文本世界理論和評(píng)價(jià)理論視域下中文民事判決書的情態(tài)研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-07-15 20:12
【摘要】：司法判決書是審判的最終書面結(jié)果,由首部、事實(shí)部分、說(shuō)理部分、判決結(jié)果部分、尾部構(gòu)成。前人已對(duì)判決書的結(jié)構(gòu)、說(shuō)理和情態(tài)等方面進(jìn)行研究。以往的研究不足在于:(1)對(duì)于判決書各部分的情態(tài)研究相對(duì)較少,它們僅研究判決書情態(tài)整體分布;(2)對(duì)于情態(tài)的分析,從句式及高量值情態(tài)詞的角度說(shuō)明法官的權(quán)威,未對(duì)判決書的其它參與者進(jìn)行分析,無(wú)法揭示判決書的客觀性。鑒于此,本研究:(1)運(yùn)用Gavins的文本世界理論分析情態(tài)在判決書各部分的體現(xiàn),以便呈現(xiàn)判決書中各個(gè)參與者的情態(tài)使用;(2)為了說(shuō)明法律文本的公正性和客觀性,運(yùn)用Martin的介入系統(tǒng)來(lái)分析各種情態(tài)的參與者歸屬和不同參與者可能使用的介入資源。本研究的數(shù)據(jù)來(lái)源于裁判文書網(wǎng)的一審民事判決書,隨機(jī)抽樣96個(gè)文本。本研究結(jié)果如下:基于文本世界理論,我們發(fā)現(xiàn)在所有判決書中愿望情態(tài)世界占26%,義務(wù)情態(tài)世界占65%,認(rèn)知情態(tài)世界占9%。情態(tài)世界的分布在判決書各部分顯現(xiàn)有差異:首部無(wú)情態(tài)世界;事實(shí)部分,情態(tài)世界分布最多,占49%;說(shuō)理部分,情態(tài)世界所占比例相對(duì)較低為38%;判決結(jié)果部分,情態(tài)世界的比例較低,占8%;尾部,情態(tài)世界僅占5%。這種差異是由判決書各部分不同的介入聲音造成的:(1)判決書首部介入聲音為法院,陳述案件信息,無(wú)情態(tài)世界構(gòu)建;(2)事實(shí)部分介入聲音有五種:原告被告、第三人、法院、法律、合同。原告被告構(gòu)建愿望情態(tài)世界和認(rèn)知情態(tài)世界;法院、法律和合同構(gòu)建義務(wù)情態(tài)世界;第三人構(gòu)建認(rèn)知情態(tài)世界;(3)說(shuō)理部分和判決結(jié)果部分的介入聲音均為法院和法律,法院和法律構(gòu)建義務(wù)情態(tài)世界,法律還構(gòu)建認(rèn)知情態(tài)世界;(4)尾部的介入聲音為法院,構(gòu)建義務(wù)情態(tài)世界和認(rèn)知情態(tài)世界。我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)介入聲音可以削弱情態(tài)世界的主觀性。法官聲音的介入削弱原告被告構(gòu)建的愿望情態(tài)世界的主觀性;法律聲音的介入削弱法律條文構(gòu)建的認(rèn)知情態(tài)世界和義務(wù)情態(tài)世界的主觀性。情態(tài)世界的主觀性還可以通過(guò)介入資源進(jìn)一步弱化。原告被告使用否認(rèn)、反駁和背書資源為愿望情態(tài)世界提供事實(shí)和法律依據(jù);法院使用否認(rèn)和背書資源削弱法院構(gòu)建的義務(wù)情態(tài)的主觀性,使其裁決更有說(shuō)服力;疏遠(yuǎn)資源削弱第三人構(gòu)建的認(rèn)知情態(tài)世界的主觀性。此外,宣稱和反駁資源體現(xiàn)了判決書的公正性,而同意和承認(rèn)資源體現(xiàn)了判決書的客觀性。本研究的理論意義在于呈現(xiàn)了文本世界理論和介入系統(tǒng)理論在解釋法律文本的主觀性和客觀性互動(dòng)上具有互補(bǔ)性;在實(shí)踐上,本研究有助于人們從情態(tài)表達(dá)的角度更加清楚地理解司法判決書。
[Abstract]:The judicial judgment is the final written result of the trial, which consists of the first part, the fact part, the reasoning part, the final part and the tail part. Predecessors have studied the structure, reasoning and modality of the judgment. The shortcomings of the previous studies are: (1) there are relatively few studies on the modality of each part of the judgment, and they only study the overall distribution of the modality of the judgment; (2) the analysis of modality shows the authority of the judge from the perspective of sentence structure and high-valued modal words. The objectivity of the judgment cannot be revealed without the analysis of the other participants in the judgment. In view of this, this study: (1) use Gavins' textual world theory to analyze the embodiment of modality in all parts of the judgment, in order to present the modality usage of each participant in the judgment; (2) to illustrate the impartiality and objectivity of the legal text, Martin's intervention system was used to analyze the ownership of participants and the possible intervention resources used by different participants. The data of this study come from the first instance civil judgment of the adjudicative documents network, random sampling 96 texts. The results are as follows: based on the text world theory, we find that in all judgments, the desire modality world accounts for 26%, the obligation modality world 65%, the cognitive modality world 9%. The distribution of the modal world is different in all parts of the judgment: the first motionless world; the factual part, the world of modality is the most distributed, accounting for 49; the reasoning part, the proportion of the modal world is relatively low to 38; the final part of the judgment, The proportion of modal world is low (8%), and that of tail, modality world is only 5%. This difference is caused by the different interposition sounds of each part of the judgment: (1) the first intervention voice of the judgment is the court, stating the case information, and constructing the world of indolence; (2) there are five kinds of factual