法律文本中的模糊语词运用研究

发布时间：2018-03-03 21:05

  本文选题：模糊语词　切入点：立法　出处：《山东大学》2016年博士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：法律文本中模糊语词的运用是一个小而化精、大而治世的问题,但一直未能引起法学界的关注。直至哈特“开放结构说”的提出,方始法学界明白：语词的运用超越了法律的概念分析和规范分析,并在描述意义上确立了新的法律规范边界。伴随着法律的“语言学转向”,法律文本中的模糊语词运用难题逐渐演变为一种新的法律命题：法律的模糊性命题。这一法律命题有违于西方传统法学的确定性追求,却将法律的客观样态表达了出来。随着法学界对语言、语词以及语言模糊性的关注,法律的模糊性命题以及模糊语词的立法运用难题成为法学界争相探讨的热点。法律文本中模糊语词的运用问题是当今世界各国普遍面临的法律适用难题。一般说来,语词既具有语义明确的核心地带,又存在语义模糊的边际地带,从而导致一般化语词在结构上具有开放性特征。法律文本中的模糊语词,作为日常语言的存在形式之一,亦展现出此种开放性特征。从法学的视角来看,语词的模糊性特征只是一种语言现象,而不是其法律意义所在。其在法律文本中展现出独特的法律功用,例如它能够实现立法的抽象化、保持法律规则的弹性、提升法律文本的技术性、创设公民自治空间和弥补成文法语用缺陷等功用。由此看来,模糊语词的立法运用具有其特殊的法律价值。因此,排除语言学意义上的考量,语词的模糊性并不破坏(反而增强了)法律相对稳定性与可预见性的平衡状态。倘若立法者将模糊语词剔除到法律文本之外,法律文本将会变成一种封闭、僵化的教条。面对社会变迁的挑战,法律的相对稳定性与可预见性会荡然无存。在此意义上讲,模糊语词并不是法律模糊性的缘起,而是立法者对法律确定性的一种追寻。模糊语词在法律文本中提供了一种“框架性秩序”。立法者及法律适用者可以基于“人为自身立法”的理性判断来确定模糊语词的语义范围。在此意义上关于模糊语词的语义边界问题的讨论实质上是在探究法律的控制边界问题。正如哈特所言,立法语言的词义辨别无法通过“就词论词”的方式来实现,社会情境、社会关系的种类及其变化,往往无法通过语词意义直接展现出来。因此,对于语词的标准用法与社会关联性的考察,更有利于我们辨明语词的深层含义。通观模糊语词在法律文本中的运用情况,并结合法律语言的领域性特征,将模糊语词的立法运用划分为三种类型：包容性模糊语词、可计量性模糊语词以及程度性模糊语词,并分别选用了“母亲”“公共利益”以及“情节严重”三个例证加以详细说明。其中,对“母亲”一词的探讨,印证了社会变迁引发的包容性模糊语词的语义变化问题；“公共利益”一词则显现出可计量性模糊语词的数值判断难题；而对“情节严重”一词的梳理,则证明了程度性模糊语词的立法方案与实践运用之间的巨大矛盾。当然,立法学家及立法机关真正关注的并非是模糊语词的语义问题,而是基于此种语词含义,法律能够实现何种社会控制效果。模糊语词的开放性会造成这种社会控制效果飘忽不定,这显然不利于法治国家和法治秩序的建立。因此,明晰模糊语词的语义边界、规范模糊语词的立法运用就成为“开放结构说”引发的后续问题。众所周知,模糊性构成语言的基本属性之一,任何试图明晰模糊语词语义边界的尝试都只是在相对意义上缩减了语词的模糊程度,而无法实现模糊语词的绝对明确。法律文本中模糊语词运用难题的哲学、经济学、语言学以及心理学分析均证明了这一判断。其中,哲学视角探明了模糊语词与客观世界之间的概念与类属问题；经济学视角则详述了模糊语词运用的“成本一收益”问题；而语言学分析了模糊语词在法律文本中的语义与语用问题；而心理学视角则阐述了人们对于模糊语词的认知差异问题。模糊语词的语义不明确性问题促使立法者反思法律语词运用的规范化问题。英美等国家的官方组织及民间组织发起了一项称为“简明语言运动”的社会化运动,旨在降低英语运用中的繁复、冗余和模糊问题。其中,政府文件以及国家立法成为该项运动的主要对象。简明语言运动的提倡者主张,运用简明语言的立法目的在于保证国家法律文本的清晰化和明确化,提高法律的质量和效率,同时也促进公民与国家公共服务部门的沟通和交流。因此,在法案起草过程中,立法者应当实现以下三个目标：一是法律文本的起草应当立基于社会公众的视角,而非立法者本身的起草便利；二是法案起草者应当采用简明和易于理解的语词来替换复杂的语词或用法；三是建立有效的语言运用规则。例如：现代西方国家立法中模糊语词的语言学规则、关联性规则以及模糊度规则等,都成为各国解决模糊语词的立法运用难题的主要方案,并在实践中取得了一定成效。此外,韩国为了实现立法语言的正确运用,提升国家立法的质量,创设了立法语言审查程序。从而为立法语言(包括模糊语词)的立法审查提供了法定程序。基于上述国家的有益经验,我国在模糊语词的立法运用上应当注重自身的语言特色,并承认模糊语词的技术性特征、遵守日常语言的运用习惯、强化模糊语词运用的规范性与开放性、重视立法语言的程序化审查。为此,我国立法过程中模糊语词的运用应当谨守“语言学规则”和“实质性规则”的宏观要求,并细化出以下可操作性规则：(1)防止偏见规则、平白意义规则、关联规则；(2)有效补充规则、功能约束规则、容忍规则。模糊语词运用规则的建构,主要目的在于指引法案起草工作,并提升立法的质量和科学性。但是,单纯的规则建构并不足以保证规则的良性实施。因此,在模糊语词运用语言学规则和实质性规则的基础上,立法机关仍应当确立一定的程序性规则(即立法语言审查程序),以便于上述规则能够贯彻执行。当然,立法语言审查程序的法定化也就意味着,不仅模糊语词的运用属于立法语言审查程序的监督范围,其他类型的语词、语句,乃至篇章结构,都应当受到立法语言审查程序的监督,从而防止“立法者监督悖论”的产生。
[Abstract]:The use of fuzzy words in legal texts is a small but fine, big political problem, but has not attracted the attention of the legal circle. Until Hart "open architecture" is put forward, which scholars understand: the use of words beyond the concept of analysis of laws and regulations, and in the description of the significance the establishment of the new laws with the legal boundaries. The "linguistic turn" in the legal text fuzzy words using problem gradually evolved into a new legal proposition: fuzzy proposition of law. This legal proposition has determined contrary to the traditional western law pursuit, but the objective form of law the expression of it. With the jurisprudence of the language, words and pay attention to the fuzziness of language, fuzziness and fuzzy proposition of legal words by legislation has become a hot academic problems to discuss. The fuzzy words in legal texts The problem is that the legal problems facing the countries in the world. Generally speaking, the word is the core area of semantic clear, and the marginal zone of fuzzy semantics, which