臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫系統

:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
第 1 筆 / 總合 1 筆   第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁
/1頁
題名：法律語言中之對抗隱喻:認知語言學觀點
作者：邱盛秀
作者(外文)：Sheng-hsiu Chiu
校院名稱：臺灣大學
系所名稱：語言學研究所
指導教授：江文瑜
學位類別：博士
出版日期：2012
主題關鍵詞：對抗隱喻；批判論述分析；意識；框架理論；法律語言；台灣；FIGHT metaphor；critical discourse analysis；ideology；frame；legal discourse；Taiwan
原始連結：連回原系統網址new window
相關次數：
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(0) 博士論文(0) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:0
  • 共同引用共同引用:0
  • 點閱點閱:380
本研究探討對抗隱喻在法律文本中的呈現，進而分析我國新的刑事訴訟制度實施後對法律語言使用、意識及行為認知所產生的影響。從認知建構正負面不同的視角，本文同時釐清對抗隱喻在建構訴訟概念上的兩種角色。
2003年台灣修正刑事訴訟法，採行「改良式當事人進行主義」，使我國刑事訴訟制度由原本的大陸法系「職權主義」，走向英美法系的「當事人進行主義」。新法實施對抗制，被告由訴訟客體變成訴訟主體，與檢察官立於平等對抗的地位，同時強調檢察官、被告雙方在訴訟上的武器平等。而為了貫徹武器平等的原則以及施行交互詰問的程序，刑事訴訟也逐漸採行國選辯護人制度，由公設辯護人、義務律師或法律扶助律師為被告辯護，充實被告在訴訟上的防禦能力。由於這些改變，使得法庭上檢辯對立嚴重，氣氛更為火爆。因此，本研究以概念隱喻、框架理論、批判論述分析及語料庫語言學為研究方法，分析台灣法律條文及司法判決書內之對抗隱喻，同時探究存在於對抗隱喻背後的概念認知過程與意涵。
運用「概念隱喻理論」及「批判論述分析」兩層式的分析模式，本研究得到一些發現。首先，藉由分析法律文本中「訴訟是一場對抗」的概念隱喻及檢視語言及意識的互動過程，我們證明了2003年刑事訴訟新法實施之前及之後，法律語言確有差異性，而文本中對抗隱喻以各個面向呈現，更具體地再現了對立不讓的訴訟意識及景象。另外，新的刑事訴訟制度實施後，司法判決書內大量增生使用的對抗隱喻相關詞語，也顯示此類語言對訴訟認知的影響力。我們認為，對抗隱喻除了具有強化對立及敵視意識之潛藏效果外，也可能導引後續更敵對的法庭語言行為。
其次，當運用第二層理論－「批判論述分析」中之「社會行動者」理論去檢視訴訟相關人士所扮演的角色、握有的訴訟程序權及彼此之間權力關係的流動現象，我們發現，法律文本中之對抗隱喻並不僅僅與攻擊、侵略、敵對等負面認知概念連結，它同時也蘊含了公平、對等、及追求正義的訴訟意涵。從這個概念層次而言，對抗隱喻被賦予了新的意義，象徵了刑事訴訟中公民意識的提升，同時也是彰顯人權概念的一種表徵。這個以實現公民利益為考量的角度，使得我們視對抗隱喻為一個「必要」，也是追求訴訟公平及權利保障無法缺少的核心元素。我們因此主張，作為一個人類思考及影響意識的語言機制，對抗隱喻在導引人們對訴訟概念的建構上具有正面的認知功能。
然而，由於「改良式當事人進行主義」植基於「對抗是唯一的一條發現真實之路」的理念上，因此，從意識框限的角度而言，對抗隱喻對人性具有長遠的負面影響。我們主張，人們應該要放棄二維式的思考模式，去除兩極化的對立，並重新建構思維，尋找「對立」以外的方案。考量隱喻普遍存在於認知與概念系統的結構當中，以及語言與思維彼此互動強化的關係，本文因此建議，訴訟相關人士使用此類語彙時應更為謹慎，而對抗隱喻對訴訟文化及更宏觀的人類生活之影響，也值得進一步省思。
This dissertation investigates the role of FIGHT metaphors in the construction of the notion of litigation. In doing so, this research not only identifies the influence of a new criminal procedural system on language use but demonstrates the relationship among concepts, ideologies, and linguistic configurations in legal discourse. It further elucidates both the positive and negative cognitive reframing effects of FIGHT metaphors on the conceptualization of litigation.
In 2003 the Republic of China (Taiwan) passed an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which moves its original criminal proceedings away from the Japanese-German justice model (inquisitorial system) to the American Criminal Justice system (adversarial system). The newly enacted law makes the litigation proceedings more adversarial in nature and tones up the warring and antagonistic atmosphere around the courtrooms. Therefore, within the theoretical and methodological framework based on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), Frame Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and Corpus Linguistics, this study examines FIGHT metaphors employed in Taiwan legal statutes and judgments and probes into the conceptual and cognitive processes underlying these FIGHT metaphors.
The analysis of this study is two-layered and incorporates the Social Actors Approach within the paradigm of Critical Discourse Analysis into the Conceptual Metaphor Theory. First, in identifying the conceptual metaphor LITIGATION IS A FIGHT and examining the interplay between language and ideology, we demonstrate that there was a clear shift in the type of discourse before and after the 2003 amendment, and reveal how ‘fight’ metaphorical lexical uses reflect litigant ideologies and further shape legal reality. The proliferation of FIGHT metaphors appearing in judiciary
judgments after enacting the revised law suggests that the concept of FIGHT to individuals engaged in litigation may have been mapped unconsciously to their thoughts and may have the potential to affect subsequent more contentious discursive behaviors in the courtroom.
