法庭反事实表达的论辩研究  

On the counterfactuals in legal argumentation

作　　者：崔玉珍[1] CUI Yuzhen

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学人文学院

出　　处：《中国语文》2021年第6期751-764,768,共15页Studies of the Chinese Language

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学研究规划基金项目“法庭立场表达与身份构建的互动研究”(项目编号:21YJA740005)资助。

摘　　要：法庭论辩的一个主要任务就是确定案件事实,而部分事实的讨论却是通过反事实表达来进行。反事实表达涉及虚拟的、不对应的事实,如何在法庭论辩这一以事实差异为中心的场域发挥作用值得深入探讨。文章首先从反事实表达的结构入手,基于条件从句的事实性和主从句因果关联方式区分出四种不同类型的反事实表达:责任归因型、分离回声型、显性评价型和扩张表达型,每种类型的反事实表达都具有特定的论证功能。文章进一步提出,反事实表达的功能和修辞效果是"提供替代性方案",促使听众对比并评估现实场景;同时,在叙述元素增加、焦点场景突显以及可信度评估三个方面挖掘并增强潜在的论辩效果,以便一方面从论证维度服务于论辩的合理性要求,另一方面从修辞维度服务于论辩的有效性要求。反事实表达是策略操控手段。Legal argumentation is intended to determine the facts in a case based on different opinions between two or more legal parties.Some discussion moves of the facts take the shape of counterfactuals(CTFs).This paper gives an overview on various types of CTFs,which are classified based on the status of facts in legal argumentation and the relation between antecedent and consequent in CTFs,and presents that different types of CTFs serve for specific argumentative purposes.Besides,this paper also suggests that CTFs provide an alternative for audiences to compare and evaluate.Based on the structured and functional analyses,this paper concludes that CTFs can facilitate strategic maneuvering in legal argumentations from the perspectives of formal reasonableness and rhetorical effectiveness.

关 键 词：反事实表达 法庭话语 法庭论辩 策略操控 

分 类 号：D916.2[政治法律—法学]