英語論文范文仲裁裁決書推理實(shí)現(xiàn)

　　本文是英語論文范文，本文以裁決書中集中體現(xiàn)推理的兩個(gè)主體部分，即認(rèn)定案件事實(shí)和庭審意見為研究對(duì)象，從系統(tǒng)功能語言學(xué)中的語篇的銜接角度出發(fā)，從顯性銜接和隱性銜接入手，對(duì)其進(jìn)行系統(tǒng)分析�！�電子科學(xué)技術(shù)與應(yīng)用》(ISSN刊號(hào)：2251-2608)衷心邀請(qǐng)來自世界各地的學(xué)者們投稿，來稿會(huì)進(jìn)行同行評(píng)審。本刊屬開放獲取刊，可以即時(shí)查看或訪問研究結(jié)果，同時(shí)允許免費(fèi)使用學(xué)者的研究成果。

　　Chapter One Introduction

　　1.1 Background of the Study

　　Arbitration award is the written version of arbitration court’s verdict on litigant’s arbitration requests, anti-requests, or previous related requests, based on the trial of the law case submitted through law procedure( Liu Meiyan, 2007). It is a clear written version of the arbitration process which can help readers quickly know the whole picture of the case. Arbitration award, as a special genre, is frequently resorted to solve commercial or civil disputes for its flexibility, economy and confidentiality. With the improvement of legal system, the writing of arbitration award has also been enhanced to a higher standard and more professional level. It has been greatly valued by numerous scholars both home and abroad. Even though arbitration award has attracted much attention, research about the arbitration award is still insufficient so far at home and abroad. Most of the research concentrates on commercial arbitration or the legal language characteristics of arbitration. In contrast, there has been few research on arbitration award from the perspective of linguistics. In the book Cohesion in English, Halliday & Hasan (1976) stressed that text needed to be coherent in two ways: Be coherent in the context of situation to present the uniformity in the register. Be coherent in itself. Discourse didn’t skip from one topic to another disorderly, but stretched regularly and reasonably with the coherence of certain topics and the possibility of expanding topics. That was to say that the text was not coherent without various cohesive devices. As the crucial device of contributing to the text coherence, cohesion was essential to the logic of language. Therefore, this paper tries to analyze the reasoning process of the arbitration award from the perspective of discourse cohesion. What’s more, this paper chooses the reasoning achievement as the research object. The reasoning process, mainly consisting of Confirming Facts of the Case and Tribunal Comments, is the main body of the arbitration award. The analysis of it can help us understand how the arbitration court interrogates the evidences in the light of the proposer and respondent’s proof and reasons logically, and give advice for the reference of the final verdict. This paper, starting with the cohesion theory, is unfolding discussions from the angle of implicit and explicit cohesion. By comparing the cohesive characteristics between Confirming Facts of the Case and Tribunal Comments, this paper explores how different syntax relations, grammar and thematic progress patterns propel the achievement of logic reasoning.

　　...........

　　1.2 Purpose of the Study

　　This study adopts textual cohesion: explicit and implicit cohesion under Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) as the theoretical foundation to explore the language characteristics of arbitration award. Through manual annotating and extracting the cohesive devices in Confirming Facts of the Case and Tribunal Comments, this study is targeted at analyzing the distribution features of cohesive devices in the reasoning process and how they propel the reasoning achievement.

　　.........

　　Chapter Two Literature Review

　　In this chapter, we are going to review the relevant literature done by previous scholars both from abroad and at home, which serve as reference for this study. This chapter consists of 3 parts. In the first part, the detailed definition and research of arbitration are presented. The second part focuses on the classification and elaboration of the researches of cohesion. Besides, the theories of TP patterns are introduced in detail and the why TP pattern is adopted is also fully interpreted. Afterwards, the theoretical framework of this study is presented and fully illustrated. The final section depicts the five steps of reasoning mode of arbitration award.

　　2.1 Arbitration Award

　　Arbitration award is the written version of arbitration court’s verdict which is made by arbitration court, based on the ascertained law fact. Liu Meiyan and Chen Zhongqian (2007) defines arbitration award in their paper. According to Liu Meiyan in the paper Analysis of the Reasoning Logic in the Writing of Arbitration Award, arbitration award is the written version of arbitration court’s verdict on litigant’s arbitration requests or anti-requests and previous related requests, based on the trial of the law case submitted through law procedure. As for Chen Zhongqian in his paper Discussion of the Writing of Arbitration Award, he assumed that arbitration award is the confirmation and judgment of the procedure and entities of the case after the arbitration court trying the case in line with the arbitration rules. It is the confirmation of the specific cases and the static reflection of law application. This study adopts Liu Meiyan’s version because the definition is more comprehensive and representative. Arbitration award not only indicates the quality of the arbitration court, but also affects the reputation and image of the Arbitration Committee, which represents the power of arbitration institution. A prominent arbitration award can settle disputes effectively and preserve the legal interests of parties properly. Therefore, the writing of arbitration award must obey the logic rules and illustrate elaborately its views of fact and laws and its evidence of getting the final verdict, which can make sure that the verdict is fair and convincing. By doing so, can it make contribution to the harmony and stability of the legal society. With the perfection of legal system, arbitration award, as one essential part of it, is getting more and more normalized. Accordingly, it has attracted increasing attention from scholars.

　　.........

　　2.2 Cohesion

　　This part will illustrate the classification and related research of cohesion. People are often confused with cohesion and coherence. In 1962, Halliday proposed the concept of “cohesion” for the first time, making it a linguistic term. In 1976, Halliday & Hasan co-authored the book of Cohesion in English, in which they pointed out that cohesion was the language device which facilitated the coherence of the text. They stated that cohesion was essential to textual unity and cohesion was the foundation upon which the edifice of cohesion is built” in the book Cohesion in English. They pointed out that cohesion occurred where certain components of the text needed other components to help explain itself clearly. The major function of cohesion was discourse formation. With the further development and deepening the theory of cohesion, several representative schools have come into forth, such as Halliday & Hasan’s register and cohesion theory, Van Dijk’s macroscopic structure theory (1977), Widdowson’s illocutionary act theory (1979) and Danes & Fries’s thematic progression theory (1974) and so on. Throughout the countless research by former researchers, we can find that there is still no well-defined concept of cohesion. This study tends to define cohesion as the connection existing between words, sentences and contexts, based on the review of the previous definitions. In that book Cohesion in English, Halliday & Hasan stated that cohesion was expressed partly through vocabulary and partly through grammar. While, the cohesion here mainly referred to explicit cohesion. They also classified explicit cohesion devices into five types: reference, substitution, ellipsis, conjunction and lexical cohesion. In the following, Halliday & Hasan expanded cohesion mechanism to organic mechanism, such as adjacent pair, and structure cohesion, such as parallel structure, thematic structure and information structure. However, they also mentioned that the distinction between grammatical cohesion and lexical cohesion was a matter of degree and Halliday suggested that we’d better not go into depth of those overlapping areas and c

轉(zhuǎn)載請(qǐng)注明來自發(fā)表學(xué)術(shù)論文網(wǎng)：http://liangshanbai.cn/ywlw/12660.html