Second, when applying CDA to approach the social roles of individuals engaged in litigation, procedural rights of the participants, and the distribution of power relations among the partakers, we demonstrate that FIGHT metaphors, under the same storyline of adversarial system, entail an alternative cognitive function characterizing by pursuing trial fairness and civil justice, and thus recast the concept of fight in litigation as an action to secure the public’s interests and to value the human rights. FIGHT metaphors in litigation symbolize the protection of human rights and the realization of public interests, and on the long term they guarantee the development of democracy, since all human beings are born equal and must have the same chance to display their personality within the framework of the law. As such, FIGHT metaphors are endowed a new meaning, giving promise to both victims and the accused relief and justice. This public interest-centered perspective therefore urges us to view FIGHT metaphors as a ‘must’–an indispensable device to practice equity and justice. We hence argue that FIGHT metaphors are positive as a reframing device that people rely on to conceptualize the litigation.
However, from the other cognitive perspective, FIGHT metaphors in litigation have a profoundly negative effect on individual human spirits since under the adversarial system there is an assumption that opposition is the path to truth. As such, we propose that we have to give up either-or thinking and reframe polarizing choices to find other ways to solution. We further suggest that the legal profession and any engaged individuals take a more reflective approach to their linguistic behaviors, whether oral or written, as well as to reconsider how FIGHT metaphors affect the legal culture and, by extension, the lives of individuals as part of society.
References
Abrams, Douglas E. 2009. Legal writing: Sense and nonsense. Precedent 2009 (3): 23-27. Ahrens, Kathleen. 2002. When love is not digested: Underlying reasons for source to target domain pairings in the contemporary theory of metaphor. Proceedings of the First Cognitive Linguistics Conference, ed. by Y. E. Hsiao, 273-302. Taipei: National Cheng-Chi University.
Ahrens, Kathleen, and Sophia Lee. 2009. Gender versus politics: When conceptual models collide in the U.S. Senate. Politics, Gender, and Conceptual Metaphors, ed. by K. Ahrens, 62-82. Basingstroke and New York: Palgrave-MacMillan.
Ahrens, Kathleen. 2011. Examining conceptual metaphor models through lexical frequency patterns: A case study of U.S. presidential speeches. Windows to the Mind. Series: Applications of Cognitive Linguistics, ed. by H.-J. Schmid, 167-184. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Allbritton, D.W. 1995. When metaphors function as schemas: Some cognitive effects of conceptual metaphors. Metaphor and Symbolic Activity 10:33-46.
Anderson, R. C. 1977. The Notion of Schemata and the Educational Enterprise in Ceds. R. C. Anderson R. J. Spiro and W. E. Montaque.
Anthonissen, C. 2001. On the effectiveness of media censorship: linguistic, paralinguistic and other communicative devices of media regulation. PhD thesis, University of Vienna.
Archer, M., and R. Cohen. 1998. Sidelined on the (judicial) bench: Sports metaphors in judicial opinions. American Business Law Journal 35:225–289.
Ball, S.J. 1990. Introducing Monsieur Foucault, in S.J. Ball (ed.), Foucoult and Education: Disciplines and Knowledge. London: Routledge.
Bartlett, F.C. 1932. Remembering: A Study in Experimental and Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bateson, Gregory. 1954 [1972]. A theory of play and fantasy. Steps to an Ecology of Mind, ed. by Gregory Bateson, 177-193. New York: Ballantine Books.
Bjerre, Carl S. 2005. Mental capacity as metaphor. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 18.2:101-140.
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge University Press.
Bloor, Meriel, and Bloor, Thomas. 2007. The Practice of Critical Discourse Analysis: An introduction. London: Hodder Arnold.
Boroditsky, Lera. 2000. Metaphoric structuring: understanding time through spatial metaphors. Cognition 75:1-28.
Boroditsky, Lera. 2001. Does language shape thought? English and Mandarin speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43:1-22.
Boroditsky, Lera, and M. Ramscar. 2002. The roles of body and mind in abstract thought. Psychological Science 13: 185-188.
Bosmajian, Haig. 1992. Metaphor and Reason in Judicial Opinions. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Bourdieu, P. 1997. Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Polity in association with Basil Blackwell.
Brown, Gillian, and Yule, George. 1983. Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bülow–Møller, Anne Marie. 1991. Trial evidence: Overt and covert communication in
court. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 1:38-60.
Cameron, Lynn. 2003. Metaphor in Educational Discourse. London & New York: Continuum.
Cameron, Lynn. 2007. Confrontation or complementarity? metaphor in language use and cognitive metaphor theory. Annual Review of Cognitive Linguistics 5: 107-135.
Cameron, Lynn, and G. Low. 1999. Researching and Applying Metaphor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cappella, J., and K. H.Jamieson. 1997. Spiral of Cynicism: The Press and the Public Good. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Carruthers, Peter. 1996. Language, Thought and Consciousness: An Essay in Philosophical Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chalaby, Jean K. 1996. Beyond the prison-house of language: Discourse as a sociological concept. The British Journal of Sociology 47(4):684-698.
Chang, Jung-hsing, and Huei-hua Huang. 2005. Mental Spaces Theory and metaphors in Butterfly Lovers. Language and Linguistics 6.4: 681-705.
