本文關鍵詞：合同糾紛中有爭議意義的法律語言學分析，，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。

【摘要】：合同法第125條規(guī)定:“當事人對合同條款的理解有爭議的,應當按照合同所使用的詞句、合同的有關條款、合同的目的、交易習慣以及誠實信用原則,確定該條款的真實意思。”但是,該法律條款并未對如何解釋合同所使用的詞句做出說明,也沒有指出如何確定條款的真實意思。法律語言存在著模糊性,司法結果有要求確定性。在法律語言證據(jù)的解釋過程中如何從模糊性過渡到確定性是法律研究者應該關注的一個問題。承載合同當事人權利、義務關系的合同文本,既是當事人雙方履行合同的依據(jù),也是發(fā)生糾紛后最直接、最客觀的法庭證據(jù)。由于語言的模糊性,合同語言所傳達的意義往往產生爭議,從而引起合同糾紛。合同解釋是指確定合同雙方所使用詞句的真實意思以及所產生的法律影響。本文將法律闡釋學中的文義解釋法和語境解釋法與語言學中的語義分析和語用分析相結合。若文義解釋法不能夠將爭議意義解釋清楚,合同解釋者必須結合語境解釋法來解決有爭議意義引起的合同糾紛。本論文采用實證分析法,將糾紛合同作為研究對象,主要從法律語言的角度探討合同糾紛的解決方法,從而試圖為合同糾紛的解決提供一個較為系統(tǒng)的語言學方案。這將是對現(xiàn)存合同解釋方法的豐富和完善。本文的研究只是一個新的嘗試,希望通過本文能在合同糾紛領域促進語言學與法學的跨領域合作和進一步的進展。
【關鍵詞】：合同糾紛 語言不確定性 有爭議意義 合同解釋方法
【學位授予單位】：廣東外語外貿大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：H030
【目錄】：

• 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

【相似文獻】

中國期刊全文數(shù)據(jù)庫 前10條

1 溫秀珍;精確 具體 規(guī)范──從幾起合同糾紛案例看經濟合同的語言特點[J];秘書之友;2000年04期

2 楊l毣

本文編號：391167