leads to a general word with open features in the structure. The fuzzy words in legal texts, as a form of everyday language and also show the openness characteristics. From a legal perspective, the fuzziness of words is a kind of language phenomenon, rather than its legal significance. It reflects the unique legal function in legal texts, for example, it can realize the legislative abstraction, maintain legal flexibility rules of technology the improvement of legal texts, creating space for civil autonomy and compensate the written French defect function. So it has the special value of law legislation using fuzzy words. Therefore, exclusion of language meaning Considering the fuzziness of words, do not damage (but strengthened) legal relative stability and predictability of the balance. If lawmakers will be blurred words to eliminate legal texts, legal texts will become a closed, rigid and dogmatic. Facing the challenge of social change, and predictability will be all gone the relative stability of the law. In this sense, the origin is not legal ambiguity and vague words, but lawmakers a pursuit of legal certainty. Fuzzy language provides a framework of "order" in the legal text. Legislators and law applicable to determine the semantic range fuzzy words based on "rational judgment for their own legislation. Discuss the real boundary problem about fuzzy semantic word in this sense is in the control of Boundary Problem Inquiry law. As Hart said, legislative language Unable to distinguish meaning by "the word on the word" to realize social situation, types and changes in social relations, often not by word meaning directly demonstrated. Therefore, the standard usage of words and social relevance, more conducive to the deep meaning of the word. We identify application in fuzzy language words in legal texts, and combined with the field features of legal language, the fuzzy words by legislation is divided into three types: inclusive of fuzzy words, fuzzy measurable degree of fuzzy words and words, and choose the "mother" of the "public interest" and "serious" three an example of a detailed description. The discussion of "mother" a word, semantic change confirms the social changes caused by inclusive blurred words; "public interest" is showing the measurability Numerical judgment difficult problem of fuzzy words; and the word "serious" comb, proved that the huge contradiction between legislation and practice of using fuzzy degree program words. Of course, legislation and legislative experts is not really concerned about the semantic problems of vague words, but the word meaning based on what kind of social law can realize the control effect. The fuzzy words open will cause erratic social control effect of this building, which is obviously not conducive to the country under the rule of law and the rule of law and order. Therefore, semantic boundary clear vague words, legislative norms using fuzzy words as "open architecture" triggered follow-up questions. As everyone knows fuzzy, constitute one of the basic properties of language, any attempt to clarify the meaning of word boundaries are fuzzy only in the relative sense to reduce the degree of fuzzy words, but not real The fuzzy words absolutely clear. Fuzzy words using problem of legal text in economics, philosophy, linguistics and psychology analysis have proved this judgment. Among them, the philosophical perspective proved vague words and concepts between the objective world and belongs to the class of problems; from the perspective of