Chang, Jung-hsing, and Huei-hua Huang. 2006. Metaphors in the shortest stories within the framework of Mental Spaces Theory. Journal of Chinese Language Teaching 3.1: 117-133.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2004. Corpus Approaches to Critical Metaphor Analysis. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Charteris-Black, Jonathan. 2005. Politicians and Rhetoric: The Persuasive Power of Metaphor. New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Chen, Yi-nan. 2006. Xingshi Susong Xin Zhi Shiwu Yunzuo Zhi Yanjiu [Researching Practical Effect about the New Criminal Procedure Law]. Taipei: National Taiwan University MA thesis. (In Chinese)
Cheng, Chao-fan et al. (ed.) 2000. English-Chinese Chinese-English Two-Way Law Dictionary. Taipei: Chien Hong.
Chiang, Wen-yu, and Sheng-hsiu Chiu. 2007. The conceptualization of STATE: a comparative study of metaphors in the R.O.C. (Taiwan) and U.S. Constitutions. Concentric: Studies in Linguistics 33.1:19-46.
Chiang, Wen-yu, and Ren-feng Duann. 2007. Conceptual metaphors for SARS: ‘War’ between whom? Discourse & Society 18.5:579-602.
Chilton, Paul. 2002. Do Something! Conceptualising responses to the attacks of 11
September 2001. Journal of Language and Politics 1:1. Pp. 181-195.
Chilton, Paul. 2005. Missing links in mainstream CDA: Modules, blends and the critical instinct. In A New Agenda in (Critical) Discourse Analysis: Theory, Methodology and Interdisciplinarity, ed, Ruth Wodak and Paul Chilton, 19-53. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Chilton, Paul, and George Lakoff. 1989. Foreign Policy by Metaphor. From
http://crl.ucsd.edu/newsletter/3-5/Article1.html.
Chilton, Paul and Mikhail Ilyin. 1993. Metaphor in Political Discourse: the Case of the ‘Common European House’. Discourse & Society. Sage. London. 7-31.
Chiu, Sheng-hsiu, and Wen-yu Chiang. 2011. FIGHT metaphors in legal discourse: what is unsaid in the story? Language & Linguistics 12.4:877-915.
Chiu, Sheng-hsiu, and Wen-yu Chiang. 2012. Representations of the name rectification movement of Taiwan indigenous people: through whose historical lens? Language & Linguistics 13.3:523-568.
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Condit, C. M. 1994. Two sides to every question: The impact of news formulas on abortion policy and options. Argumentation 8(4):327-336.
Cotterill, J. 2002 (ed.) Language in the Legal Process. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cotterill, J. 2003. Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the O.J.Simpson Trial. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coulthard, M, and Johnson, A. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.
Croft, William and D. Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Damasio, A, and Damasio, H. 1992. Brain and language. Scientific American 117:1258-1260.
Danet, Brenda. 1980. Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review 14(3): 445-564.
Deignan, Alice. 1999. Corpus-based research into metaphor. Researching and Applying Metaphor, ed. by Lynne Cameron & Graham Low, 177-199. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Deignan, Alice. 2005. Metaphor and Corpus Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Dickerson, Reed. 1975. The Interpretation and Application of Statutes. Boston: Little, Brown and Co.
Edwards, D. 2005. Discursive psychology. In K. L. Fitch & R. E. Sanders (eds.), Handbook of Language and Social Interaction, 257-273. New York: Erlbaum.
Entman, R. M. 2004. Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Evans, Vyvyan, and Melanie Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An Introduction. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Eysenck, M. W., & M. T. Keane. 1995. (3rd ed.) Cognitive Psychology: A Student’s Handbook. Mahwah, N.J.: Erlbaum.
Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995. Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language. London & New York: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman. 1995b. Media Discourse. Hodder Arnold.
Fairclough, Norman. 1996. A reply to Henry Widdowson’s ‘Discourse Analysis: A Critical View’. Language and Literature 5:1–8.
Fairclough, Norman. 2001. Language and Power (2nd edition). London & New York: Longman.
Fairclough, Norman. 2004. Critical discourse analysis in researching language in the new capitalism: overdetermination, transdisciplinarity and textual analysis. Systemic Functional Linguistics and Critical Discourse Analysis: Studies in Social Change, ed. by Lynne Young & Claire Harrison, 103-122. London & New York: Continuum.
Fairclough, Norman, and Ruth Wodak. 1997. Critical discourse analysis. Discourse as Social Interaction: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, ed. by Teun Adrianus van Dijk, 258-284. London: Sage.
Fauconnier, Gilles, and Mark Turner. 2002. The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York: Basic Books.
Ferrari, Federica. 2007. Metaphor at work in the analysis of political discourse: investigating a ‘preventive war’ persuasion strategy. Discourse & Society 18.5:603-625.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1975. An alternative to checklist theories of meaning. In Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society, C. Cogen et al. (eds.), 123-131. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1982. Frame semantics. Linguistics in the Morning Calm, ed. by the Linguistic Society of Korea, 111-138. Seoul: Hanshin.
Fillmore, Charles J. 1985. Frames and the semantics of understanding. Quaderni di Semantica 6(2): 222-254.
Fodor, Jerry. 1975. The Language of Thought. New York: Crowell.
Fodor, Jerry. 1983. The Modularity of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Foucault, Michael. 1972. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Sheridan A. trans. New York: Pantheon.
Foucault, Michael. 1977. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. London: Allan Lane.
Foucault, Michael. 1980. Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings 1972-1977. New York: Pantheon.
Fowler, Roger. 1991. Language in the News: Discourse and Ideology in the Press. New York: Routledge.