partial intervention sounds: the plaintiff defendant, the third person, the court, Law, contract. The plaintiff and defendant build the world of desire and cognition; the court, the law and the contract construct the world of obligation; the third party constructs the world of cognition; (3) the intervening voice of the reasoning part and the judgment result part are both the courts and the law. The court and law construct the world of obligation modality, and law also construct the world of cognition modality; (4) the intervention voice of tail is the court, which constructs the world of obligation modality and the world of cognition modality. We also find that intervention in sound can weaken the subjectivity of the modal world. The intervention of the judge's voice weakens the subjectivity of the desire world constructed by the plaintiff and defendant, and the intervention of the legal voice weakens the subjectivity of the cognitive modality world and the obligation modality world constructed by the legal provisions. Subjectivity in the modal world can be further weakened by intervening in resources. The plaintiff defendant uses the resources of denial, refutation and endorsement to provide the factual and legal basis for the world of desire modality, the court uses the resources of denial and endorsement to weaken the subjectivity of the obligation modality constructed by the court, and makes its ruling more persuasive. Alienating resources weakens the subjectivity of the cognitive world constructed by the third party. In addition, the claim and refutation resources embody the impartiality of the judgment, while the consent and recognition resources embody the objectivity of the judgment. The theoretical significance of this study lies in the fact that the theory of text world and the theory of intervention system are complementary in the interaction of subjectivity and objectivity in the interpretation of legal texts. This study helps people to understand judicial judgment more clearly from the angle of modal expression.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：電子科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H146.3
本文編號(hào)：2125248
[Abstract]:The judicial judgment is the final written result of the trial, which consists of the first part, the fact part, the reasoning part, the final part and the tail part. Predecessors have studied the structure, reasoning and modality of the judgment. The shortcomings of the previous studies are: (1) there are relatively few studies on the modality of each part of the judgment, and they only study the overall distribution of the modality of the judgment; (2) the analysis of modality shows the authority of the judge from the perspective of sentence structure and high-valued modal words. The objectivity of the judgment cannot be revealed without the analysis of the other participants in the judgment. In view of this, this study: (1) use Gavins' textual world theory to analyze the embodiment of modality in all parts of the judgment, in order to present the modality usage of each participant in the judgment; (2) to illustrate the impartiality and objectivity of the legal text, Martin's intervention system was used to analyze the ownership of participants and the possible intervention resources used by different participants. The data of this study come from the first instance civil judgment of the adjudicative documents network, random sampling 96 texts. The results are as follows: based on the text world theory, we find that in all judgments, the desire modality world accounts for 26%, the obligation modality world 65%, the cognitive modality world 9%. The distribution of the modal world is different in all parts of the judgment: the first motionless world; the factual part, the world of modality is the most distributed, accounting for 49; the reasoning part, the proportion of the modal world is relatively