适用语言学专栏∙法律语篇分析篇

《慕尼黑协定》中的权势关系——系统功能语言学视角

展开
  • 上海交通大学,上海,200240
鲍柳伢,上海交通大学外国语学院2012级在读硕士。主要研究方向为系统功能语言学、法律语言学。电子邮箱:liuya1989929@163.com

网络出版日期: 2020-07-25

Power Relations of The Munich Pact from the Systemic Functional Perspective

Expand

Online published: 2020-07-25

摘要

《慕尼黑协定》是绥靖政策的一个产物,表面上体现的是英法两国维护地区和平、避免战争的意识形态。但本质上,作为各个国家势力不均衡下的产物,它体现的是不同国家的权势关系,揭示的是英法德意对捷克斯洛伐克的控制和压制。本研究从系统功能语言学的角度出发,运用三大元功能理论,解读《慕尼黑协定》是如何在词汇-语法层面体现这种控制和压制的不平等权势关系的。具体来说,运用概念功能分析及物性和语态;运用人际功能分析情态动词的言语功能和语气隐喻;运用语篇功能分析主位。语言和权势息息相关,语言是反映社会权势关系的首要载体,语言即力量(体现权势)。因此,通过对法律语篇《慕尼黑协定》词汇-语法的语言特征分析可以很好地展现该协定所体现的参与者之间的权势关系。通过分析可以得出,对语篇的系统功能语言学分析可以有效地揭示语言中隐藏的社会关系和意识形态。

本文引用格式

鲍柳伢 . 《慕尼黑协定》中的权势关系——系统功能语言学视角[J]. 当代外语研究, 2015 , 15(06) : 12 -16 . DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-8921.2015.06.003

Abstract

The Munich Pact is a product of the Appeasement Policy, which seemingly functions to maintain regional peace of England and France but in nature is a product of imbalanced social statuses and nation strengths. It reveals such kind of power relation that the more powerful countries (England, France, Germany and Italy) control or even suppress the less powerful country (Czechoslovakia). From the Systemic Functional Perspective, the theory of three Meta functions is utilized, attempting to analyze how The Munich Pact reflects such unbalanced power relation on the level of lexico grammar. To be specific, ideationally, the process types and voice of the discourse are analyzed. Interpersonally, speech function of modality and mood metaphor are analyzed. Textually, theme type is analyzed. Language and power are closely related. Language is perhaps the primary medium of social power. Language is power, which functions as a tool for some people to dominate others. By analyzing the language of a certain discourse, especially a forensic discourse, the power relations of the participants can be effectually revealed through the language characteristics. Thus by analyzing language of The Munich Pact, power relations of the four countries (England, France, Germany and Italy) and Czechoslovakia can be profoundly revealed. It is believed that analysis based on Systemic Functional Linguistics offers an effective way to analyze the hidden social relations and ideology of The Munich Pact.

参考文献

Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power [M]. London: Longman.
Fowler, R. 1996. Linguistic Criticism [M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Fung, S. & B. A. Watson. 1994. The Template: A Guide for the Analysis of Complex Legislation. Institutes of Advanced Legal Studies [M]. London: London University. Press
Givon, T. 1979. On Understanding Grammar [M]. New York: Academic Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An Introduction of Functional Grammar (1st ed.) [M]. London: Arnold.
Halliday, M. A. K. 1994/2000. An Introduction of Functional Grammar [M]. Beijing: Foreign Language Teaching and Research Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. & C. M. I. M. Matthiessen. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Arnold.
Kress, G. & B. Hodge. 1979. Language as Ideology [M]. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Martin, J. R. 2000. Beyond exchange: Appraisal systems in English [A]. In S. Hunston & G. Thompson (eds.). Evaluation in Text: Authorial Stance and the Construction of Discourse [C]. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 142-75.
Matthiessen, C. M. I. M. 1996. Tense in English [A]. In M. Berry, C. Butler, R. Fawcett & G. Huang (eds.). Meaning and Form: Systemic Functional interpretations [C]. New Jersey: Ablex. 431-98.
Parker, R. A. 1995. Chamberlain and appeasement: British policy and the coming of the Second World War [J]. Canadian Journal of History 30(2): 289-321.
Steven, E. L. 2007. The second face of security: Britain’s “Smart” appeasement policy towards Japan and Germany [J]. International Relations of the Asia Pacific 7(1): 73.
洪聚堂.1988.慕尼黑协定产生的根本原因及其后果[J].西北师大学报(4):79-83.
胡壮麟、朱永生、张德禄、李战子.2008.系统功能语言学概论[M].北京:北京大学出版社.
黄国文.2010.语篇分析与系统功能语言学理论的建构[J].外语与外语教学(5):1-4.
黄永平.2004.法律英语文体学[M].沈阳:辽宁少数民族出版社.
齐世荣.1979.慕尼黑危机的真相不容歪曲[J].世界历史(1):34-45.
王振华.2001.评价系统及其运作[J].外国语(6):13-20.
王振华.2004a.法庭交叉质询中的人际关系[J].外语学刊(3):51-59.
王振华.2004b.“物质过程”的评价价值——以分析小说人物形象为例[J].外国语(5):41-47.
周尊南.1981.慕尼黑悲剧的历史教训[J].史学月刊(4):83-91.
文章导航

/