Fowler, Roger, Hodge, G., Kress, G. and Trew, T. (eds.). 1979. Language and Control. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Frake, C. O. 1977. Plying frames can be dangerous: Some reflections on methodology in cognitive anthropology. The Quarterly Newsletter of the Institute for Comparative Human Development, The Rockefeller University: I: 1-7.
Fredin, E. S. 2001. Frame breaking and creativity: A frame database for hypermedia news. In S.D. Reese, O.H. Gandy, & A. E. Grant (eds.), Framing Public Life: Perspectives on Media and Our Understandings of the Social World, 269-294. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Freedman, Monroe H. 1975. Lawyers’ Ethics in an Adversary System. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill.
Garner, Bryan A. (ed.) 2004. Black’s Law Dictionary (8th edition). St. Paul: West Group.
Gentner, D. 1983. Flowing waters and teeming crowds: mental models of electricity. In Gentner D, Stevens A, eds. Mental Models. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Gentner, D, Imai M, L, Boroditsky. 2002. As time goes by: evidence for two systems in processing space time metaphors. Language and Cognitive Processes 17: 537-565.
Gibbons, John P. 1994. (ed.) Language and the Law. Harlow: Longman.
Gibbons, John P. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr.. 1994. The Poetics of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr. 1996. What’s cognitive about cognitive linguistics? In Cognitive Linguistics in the Redwoods: The Expansion of a New Paradigm in Linguistics, ed. by Casad, Eugene, H, 27-54. Berlin: Mouton De Gruyter.
Gibbs, Raymond W. Jr., and Gerard. J. Steen. (eds.) 1999. Metaphor in Cognitive Linguistics. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Gibbs, Jr., Raymond W. 2006. Embodiment and Cognitive Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Giles, H. R., and St. Clai, R.N. (eds.) 1979. Language and Social Psychology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Goatly, Andrew. 1997. The Language of Metaphors. London: Routledge.
Goatly, Andrew. 2007. Washing the Brain: Metaphor and Hidden Ideology. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goffman, Erving. 1974. Frame Analysis. New York: Harper & Row.
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talks. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Gumperz, John. 1977. Sociocultural knowledge in conversational inference. In Muriel Saville-Troike (ed.) Linguistics and Anthropology: Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, 191-211. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Gwyn, Richard. 2001. Communicating Health and Illness. London: Sage.
Hall, Stuart. 2006. The whites of their eyes. The Discourse Reader (2nd edition), ed. by Adam Jaworski & Nikolas Coupland, 396-406. London & New York: Routledge.
Hamilton, Jonnette Watson. 1995. Metaphors of lawyers’ professionalism. Alberta Law Review 33: 833-857.
Hammersley, Martyn. 1997. On the foundations of Critical Discourse Analysis. In Michael
Harris, Zelig. 1963. Discourse Analysis. (Reprints). The Hague: Mouton.
Hart, Christopher. 2008. Critical discourse analysis and metaphor: towards a theoretical framework. Critical Discourse Studies 5(2):91-106
Hartmann-Mahmud, L. 2002. War as metaphor. Peace Review 14(4):427-432.
Hawkes, Terence. 1972. Metaphor. London: Methuen.
Hellin Garcia, Maria Josefa. 2009. Fight metaphors in Spain’s presidential speeches: J.L. Rodriguez Zapatero (2004-2007). Revista Alicantina de Estudios Ingleses 22:127-153.
Hibbitts, Bernard J. 1994. Making sense of metaphors: visuality, aurality and the reconfiguration of American legal discourse. Cardozo Law Review 16.2:229-356.
Hobbs, Pamela. 2003a. ‘Is that what we’re here about?’: a lawyer’s use of impression management in a closing argument at trial. Discourse & Society 14.3:273-290.
Hobbs, Pamela. 2003b. ‘You must say it for him’: reformulating a witness’ testimony on cross-examination at trial. Text 23.4:477-511.
Hodge, Robert, and Gunther Kress. 1993. Language as Ideology (2nd edition). London & New York: Routledge.
Hou, Shui-shen. 2002. Wo guo xingshi susong you wu shishi Ying Mei fazhi zhi jiaohu jiewen guize zhi biyao [Is there a necessity of enforcing the Anglo-American cross-examination proceeding in Taiwan’s criminal justice system?] Taipei Bar Journal 270:79-84. (In Chinese)
Huang, Jung-chien, Mao-sheng Li, Hsiao-li Lai, Chih-chieh Tang, and Huang-yu Wang. 2007. Xingshi sifa gaige zhi zaidihua jianyan [Local investigation of the judicial reform]. NSC Projects 94-2414-H-002-046 and 94-2414-H-002-002.
Taipei: National Taiwan University. (In Chinese)
Hunter, Dan. 2003. Cyberspace as place and the tragedy of the digital anticommons. California Law Review 91:439-519.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Ways of speaking. In Richard Bauman & Joel Sherzer (eds.). Explorations in the Ethnography of Speaking, 433-451. London: Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1992. Languages of the Mind: Essays on Mental Representation. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Jackson, John D. 2005. The effect of human rights on criminal evidentiary processes: Towards convergence, divergence or realignment?. Modern Law Review 68 (5): 737-764.
Johnson, John D. 1972. A Systematic Introduction to the Psychology of Thinking. New York: Harper and Row.
Johnson, Wendell. 1946. People in Quandaries: The Semantics of Personal Adjustment. New York: Harper.
Johnson, Wendell. 1956. Your Most Enchanted Listener. New York: Harper.
