论文部分内容阅读
【Abstract】Based on lexical cohesion theories， the paper analyzed Chinese legislative texts and English versions， which also adopts constrictive analysis. There lies a phenomenon of lexical cohesive devices frequently employed in the Chinese and its English version， among which mainly are lexical repetition， hyponymy and synonymy； Chinese legislative texts emphasize lexical repetition while legislative texts in English employ more devices of synonymy.
【Key Words】 lexical cohesion， legislative texts， constrictive analysis
1. Repetition
After figuring out all the lexical devices employed in the ten legislative texts both in Chinese and English translated versions， the frequency are listed as below tables：
we can conclude：
a. Repetition enjoys high frequency in both languages. As a result， there is no surprise to see that the word “contract” has been repeated 424 times in the whole text.
b. Repetition is used more frequently in Chinese versions compared with English. The repetition of Chinese words are almost all the same words without any change in form of the words， while that of English tend to appear in derivational or inflectional forms.
Eg：第九条 统计机构和统计人员对在统计工作中知悉的国家秘密、商业秘密和个人信息，应当予以保密。
Article 9 Statistic agencies and statistical personnel shall keep confidential the national secrets， trade secrets and personal information they have access to in the process of doing the statistical work.
In the example above， in the Chinese version “统计” is repeated twice while the English version uses “statistic” and “statistical ” to achieve the same effect.
2. Synonymy
Words with similar meanings are synonyms， and the state of being synonyms is synonymy， such as “interests and rights”， “performance and observance” .
We can conclude from the table：
a. Synonymy is used both in Chinese and English legislative texts and enjoys high frequency though a little bit lower compared with repetition. For example， “罚款”and “罚金” are synonyms with the similar meaning of “ a kind of punishment by means of handing in money”.
b. Synonymy is used more often in English legislative texts both in the quantity of absolute number and in the percentage it takes.
Eg2：
第五条 坚持一个中国原则，是实现祖国和平统一的基础。
以和平方式实现祖国统一，最符合台湾海峡两岸同胞的根本利益。国家以最大的诚意，尽最大的努力，实现和平统一。
国家和平统一后，台湾可以实行不同于大陆的制度，高度自治。
Article 5 Upholding the principle of one China is the basis of peaceful reunification of the country. To reunify the country through peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of the compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification.
After the country is reunified peacefully， Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy.
——The Anti-Secession Law of the People’s Republic of China
In the example above， the Chinese version uses three words “中国” ， “国家” and “祖国”， while the English one use “China”， “ the state” and “the country”， which all have the same references.
3. Collocation
Collocation， long established as a grammatical term， is an important lexical cohesion device in cohesion theory， which refers to the co-occurrence tendency of two or more lexical items within or across sentences.
From the table above， we can see that collocation make up about one fifth of the total number of lexical cohesive devices.
Eg3：第六十八条 违反本法规定，侵害劳动者合法权益，造成财产损失或者其他损害的，依法承担民事责任；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
Article 68 Where anyone， in violation of the provisions of this Law， infringes on the lawful rights and interests of the workers， thus causing property losses or other damages， he shall bear civil liabilities in accordance with law； If a crime is constituted， he shall be investigated for criminal responsibilities in accordance with law.
——Law of the People's Republic of China on Promotion of Employment
In the example， we can see different meanings of the “civil liabilities” and “criminal responsibilities”.
4. Conclusion
Through a contrastive study of ten legislative texts， this paper has explored the similarities and dissimilarities in lexical cohesive devices between Chinese and English. We can conclude： a. repetition enjoys the highest frequency. b. synonymy is preferred in English texts compared with Chinese texts. c. the collocation in legislative texts co-occur with the changes in meaning.
【References】
[1]Halliday. Cohesion in English[M].London：Longman Group Limited，1976.
[2]宋雷，张绍全.英汉对比法律语言学[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2010.