economics is described by fuzzy words "cost a profit" problem; and analyzes the linguistic semantic and pragmatic problems of fuzzy words in legal texts; and psychological perspective illustrates people to cognitive differences in vague words. The semantic fuzzy words is not clear. The standardization problem prompted lawmakers on legal words. The Anglo American official organization other countries and non-governmental organizations have launched a call "social concise Language Movement" movement, in order to reduce the complexity of the use of English, redundancy and ambiguity. Among them, the government documents And the national legislation has become the main object of the sport. The plain language movement advocates using concise language, the legislative purpose is to ensure clear and explicit national legal texts, improve the legal quality and efficiency, but also to promote civic and national public service departments of communication and exchange. Therefore, in the process of drafting the bill in the legislation should achieve the following three objectives: the first is the drafting of legal texts should be based on the perspective of the public, rather than legislation is drafted convenient; two is the drafters shall be concise and easy to understand words to replace complex words or usages; three is to establish an effective use of language for example: linguistic rules. Rules of fuzzy words in modern western countries in legislation, association rules and fuzzy rules, have become the problems of fuzzy words to use legislation The main problem of the project, and achieved certain results in the practice. In addition, in order to achieve the correct use of Korean language legislation, improve the quality of national legislation, the creation of the review of legislative language program. So as to legislative language (including fuzzy words) the legislative review provides legal procedures. The useful experience of these countries based on me China should pay attention to own language features in legislation using fuzzy words, and acknowledge the technical characteristics of fuzzy words, to comply with the daily use of language habits, strengthen and open standard fuzzy language words, pay attention to procedural review of legislative language. Therefore, the macro requires the use of vague words in China in the legislation should keep "linguistic rules" and "substantive rules", and refine the following operational rules: (1) to prevent prejudice rule, plain meaning rules, association rules; (2) effective supplement The function of rules, constraint rules, tolerance rules. Constructing fuzzy words using the rules, the main purpose is to guide the work of drafting the bill, and improve the quality and scientific legislation. However, the construction of simple benign implementation rules is not enough to guarantee rules. Therefore, based on fuzzy words based on linguistic rules and substantive rules. Still, the legislature should establish certain procedural rules (i.e. review of legislative language program, in order to facilitate the above rules) to implement the review of legislative language program. Of course, legal means the scope of supervision, not only the use of fuzzy words to review the legislative language program, other types of words, sentence and, the structure of text, should be subject to supervision and review of legislative language program, thus preventing the "legislative supervision paradox".

【学位授予单位】：山东大学
【学位级别】：博士
【学位授予年份】：2016
【分类号】：D90-055
，

本文编号：1562682