Karlberg, Michael, and Leslie Buell. 2005. Deconstructing the “War of All Against All”: the prevalence and implications of war metaphors and other adversarial news schema in Time, Newsweek, and Maclean’s. Peace and Conflict Studies 12(1): 22-39.
Katz, Albert N. 1998. Figurative language and figurative thought. In Figurative Language and Thought, ed. by Katz, A, Cacciari, C, Gibbs, R and M. Turner, 3-43. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Koller, Veronika. 2002. A shotgun wedding: Co-occurrence of war and marriage metaphors in mergers and acquisitions discourse. Metaphor and Symbol 17(3):179-203.
Koller, Veronika. 2004a. Businesswomen and war metaphors: Possessive,
jealous and pugnacious? Journal of Sociolinguistics 8(1):3-22.
Koller, Veronika. 2004. Metaphor and Gender in Business Media Discourse: A
Critical Cognitive Study. Basingstoke, Hampshire & New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Koller, Veronika. 2005. Critical discourse analysis and social cognition: evidence from business media discourse. Discourse & Society 16.2:199-224.
Koller, Veronika. 2008. Brothers in arms: Contradictory metaphors in
contemporary marketing discourse. In: M.S. Zanotto, L. Cameron and M.C. Cavalcanti (eds). Confronting Metaphor in Use. Amsterdam: Benjamins, 103-125.
Koller, Veronika, and Paul Davidson. 2008. Social exclusion as conceptual and grammatical metaphor: a cross-genre study of British policy-making. Discourse & Society 19.3:307-331.
Kövecses, Zoltán. 2002. Metaphor: A Practical Introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press.
Kress, Gunther. 1989. History and language: Towards a special account of linguistic change. Journal of Pragmatics 13(3):445-466.
Kress, Gunther. 1990. Critical discourse analysis. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 11:84-99.
Kress, Gunther, and B. Hodge. 1979. Language as Ideology. London: Routledge.
Kruglanski, Arie W., Martha Crenshaw, Jerrold M. Post, and Jeff Victoroff. 2007. What should this fight be called? Metaphors of counterterrorism and their implications. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 8.3:97-133.
Kuo, Sai-hua. 2007a. Language as ideology: analyzing quotations in Taiwanese news discourse. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication 17(2):281-301.
Kuo, Sai-hua. 2007b. Social change and discursive change: analyzing conversationalization of media discourse in Taiwan. Discourse Studies 9(6):743-765.
Kuo, Sai-hua, and Mari Nakamura. 2005. Translation or transformation? a case study of language and ideology in Taiwanese press. Discourse & Society 16(3):393-417.
Lakoff, George. 1987 Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal
about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 1990. The Invariance Hypothesis: Is abstract reasoning based on image-schemas? Cognitive Linguistics 1: 39-74.
Lakoff, George. 1991. “Metaphor and War: The Metaphor System Used to Justify War in the Gulf”. From http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/
Lakoff_Gulf_ Metaphor_1.html.
Lakoff, George. 1993. The contemporary theory of metaphor. Metaphor and Thought (2nd edition), ed. by Andrew Ortony, 202-251. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lakoff, George. 2001. Metaphors of terror. In G. Lakoff (ed.), Don’t Think of an Elephant 2004. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 2002. Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George. 2003a. Framing the Dems: How conservatives control political debate and how progressives can take it back. Available at http://prospect.org/article/framing-dems. Accessed March 29, 2012.
Lakoff, George. 2003b. Framing a Democratic agenda. Available at http://www.alternet.org/story/16828. Accessed March 29, 2012.
Lakoff, George. 2003c. The Frame around Arnold. Available at
http://www.alternet.org/story/16947/the_frame_around_arnold/?page=1. Accessed March 30, 2012
Lakoff, George. 2003d. Framing the issues: UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics. Available at
http://berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/10/27_lakoff.shtml. Accessed March 30, 2012.
Lakoff, George. 2003e. Metaphor and war: The metaphor system used to justify war in the Gulf (Part I and II). Available at http://www2.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/HTML_docs/Texts/Scholarly/Lakoff_Gulf_Metaphor_1.html. Accessed April 17, 2012
Lakoff, George. 2004a. Don’t Think of an Elephant: Know Your Values and Frame Your Debate. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green.
Lakoff, George. 2005. War on terror, rest in peace. Available at: http://www.alternet.org/story/23810/. Accessed May 1, 2012. AlterNet.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Johnson. 1980[2003]. Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, George, and Mark Turner. 1989. More than Cool Reason: A Field Guide to Poetic Metaphor. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Landsman, Stephan. 1983. A brief survey of the development of the adversary system. Ohio State Law Journal 44.3:713-739.
Langer, Maximo. 2004. From legal transplants to legal translations: The globalization of plea bargaining and the Americanization thesis in criminal procedure. Harvard International Law Journal 45.1:1-64.
Larson, Brendon M., Nerlich, Brigitte, and Patrick, Wallis. 2005. Metaphors and biorisks: The war on infectious diseases and invasive species. Science Communication 25(3):243-268.
Lazar, Michelle M. 2009. Gender, war and body politics: a critical multimodal analysis of metaphor in advertising. In Politics, Gender and Conceptual Metaphors, ed. by Kathleen Ahrens, 209-234. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Lemley, Mark A. 2003. Place and cyberspace. California Law Review 91:521-542.
Levi, Judith N. 1990. The study of language in the judicial process. In Language in the Judicial Process, eds. By Judith N. Levi and Ann Graffam Walker, 3-35. New York: Plenum press.