low to 38; the final part of the judgment, The proportion of modal world is low (8%), and that of tail, modality world is only 5%. This difference is caused by the different interposition sounds of each part of the judgment: (1) the first intervention voice of the judgment is the court, stating the case information, and constructing the world of indolence; (2) there are five kinds of factual partial intervention sounds: the plaintiff defendant, the third person, the court, Law, contract. The plaintiff and defendant build the world of desire and cognition; the court, the law and the contract construct the world of obligation; the third party constructs the world of cognition; (3) the intervening voice of the reasoning part and the judgment result part are both the courts and the law. The court and law construct the world of obligation modality, and law also construct the world of cognition modality; (4) the intervention voice of tail is the court, which constructs the world of obligation modality and the world of cognition modality. We also find that intervention in sound can weaken the subjectivity of the modal world. The intervention of the judge's voice weakens the subjectivity of the desire world constructed by the plaintiff and defendant, and the intervention of the legal voice weakens the subjectivity of the cognitive modality world and the obligation modality world constructed by the legal provisions. Subjectivity in the modal world can be further weakened by intervening in resources. The plaintiff defendant uses the resources of denial, refutation and endorsement to provide the factual and legal basis for the world of desire modality, the court uses the resources of denial and endorsement to weaken the subjectivity of the obligation modality constructed by the court, and makes its ruling more persuasive. Alienating resources weakens the subjectivity of the cognitive world constructed by the third party. In addition, the claim and refutation resources embody the impartiality of the judgment, while the consent and recognition resources embody the objectivity of the judgment. The theoretical significance of this study lies in the fact that the theory of text world and the theory of intervention system are complementary in the interaction of subjectivity and objectivity in the interpretation of legal texts. This study helps people to understand judicial judgment more clearly from the angle of modal expression.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：電子科技大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：H146.3
【參考文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條
1 林孝文;;我國(guó)司法判決書引用憲法規(guī)范的實(shí)證研究[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2015年04期
2 張法連;張魯平;;談?wù)Z用充實(shí)視角下的刑事判決書翻譯[J];中國(guó)翻譯;2014年03期
3 聶玉景;;民事判決書的評(píng)價(jià)策略——基于對(duì)話視角的介入分析[J];西安電子科技大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2013年04期
4 余素青;;判決書敘事修辭的可接受性分析[J];當(dāng)代修辭學(xué);2013年03期
5 張建文;;從判決書的私人公開看公共記錄中的隱私權(quán)保護(hù)[J];甘肅政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2012年05期
6 魏勝?gòu)?qiáng);;當(dāng)面說(shuō)理、強(qiáng)化修辭與重點(diǎn)推進(jìn)——關(guān)于提高我國(guó)判決書制作水平的思考[J];法律科學(xué)(西北政法大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào));2012年05期
7 孫光寧;;判決書寫作中的消極修辭與積極修辭[J];法制與社會(huì)發(fā)展;2011年03期
8 王松;;民事判決書的制作與執(zhí)行[J];法律適用;2011年02期
9 徐亞文;伍德志;;法律修辭、語(yǔ)言游戲與判決合法化——對(duì)“判決書上網(wǎng)”的法理思考[J];河南省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2011年01期
10 黃萍;;法律語(yǔ)篇中模糊限制語(yǔ)的人際意義——以中文判決書為例[J];學(xué)術(shù)交流;2010年02期
相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前2條
1 姚霖霜;法律文書情緒語(yǔ)言的認(rèn)知研究[D];華中師范大學(xué);2012年
2 張純輝;司法判決書可接受性的修辭研究[D];上海外國(guó)語(yǔ)大學(xué);2010年
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前1條
1 鄭怡;從情態(tài)的視角研究中文判決書的說(shuō)理[D];廣東外語(yǔ)外貿(mào)大學(xué);2007年
，本文編號(hào)：2125248
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/wenyilunwen/yuyanyishu/2125248.html
最近更新
教材專著
