【作者】 李超；

【导师】 张静；

【作者基本信息】 西南政法大学 ， 法律逻辑学， 2011， 硕士

【摘要】 逻辑学以推理为研究中心,法律逻辑关注的核心问题也是法律推理。我们通常使用推理这个概念,包含着某命题被接受为真,即事先接受了作为前提的命题为真,由于规范本身既不是真的,也不是假的,因而在规范这一术语的意义上谈不上根据某些规范推导出另一些规范。以规范为前提建立的逻辑系统没有建立像形式逻辑命题理论那样普遍公认的的系统,存在的问题争论很大并且极其复杂。英国语言哲学家奥斯汀(J. Austin)开“言语行为理论”之先河,提出并详细、明确地研究言语行为理论,此后他的学生美国著名语言分析哲学家约翰·塞尔(John Searle)修正并发展了这一理论,使它进一步获得广泛而又重要的影响力。塞尔继承、修正和发展了奥斯汀理论,建立了更加完善、系统化的言语行为理论。本文从言语行为理论的视角出发,分析以言行事行为之间推理的可能性,并对法律推理的大前提、小前提以及结论的逻辑性质进行言语行为理论分析,以全新的理解方式对法律推理进行解构,算是对规范推理的一种语用学意义上的解读。本文主要从以下几个部分展开讨论:第一部分:言语行为理论概述本部分首先简单地介绍言语行为理论产生的历史渊源、哲学理论背景以及奥斯汀提出言语行为理论的目的和意义,之后通过对比系统地阐述塞尔言语行为理论的内容和分类,主要详述以言行事行为及其分类。第二部分:形式法律推理的传统逻辑构造本部分首先通过分析法律推理的传统涵义以及分类,对形式法律推理进行重新界定,把形式法律推理定义为法律推理的逻辑形式,之后对命题理论下的形式法律推理的模式——规范推理中的法律规范性质以及规范推导的几种形式进行分析,并指出其中的不足。第三部分:言语行为理论视野下形式法律推理的逻辑重构本部分结合塞尔言语行为理论,尤其是以言行事行为,对法律推理进行分析,首先分析以言行事行为之间进行逻辑形式推理的可能性,并确定此类推理的一些规则,然后在言语行为理论的视角下对法律推理进行剖析,揭示法律推理的大前提、小前提以及结论的语用学性质,并在此基础上提出形式法律推理的模式。第四部分:结语本部分根据法律推理的研究现状,提出在言语行为理论视野下重构法律推理的意义。更多还原

【Abstract】 Reasoning research is the center of logic, so legal reasoning is the core concerns of legal logic. When usually using the concept of reasoning, we contain a proposition is accepted as true, means that the proposition prior acceptance as a premise is true. As norm itself is neither true nor false, in the sense of the term of norms, the derivation between them is untenable. The logical system established by norms as premise has not universally been recognized as the theoretical propositions of formal logic system.British language philosopher Austin (J L .Austin) as the originators of "speech act theory", proposed and studied speech act theory in detail clearly, thereafter his student the famous American philosopher of language analysis John Searle revised and developed this theory, and it get further extensive and important influence. Sale inherited modified and developed the theory of Austin, then established a more complete and systematic theory of speech acts. From the perspective of speech act theory, analyze the possibility of reasoning between illocutionary acts and the logical nature of the premises and conclusions of legal reasoning, deconstructing the legal reasoning in a whole new way of understanding, as a way in interpretation of the norms inference in the meaning of pragmatic. The discussion in this article is expanded from the following parts:PartⅠ: Overview of Speech Act TheoryThis section first briefly introduces the history and philosophical background of speech act theory, and the purpose and significance of speech act theory proposed by Austin. And then by comparing elaborate the content and classification of Sale’s speech act theory systematically, main detail illocutionary act and its classification.PartⅡ: Traditional Logic Structure of the Form of Legal ReasoningThis section first analyzes the traditional meaning of legal reasoning and its classification, and then redefines the form of legal reasoning as the logical form of legal reasoning. After that analyzes the model of the form of legal reasoning in propositional theory-norms inference, the nature of legal norms and several forms of norms inference, and point out the lack of them.PartⅢ: The Logical Reconstruction of the Form of Legal Reasoning under the Perspective of Speech Act TheoryThis section analyzes legal reasoning combination of Sale’s speech act theory, in particular the illocutionary acts. First analyzes the possibility of logical form reasoning between illocutionary acts. And determines some rules of such reasoning, and then analyze the legal reasoning under the perspective of speech act theory to reveal the nature of the premises and conclusions of the legal reasoning, finally, on this basis presents the model of the form of legal reasoning.PartⅣ: ConclusionThis section based on the research of legal reasoning, proposes the significance of the reconstruction of legal reasoning under the perspective of speech act theory.更多还原