Lewis, Margaret K. 2009. Taiwan’s new adversarial system and the overlooked challenge of efficiency-driven reforms. Virginia Journal of International Law 49.3:651-726.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A Functional Reference Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lönneker, Birte. 2003. Is there a way to represent metaphors in WordNets? Insights from the Hamburg metaphor database. Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on the Lexicon and Figurative Language, 18-26. East Stroudsburg: Association for Computational Linguistics.
Lu, Louis Wei-lun, and Kathleen Ahrens. 2008. Ideological influence on BUILDING metaphors in Taiwanese presidential speeches. Discourse & Society 19.3:383-408.
Mashaw, Jerry L. 1983. Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims. Connecticut: Yale University Press.
Matoesian, Greg. 1999. Intertextuality, affect, and ideology in legal discourse. Text 19.1:73-109.
McArdle D. 1996. Brothers in arms: Sport, the law and the construction of gender identity. International Journal of the Sociology of Law 24.2:145-162.
Mcneill, David. 2005. Gesture and Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Mellinkoff, David. 1982. Legal Writing: Sense and Nonsense. New York: Scribner.
Mellinkoff, David. 1992. Mellinkoff''s Dictionary of American Legal Usage. St. Paul, Minn.: West Publishing Company.
Menkel-Meadow, Carrie. 1996. The trouble with the adversary system in a postmodern, multicultural world. William & Mary Law Review 38.1:5-44.
Minsky, Marvin. 1974. A framework for representing knowledge: MIT-AI laboratory memo 306, June, 1974, retrieved 1 June, 2012. http://web.media.mit.edu/~minsky/papers/Frames/frames.html
Minsky, Marvin. 1975. A framework for representing knowledge, in P.H. Winston (ed.), The Psychology of Computer Vision, 211–277. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Montgomery, Scott. L. 1991. Codes and combat in biomedical discourse. Science as Culture 2(3):341-391.
Nerlich, Brigitte, Hamilton, Craig A., and Victoria Rowe. 2002. Conceptualizing Foot and Mouth Disease: The Socio-Cultural Role of Metaphors, Frames and Narratives. Metaphoric.de 2:90-108.
O’Barr, William M. 1982. Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Ochs, Elinor. 1987. Input: A socio-cultural perspective. In Social and Functional Approaches to Language and Thought, ed. by M. Hickman, 305-319. New York: Academic Press.
Oldfather, Chad M. 1994. The hidden ball: A substantive critique of baseball metaphors in judicial opinions. Connecticut Law Review 17:27-68.
Olsson, J. 2004. Forensic Linguistics. New York: Continuum.
Oseid, Julie A. 2010. The power of metaphor: Thomas Jefferson’s ‘Wall of Separation between Church & State’. Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors (7): 123-153.
Partington, Alan. 1998. Patterns and Meanings: Using Corpus for English Language Research and Teaching. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Pinker, Steven. 1994. The Language Instinct. New York: W. Morrow and Co.
Popper, Karl, R. 1963. Conjectures and Refutations: The Growth of Scientific Knowledge.
New York: Routledge and Kegan.
Potter, J. 1996. Discourse analysis and constructionist approaches: Theoretical background. In J. T. E. Richardson (ed.), Handbook of Qualitative Research Methods for Psychology and the Social Sciences, 125-140. Leicester: BPS Books.
Potter, J., and M. Wetherell. 1987. Discourse and social psychology: Beyond attitudes and behaviour. London: Sage.
Reddy, Michael J. 1979. The conduit metaphor – A case of frame conflict in our language about language. Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Andrew Ortony, 284-324. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Richards, T. 2000. An alternative to the fighting frame in news reporting. Canadian Journal of Communication 25:479-496.
Rideout, Christopher J. 2010. Penumbral thinking revisited: Metaphor in legal argumentation. Journal of the Association of Legal Writing Directors (7): 155-191.
Ridling, Zaine. 1989. (ed.) Exodus. The Bible: New Revised Standard Version, 124-206. New York: America Bible Society.
Rosch, Eleanor. 1978. Principles of categorization. Cognition and Categorization, ed. by Eleanor Rosch & Barbara B. Lloyd, 27-48. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rubenstein, R., J. Botes, F. Dukes, and J. Stephens. 1994. Frameworks for Interpreting Conflicts. Fairfax, VA: Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution, George Mason University.
Santa Ana, Otto. 1999. ‘Like an animal I was treated’: anti-immigrant metaphors in US public Discourse. Discourse and Society 10:191-224.
Sapir, Edward. 1929. Central and North American languages. In The Encyclopedia Britannica: A New Survey of Universal Knowledge (14 ed.) (Vol. 5, pp.138–141). London: The Encyclopedia Britannica Company, Ltd.
Schane, Sanford A. 2006. Language and the Law. London & New York: Continuum.
Schank, Roger C., and Robert P. Abelson. 1975. Scripts, plans and knowledge. Advance Papers of the Fourth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, 151-157. Tbilisi, Georgia, USSR. Cambridge, MA: Artificial Intelligence Lab.
Schank, Roger C., and Robert P. Abelson. 1977. Scripts, Plans, Goals and Understanding: An Inquiry into Human Knowledge Structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Sergienko, Greg S. 2004. The ethics of the adversary system. bepress Legal Series. Working Paper 396. http://law.bepress.com/expresso/eps/396
Shuy, R. 1998. The Language of Confession, Interrogation and Deception. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shuy, R. 2002. ‘To testify or not to testify?’, in J. Cotterill (ed.), Language in the Legal Process. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 3-18.