[3]杨川.英汉合同法中词汇衔接的研究[D].大连海事大学，2006.
【Key Words】 lexical cohesion， legislative texts， constrictive analysis
1. Repetition
After figuring out all the lexical devices employed in the ten legislative texts both in Chinese and English translated versions， the frequency are listed as below tables：
we can conclude：
a. Repetition enjoys high frequency in both languages. As a result， there is no surprise to see that the word “contract” has been repeated 424 times in the whole text.
b. Repetition is used more frequently in Chinese versions compared with English. The repetition of Chinese words are almost all the same words without any change in form of the words， while that of English tend to appear in derivational or inflectional forms.
Eg：第九条 统计机构和统计人员对在统计工作中知悉的国家秘密、商业秘密和个人信息，应当予以保密。
Article 9 Statistic agencies and statistical personnel shall keep confidential the national secrets， trade secrets and personal information they have access to in the process of doing the statistical work.
In the example above， in the Chinese version “统计” is repeated twice while the English version uses “statistic” and “statistical ” to achieve the same effect.
2. Synonymy
Words with similar meanings are synonyms， and the state of being synonyms is synonymy， such as “interests and rights”， “performance and observance” .
We can conclude from the table：
a. Synonymy is used both in Chinese and English legislative texts and enjoys high frequency though a little bit lower compared with repetition. For example， “罚款”and “罚金” are synonyms with the similar meaning of “ a kind of punishment by means of handing in money”.
b. Synonymy is used more often in English legislative texts both in the quantity of absolute number and in the percentage it takes.
Eg2：
第五条 坚持一个中国原则，是实现祖国和平统一的基础。
以和平方式实现祖国统一，最符合台湾海峡两岸同胞的根本利益。国家以最大的诚意，尽最大的努力，实现和平统一。
国家和平统一后，台湾可以实行不同于大陆的制度，高度自治。
Article 5 Upholding the principle of one China is the basis of peaceful reunification of the country. To reunify the country through peaceful means best serves the fundamental interests of the compatriots on both sides of the Taiwan Straits. The state shall do its utmost with maximum sincerity to achieve a peaceful reunification.
After the country is reunified peacefully， Taiwan may practice systems different from those on the mainland and enjoy a high degree of autonomy.
——The Anti-Secession Law of the People’s Republic of China
In the example above， the Chinese version uses three words “中国” ， “国家” and “祖国”， while the English one use “China”， “ the state” and “the country”， which all have the same references.
3. Collocation
Collocation， long established as a grammatical term， is an important lexical cohesion device in cohesion theory， which refers to the co-occurrence tendency of two or more lexical items within or across sentences.
From the table above， we can see that collocation make up about one fifth of the total number of lexical cohesive devices.
Eg3：第六十八条 违反本法规定，侵害劳动者合法权益，造成财产损失或者其他损害的，依法承担民事责任；构成犯罪的，依法追究刑事责任。
Article 68 Where anyone， in violation of the provisions of this Law， infringes on the lawful rights and interests of the workers， thus causing property losses or other damages， he shall bear civil liabilities in accordance with law； If a crime is constituted， he shall be investigated for criminal responsibilities in accordance with law.
——Law of the People's Republic of China on Promotion of Employment
In the example， we can see different meanings of the “civil liabilities” and “criminal responsibilities”.
4. Conclusion
Through a contrastive study of ten legislative texts， this paper has explored the similarities and dissimilarities in lexical cohesive devices between Chinese and English. We can conclude： a. repetition enjoys the highest frequency. b. synonymy is preferred in English texts compared with Chinese texts. c. the collocation in legislative texts co-occur with the changes in meaning.
【References】
[1]Halliday. Cohesion in English[M].London：Longman Group Limited，1976.
[2]宋雷，张绍全.英汉对比法律语言学[M].北京：北京大学出版社，2010.
[3]杨川.英汉合同法中词汇衔接的研究[D].大连海事大学，2006.