合同纠纷中有争议意义的法律语言学分析

发布时间：2017-05-24 15:17

  本文关键词：合同纠纷中有争议意义的法律语言学分析，，由笔耕文化传播整理发布。

【摘要】：合同法第125条规定:“当事人对合同条款的理解有争议的,应当按照合同所使用的词句、合同的有关条款、合同的目的、交易习惯以及诚实信用原则,确定该条款的真实意思。”但是,该法律条款并未对如何解释合同所使用的词句做出说明,也没有指出如何确定条款的真实意思。法律语言存在着模糊性,司法结果有要求确定性。在法律语言证据的解释过程中如何从模糊性过渡到确定性是法律研究者应该关注的一个问题。承载合同当事人权利、义务关系的合同文本,既是当事人双方履行合同的依据,也是发生纠纷后最直接、最客观的法庭证据。由于语言的模糊性,合同语言所传达的意义往往产生争议,从而引起合同纠纷。合同解释是指确定合同双方所使用词句的真实意思以及所产生的法律影响。本文将法律阐释学中的文义解释法和语境解释法与语言学中的语义分析和语用分析相结合。若文义解释法不能够将争议意义解释清楚,合同解释者必须结合语境解释法来解决有争议意义引起的合同纠纷。本论文采用实证分析法,将纠纷合同作为研究对象,主要从法律语言的角度探讨合同纠纷的解决方法,从而试图为合同纠纷的解决提供一个较为系统的语言学方案。这将是对现存合同解释方法的丰富和完善。本文的研究只是一个新的尝试,希望通过本文能在合同纠纷领域促进语言学与法学的跨领域合作和进一步的进展。
【关键词】：合同纠纷 语言不确定性 有争议意义 合同解释方法
【学位授予单位】：广东外语外贸大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：H030
【目录】：

• ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS4-5
• ABSTRACT5-7
• 摘要7-13
• CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION13-19
• 1.1 Overview13-15
• 1.2 Rationale of the Study15-16
• 1.3 Objective and Research Questions16-17
• 1.4 Methodology and Data Collection17
• 1.5 Organization of the Thesis17-19
• CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW19-37
• 2.1 Previous Studies on Application of Cooperative Principle in Legal Language19-26
• 2.1.1 A Brief Outline of Grice’s Theory19-21
• 2.1.2 Sinclair’s Application of Grice’s Theory in Legal Interpretation21-26
• 2.2 Previous Studies on Contractual Disputes Resolution26-29
• 2.2.1 Common Contractual Dispute Resolution Methods26-27
• 2.2.2 Resolution of Contractual Disputes in the PRC27-28
• 2.2.3 Practical Inclusive Methods of Interpretation28-29
• 2.3 Bhatia’s Overview on Discourse Analysis29-33
• 2.3.1 Textualization of Lexico-grammar30-31
• 2.3.2 Organization of Discourse31-32
• 2.3.3 Contextulization of Discourse32-33
• 2.4 Previous Studies on Linguistic Indeterminacy33-36
• 2.4.1 Studies on Linguistic Ambiguity33-35
• 2.4.2 Studies on Linguistic Vagueness35-36
• 2.5 Summary36-37
• CHAPTER THREE THEORETICAL BASIS AND ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORK37-55
• 3.1 Key Concepts37-40
• 3.1.1 Contract37
• 3.1.2 Contested Meaning in Contractual Dispute37-38
• 3.1.3 Interpretation of Contract38-39
• 3.1.4 Forensic Linguistic Approach39
• 3.1.5 Literal Approach and Liberal Approach39-40
• 3.2 Linguistic Causes of Contested Meaning in Disputed Contracts40-45
• 3.2.1 Contract Compared with Conversation40-42
• 3.2.2 Application of Grice’s Conversational Maxims to Contract Discourse42-44
• 3.2.2.1 The Maxim of Manner42-43
• 3.2.2.2 The Maxim of Quantity43
• 3.2.2.3 The Maxim of Quality43
• 3.2.2.4 The Maxim of Relevance43-44
• 3.2.3 The Formation of Contested Meaning44-45
• 3.3 Linguistic Approaches to Contested Meaning45-51
• 3.3.1 Bhatia’s Theory about Discourse Analysis45-48
• 3.3.2 Literal and Liberal Approaches to Contested Meaning: A Hermeneutics-basedResolution48-51
• 3.3.2.1 Literal Interpretation49-50
• 3.3.2.2 Liberal Interpretation50-51
• 3.4 Construction of Analytical Framework51-54
• 3.5 Summary54-55
• CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS OF LINGUISTIC FACTORS LEADING TO CONTESTED MEANINGS IN CONTRACTS55-65
• 4.1 Contested Meaning Attributable to Linguistic Ambiguity and Vagueness55-58
• 4.2 Contested Meaning Attributable to Insufficient Information58-60
• 4.3 Contested Meaning Inconsistent with Real Intention of Contracting Parties60-61
• 4.4 Contested Meaning with Unrelated Meaning with Contractual Purpose61-62
• 4.5 Summary62-65
• CHAPTER FIVE A LITERAL ANALYSIS OF CONTESTED MEANING IN DISPUTED CONTRACTS65-77
• 5.1 Analysis of Contested Meaning Caused by Lexical Indeterminacy65-68
• 5.1.1 Analysis of Contested Meaning Caused by Notional Words with More than OneMeaning65-66
• 5.1.2 Analysis of Contested Meaning Caused by Heteronyms66-67
• 5.1.3 Analysis of Contested Meaning Caused by Function Words with More than OneMeaning67-68
• 5.2. Analysis of Contested Meaning Caused by Syntactic Indeterminacy68-76
• 5.2.1 Contested Meaning Caused by Pronouns with Ambiguity68-70
• 5.2.2 Ambiguity Caused by Absence of Necessary Elements70-71
• 5.2.3 Contested Meaning Caused by Improper Ellipsis71-72
• 5.2.4 Contested Meaning Caused by Unclear Modifying Relationship72-76
• 5.2.4.1 Contested Meaning Caused by Unclear Attribute Modifying Relationship73-74
• 5.2.4.2 Contested Meaning Caused by Unclear Adverbial Modifying Relationship74-75
• 5.2.4.3 Contested Meaning Caused by Misuse of Punctuation75-76
• 5.3 Summary76-77
• CHAPTER SIX A LIBRAL ANALYSIS OF CONTESTEDMEANING IN DISPUTED CONTRACTS77-83
• 6.1 Analysis of Co-text in Disputed Contracts77-79
• 6.2 Analysis of Special Context of Professional Words79
• 6.3 Analysis with Consideration of Conventions79-80
• 6.4 Analysis of the Consensus of Contracting Parties80
• 6.5 Analysis of the Cultural and Social Background of Contracting Parties80-81
• 6.6 Summary81-83
• CHAPTER SEVEN CONCLUSION83-87
• 7.1 Overview of the Present Study83
• 7.2 Findings83-85
• 7.3 Implications85
• 7.4 Limitations85-86
• 7.5 Suggestions for Future Research86-87
• REFERENCES87-91
• APPENDIX91-92

【相似文献】

中国期刊全文数据库 前10条

1 温秀珍;精确 具体 规范──从几起合同纠纷案例看经济合同的语言特点[J];秘书之友;2000年04期

2 杨l毣

本文编号：391167