Shuy, R. 2005. Creating Language Crimes: How Law Enforcement Uses (and Misuses) Language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. 2006. Language and the Law. New York: Continuum.
Silverman, P. 1987. Communication and Medical Practice: Social Relations in the Clinic. London: sage.
Simpson, Paul, and Andrea, Mayr. 2010. Language and Power. London and New York: Routledge.
Sinclair, J, and Coulthard, R.M. 1975. Towards an Analysis of Discourse: The English Used by Teachers and Pupils. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Solan, Lawrence M. 1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solan, Lawrence M., and Tiersma, P. 2005. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Sontag, S. 1978. Illness as Metaphor. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Sontag, S. 1991. Illness as Metaphor and AIDS and its Metaphors. London: Penguin.
Straehle, Carolyn. 1993. “Samuel?” “Yes, dear?”: Teasing and conversational rapport. In D. Tannen (ed.) Framing in Discourse, 210-231. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stygall, G. 1994. Trial Language. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Su, Lily I-wen. 2000. Mapping in thought and language as evidenced in Chinese.
Chinese Studies 18:395-424.
Su, Lily I-wen. 2002. What can metaphors tell us about culture? Language & Linguistics 3.3:589-613.
Sweetser, E. 1992. English metaphors for language: Motivations, conventions, and
creativity. Poetics Today 13:705-724.
Sympson, Paul and Andrea Mayr. 2010. Language and Power. New York: Routledge.
Tannen, Deborah. (ed.) 1993. Framing in Discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tannen, Deborah. 1998. The Argument Culture: Moving from Debate to Dialogue. New York: Random House.
Tannen, Deborah. 1999. The Argument Culture: Stopping America’s War of Words. New York: Ballantine Books.
Tannen, Deborah, and C. Wallat. 1993. Interactive frames and knowledge schemas in interaction: Examples from a medical examination review. In D. Tannen (ed.) Framing in Discourse, 57-76. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Teng, N. Y. (2006). Metaphor and coupling: an embodied, action-oriented perspective. Metaphor and Symbol, 21, 2: 67-85. (English)
Teng. N. Y. (2008). Metaphor, feeling and reason: positioning Mencius’argumentation in contemporary Western philosophy. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, 38, 3: 485-504. (Chinese)
Teng, N. Y. (2011). Metaphor and public discourse: from kingly governance to constitutional democracy. Tsing Hua Journal of Chinese Studies, 41, 3. (Chinese) (in press) (Manuscript: Metaphor and public discourse)
Teo, Peter. 2000. Racism in the news: a critical discourse analysis of news reporting in two Australian newspapers. Discourse & Society 11.1:7-49.
Thibodeau Paul. H, and Lera, Boroditsky. 2011. Metaphors we think with: The role of metaphor in reasoning. PLoS ONE 6(2): e16782. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0016782
Thornburg, Elizabeth G. 1995. Metaphors matter: How images of battle, sports, and
sex shape the adversary system. Wisconsin Women’s Law Journal 10:225-282.
Tiersma, Peter Meijes. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Toolan, Michael. 1997. What is critical discourse analysis and why are people saying such terrible things about it? In Michael Toolan (ed.). 2002. Critical Discourse Analysis: critical concepts in linguistics. Vol. 3: 219-241.
Tsai, Robert L. 2004. Fire, metaphor, and constitutional myth-making. Georgetown Law Journal 93.1:181-239.
Turner, Mark. 1987. Death Is the Mother of Beauty: Mind, Metaphor, Criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tversky A, and D. Kahneman. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:1124-1131.
van den Wyngaert, C. 1993. Belgium. In vam den Wyngaert C. (ed). Criminal Procedure Systems in the European Community. London: Butterworths.
van der Merwe, SE, Barton, GA and Kemp KJ. 1983. Plea Procedures in Summary Criminal Trials. London: Butterworths.
van Dijk, T. A. 1981. Studies in the Pragmatics of Discourse. The Hague: Mouton.
van Dijk, Teun A. (ed.) 1985. Handbook of Discourse Analysis (4 vols). New York: Academic Press.
van Dijk, Teun. 1993. Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis. Discourse and Society 4:249-283.
van Dijk, Teun. 1995. Discourse semantics and ideology. Discourse & Society 5(2):243-289.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1996. Discourse, opinions and ideologies. Discourse and Ideologies, ed. by Christina Schäffner & Helen Kelly-Holmes, 7-36. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1997a. (ed.). Discourse as Social Interaction. London: Sage.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1997b. The study of discourse. In Discourse as Structure and Process, ed. by van Dijk, 1-34. London: Sage.
van Dijk, Teun. 1997c. Discourse as interaction in society. In an Dijk, T.A. (ed.) Discourse as Social Interaction. Vol 2, 1-37. London: Sage.
van Dijk, Teun A. 1998. Ideology: A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.
van Dijk, Teun A. 2001a. Critical discourse analysis. The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, ed. by Deborah Schiffrin, Deborah Tannen & Heidi Hamilton, 352-371. Oxford: Blackwell.
van Dijk, Teun A. 2001b. Discourse, ideology and context. Folia Linguistica 35.1-2:11-40.
van Dijk, Teun A. 2001c. Multidisciplinary CDA: A Plea for diversity. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 95-120. London: Sage.
van Dijk, Teun A. 2002. Political discourse and political cognition. In Politics as Text and Talk: Analytic Approaches to Political Discourse, ed.by Paul Chilton and Christina Schaffner, 203-237. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
van Dijk, Teun A. 2006a. Discourse, context and cognition. Discourse Studies 8(1): 159-177.
van Dijk, Teun A. 2006b. Introduction: Discourse, interaction and cognition. Discourse Studies 8(1):5-7.
van Dijk, Teun A. 2006. Discourse and manipulation. Discourse & Society 17.2:359-383.
van Leeuwen, Theo. 1996. The representation of social actors. Texts and Practices: Readings in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Carmen Rosa Caldas-Coulthard & Malcolm Coulthard, 32-70. London & New York: Routledge.
