期刊文献+

离婚调解话语中男女权力失衡问题研究 被引量:3

An Analysis of the Power Imbalance between Men and Women in Divorce Mediation Discourse
下载PDF
导出
摘要 作为离婚审判的必要程序,调解的设立是为了减少或避免纠纷并公正地解决争端。研究发现调解中的男女当事人存在权力差异,而且男性在权力的两个维度上均显示为强势。首先就社会生活维度来说,男性在收入、职业、社会地位和教育程度等方面较女性处于优势。其次,在语言使用层面,以评价理论为指导,本研究发现不论是针对女方还是法官,男性在情感词汇、义务型情态词汇以及级差词汇的使用上都体现出了强势的特征。然而,在调解过程中,双方权力的失衡没有得到法官的重视和正确对待,妇女的权益也没有得到较好的维护。因此,有必要让法官意识到男女权力在社会生活维度,尤其是语言使用维度的差异,确保能够在审理过程中做到公正公平,更好地保护妇女的正当权益。 As a compulsory part of divorce litigation ,mediation provides a way to solve disputes with fewer conflicts .But it is found in this article that power imbalance between men and women have played a negative role in this procedure .Men are found with more power in two perspectives :socially and linguis-tically .In the social aspect ,for example ,men are comparatively higher-paid and better educated with bet-ter jobs and higher social status .As for language ,men have been proved to be more aggressive towards women and the judges .However ,these imbalances have not drawn the due attention from the judges ,and women's rights have not been well addressed in mediations .Therefore ,suggestions are provided in the end for future improvement .
出处 《中国海洋大学学报(社会科学版)》 CSSCI 2014年第4期123-128,共6页 Journal of Ocean University of China(Social Sciences)
基金 教育部人文社科青年基金项目"态度意义与人际关系研究--基于对态度意义的多维尺度分析的考察"(11YJC740089) 教育部人文社会科学研究青年基金项目"英汉语言学书评语篇中的负向评价研究"(11YJC740002) 中国海洋大学文科发展基金项目"法律语言学中的女权研究及其在中国婚姻调解中的实践意义"(H09YB12)
关键词 权力 离婚调解话语 性别差异 评价理论 divorce mediation discourse power gender difference appraisal theory
  • 相关文献

参考文献27

  • 1Danet,B&Kermish,N.C.Courtroom questioning:a sociolinguistic perspective[A].In L.N.Massery(Ed.),Psychology and Persuasion in Advocacy[C](pp.413-441).Washington,DC:Association of Trial Lawyers of America,National College of Advocacy,1978. 被引量:1
  • 2Danet,B.Baby'or fetus':language and the construction of reality in a manslaughter trial[J].Semiotica,1980,(32),187-219. 被引量:1
  • 3Brennan,M.Cross-examining children in criminal court:Child welfare under attack[A].In J.Gibbons(Ed.),Language and the Law[C](pp.199-216).Harlow:Longman,1994. 被引量:1
  • 4Eades,D.A case of communicative clash:Aboriginal English and the legal system[A].In J.Gibbons(Ed.),Language and the Law[C](pp.234-264).London:Longman,1994. 被引量:1
  • 5Henderson,L.Law's patriarchy[J].Law&Society Review,1991,(25),41-44. 被引量:1
  • 6Matoesian,G.Reproducing Rape:Domination through Talk in the Courtroom[M].Chicago:Chicago University Press,1993. 被引量:1
  • 7Conley,J.M.,&O'Barr,W.M.Just words:Law,Language,and Power[M].Chicago and London:The University of Chicago Press,1998. 被引量:1
  • 8Bryan,P.Killing us softly:Divorce mediation and the politics of power[J].Buffalo Law Review,1992,(40),441-523. 被引量:1
  • 9Grillo,T.The mediation alternative:process dangers for women[J].Yale Law Journal,1991(100),1545-1610. 被引量:1
  • 10陈炯著..法律语言学概论[M].西安:陕西人民教育出版社,1998:310.

二级参考文献15

  • 1龙卫球.民法总论[M].北京:中国法制出版社,2002.. 被引量:128
  • 2Bybee, J. & F. Susanne (eds.). 1995. Modality in Grammar and Discourse [C]. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 被引量:1
  • 3Conley, J. M. & W. M. O'Barr. 1998. Just Word [M]. The University of Chicago Press. 被引量:1
  • 4Finegan, E. 1999. Language: Its Structure and Use (3^rd edition) [M]. Harcourt Brace College Publishers. 被引量:1
  • 5Fowler, R. 1996. Linguistic Criticism [M ]. Oxford : Oxford University Press. 被引量:1
  • 6Givon, T. 1995. Functionalism and Grammar [M]. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 被引量:1
  • 7Halliday, M. A.K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Armold. 被引量:1
  • 8Halliday, M. A.K. 1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar [M]. London: Edward Armold. 被引量:1
  • 9Holmes, J. 1984. Hedging your bets and sitting on the fence: Some evidence for hedges as support structures [J]. Te Reo 27. 被引量:1
  • 10Hubler, A. 1983. Understatements and Hedges in English[M]. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. 被引量:1

共引文献6

同被引文献42

引证文献3

二级引证文献3

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部