carried out a comprehensive study of the linguistic expressions of Conditions in Chinese legislative provisions. In legislative provisions, the Conditions are usually used to indicate the preconditions or circumstances for the legal norm, which are referred to as hypothetical conditions in this paper. In contrast, the clauses introduced by the words dan ‘but’ or danshi ‘but/however’ are called danshus ‘provisos’. Danshus are always positioned after the main clauses, so they are called post-conditions. Legal norms can be categorized into authorization norms, obligatory norms, and compound norms. As special legal norms, danshus can also be categorized into authorization, obligatory and exclusionary danshus respectively. Through a corpus-based analysis of conditions of Chinese legislative provisions, this study has concluded that: i) hypothetical conditions are always expressed by de-constructions; ii) post-conditions are always expressed by danshus, including exclusionary danshus, obligatory danshus and authorization danshus respectively; iii) the use of danshus in Chinese legislative provisions are less than 7% of the total clause numbers; and iv) the co-occurrence of hypothetical conditions and post-conditions are less than 3% of the total clause numbers. Suggestions for future legislation and amendments: First, more danshus should be used; Second, the use of de-constructions should be more standardized; and Third, the co-occurrence of de-constructions and danshus should be increased.","PeriodicalId":31813,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research","volume":"26 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Linguistic Expressions of Conditions of Chinese Legislative Provisions: A Register Grammar Perspective\",\"authors\":\"Daohua Hu\",\"doi\":\"10.17507/jltr.1405.29\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is difference in the distribution of grammar phenomena in different registers. This paper has carried out a comprehensive study of the linguistic expressions of Conditions in Chinese legislative provisions. In legislative provisions, the Conditions are usually used to indicate the preconditions or circumstances for the legal norm, which are referred to as hypothetical conditions in this paper. In contrast, the clauses introduced by the words dan ‘but’ or danshi ‘but/however’ are called danshus ‘provisos’. Danshus are always positioned after the main clauses, so they are called post-conditions. Legal norms can be categorized into authorization norms, obligatory norms, and compound norms. As special legal norms, danshus can also be categorized into authorization, obligatory and exclusionary danshus respectively. Through a corpus-based analysis of conditions of Chinese legislative provisions, this study has concluded that: i) hypothetical conditions are always expressed by de-constructions; ii) post-conditions are always expressed by danshus, including exclusionary danshus, obligatory danshus and authorization danshus respectively; iii) the use of danshus in Chinese legislative provisions are less than 7% of the total clause numbers; and iv) the co-occurrence of hypothetical conditions and post-conditions are less than 3% of the total clause numbers. Suggestions for future legislation and amendments: First, more danshus should be used; Second, the use of de-constructions should be more standardized; and Third, the co-occurrence of de-constructions and danshus should be increased.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31813,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1405.29\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Foreign Language Teaching and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17507/jltr.1405.29","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

语法现象在不同语域的分布是不同的。本文对我国立法条款中“条件”的语言表达进行了全面的研究。在立法条款中,条件通常用来表示法律规范的前提条件或情况,本文将其称为假设条件。相反,由“但是”或“但是/然而”等词引入的从句被称为“附加条件”。单句通常位于主句之后,因此被称为后置条件。法律规范可分为授权规范、义务规范和复合规范。作为一种特殊的法律规范,丹书又可分为授权丹书、强制性丹书和排他性丹书。通过对中国立法条款条件的语料库分析,本研究发现:(1)假设条件总是通过解构来表达;Ii)后置条件总是用丹素来表达,包括排他性丹素、强制性丹素和授权丹素;(3)我国立法条款中使用单行的条款数量不足条款总数的7%;假设条件和后置条件同时出现的情况少于总子句数的3%。对今后立法和修改的建议:一是增加丹书的使用;其次,解构的使用应该更加规范;三是增加解构与散文的共现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Linguistic Expressions of Conditions of Chinese Legislative Provisions: A Register Grammar Perspective
There is difference in the distribution of grammar phenomena in different registers. This paper has carried out a comprehensive study of the linguistic expressions of Conditions in Chinese legislative provisions. In legislative provisions, the Conditions are usually used to indicate the preconditions or circumstances for the legal norm, which are referred to as hypothetical conditions in this paper. In contrast, the clauses introduced by the words dan ‘but’ or danshi ‘but/however’ are called danshus ‘provisos’. Danshus are always positioned after the main clauses, so they are called post-conditions. Legal norms can be categorized into authorization norms, obligatory norms, and compound norms. As special legal norms, danshus can also be categorized into authorization, obligatory and exclusionary danshus respectively. Through a corpus-based analysis of conditions of Chinese legislative provisions, this study has concluded that: i) hypothetical conditions are always expressed by de-constructions; ii) post-conditions are always expressed by danshus, including exclusionary danshus, obligatory danshus and authorization danshus respectively; iii) the use of danshus in Chinese legislative provisions are less than 7% of the total clause numbers; and iv) the co-occurrence of hypothetical conditions and post-conditions are less than 3% of the total clause numbers. Suggestions for future legislation and amendments: First, more danshus should be used; Second, the use of de-constructions should be more standardized; and Third, the co-occurrence of de-constructions and danshus should be increased.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信