Vygotsky, Lev. 1962. Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wallis, Patrick, and Brigitte Nerlich. 2005. Disease metaphors in new epidemics: the UK media framing of the 2003 SARS epidemic. Social Science & Medicine 60.11:2629-2639.
Watson, Alan. 1974. Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law. Edinburgh: Scottish Academic Press.
Whysall, Paul. 2001. The war metaphor in retailing: Do soldiers see going to war as like going shopping? Qualitative Market Research: An International Journal 4(1):34-41.
Widdowson, Henry G. 2000. Critical practices: on representation and the interpretation of text. Discourse and Social Life, ed. by Srikant Sarangi & Malcolm Coulthard, 155-169. Edinburgh: Pearson Education.
Winiecki, Donald. 2008. The expert witnesses and courtroom discourse: Applying micro and macro forms of discourse analysis to study process and the ‘doings of doings’ for individuals and for society. Discourse & Society 19.6:765-781.
Winter, Steven L. 1988. The metaphor of standing and the problem of self-governance. Stanford Law Review 40: 1371-1516.
Winter, Steven L. 1989. Transcendental nonsense, metaphoric reasoning, and the cognitive stakes for law. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 137.4: 1105-1237.
Winter, Steven L. 1992. The meaning of ‘under color of law’. Michigan Law Review 91: 323-418.
Winter, Steven L. 1995. A clearing in the forest. Metaphor and Symbol 10.3:223-245.
Winter, Steven L. 2001. A Clearing in the Forest: Law, Life, and Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Winter, Steven L. 2007. Re-embodying Law. Mercer Law Review 58: 869-897.
Winter, Steven L. 2008. What is the ‘color’ of law? The Cambridge Handbook of Metaphor and Thought, ed. by Raymond W. Gibbs Jr., 363-379. Cambridge & New York: Cambridge University Press.
Wodak, Ruth. 1989. Introduction, In R. Wodak (ed.), Language, Power and Ideology, i-ix. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Wodak, Ruth. 2001a. The discourse-historical approach. In Ruth Wodak & Michael Meyer (eds.), Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, 63-94. London: Sage.
Wodak, Ruth. 2001b. What CDA is about – A summary of its history, important concepts and its developments. In Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. by Ruth Wodak and Michael Meyer, 1-13. London: Sage.
Wodak, Ruth, and Michael Meyer. (eds.) 2001. Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis. London: Sage.
Wodak, Ruth. 2006. Mediation between discourse and society: Assessing cognitive approaches in CDA. Discourse Studies 8(1):179-190.
Wodak, R., & C. Ludwig. 1999. Introduction. In Wodak, R. (ed.). Challenges in a Changing World, 11-19. Vienna: Passagen Verlag.
Wu-Nan. (ed.) 2008. Falu Ying Han Cidian [Chinese-English Law Dictionary]. Taipei: Wu-Nan.
Xue, Po. (ed.) 2003. Yuan-Zhao Ying Mei Fa Cidian [English–Chinese Dictionary of Anglo-American Law]. Beijing: Law Press.
Yablon, C. 1994. On the contribution of baseball to American legal theory. Yale Law Journal 104: 227-242.
Yu, Ning. 2004. The eyes for sight and mind. Journal of Pragmatics 36(4), 663–686.
Yu, Ning. 2007. Heart and cognition in ancient Chinese philosophy. Journal of Cognition and Culture 7(1/2), 27–47. 2007.
Yu, Ning. 2007. Cultural identity and globalization: Multimodal metaphors in a Chinese educational advertisement. China Media Research 3(2), 25–32.
Yu, Ning. 2008. Multimodal manifestation of conceptual metaphors in multimedia communication. Intercultural Communication Studies 17: 79–89.
Yu, Ning. 2009. When conceptual metaphors govern linguistic expressions: A textual analysis. Intercultural Communication Studies 18: 221–236.
Yu, Ning. 2011. Beijing Olympics and Beijing opera: A multimodal metaphor in a CCTV Olympics commercial. Cognitive Linguistics 22: 595–628. 2011.
Yu, Ning. 2011. A decompositional approach to metaphorical compound analysis: The case of a TV commercial. Metaphor and Symbol 26: 243–259.
張熙懷.2011.〈從實務角度談上訴審之改造〉，《檢察新論》。9.1:36-64。台北市：台灣高等法院檢察署。new window
黃少谷.1983.《刑事訴訟文書格式化及其製作方法》。台北市：中華民國司法院。
蘇永欽.2001.〈裁判書與社會疏離〉，《裁判書類通俗化研究彙編》。
2001:173-222。台北市：中華民國司法院。


 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
QR Code
QRCODE

臺灣人文及社會科學引文索引資料庫

目前上線人數：422（臺灣：420，外國：2） ／ 本年度總使用人次：2042760 ／ 訪客人次（自102年09月）：67853591
國家圖書館著作權聲明 Copyright © 2013 All rights reserved.
本館地址: 100201臺北市中山南路20號． 本館地圖及交通資訊．
總機：(02)23619132．最佳瀏覽解析度為1024x768以上