Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/94621
|
| Title: | 當模糊遇上精確：刑法的語言使用分析
When vagueness meets precision: an analysis of the language used in the criminal law |
| Authors: | 胡碧嬋
Hu, Pi Chan |
| Contributors: | 張郇慧
段重民
Chang, Hsun Huei
Tuan, Chung Min
胡碧嬋
Hu, Pi Chan |
| Keywords: | 模糊
精確
法律語言學
刑法
釋義
歸類
vagueness
precision
forensic linguistics
Criminal Law
interpretation
categorization |
| Date: | 2009 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-05-09 11:21:41 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 模糊是語言的主要特色之一，這與法律語言的終極目標—精確恰恰相反。在追求精確的過程中，在法律制度裡的某字或某術語該做何解釋，往往有許多爭議。法官如何在模糊與精確當中取得平衡?又如何確保每項法律公正地適用於每個人與每起個案?本文試圖探討這兩個極端—模糊與精確—如何交織與競合，從法律語言學的觀點對爭議個案提供解釋，並進一步解決法律制度中各種語言詮釋的問題，其中以刑法的語言為主要研究標的。為了闡釋文字的意義，本文嘗試以框架語意學、檢查表理論和原型理論來架構出法律語言的框架。本文之另一項目的是要觀察刑法法條中的語言現象，是否能反映出刑法的精神與特質。
Vagueness is one of the major characteristics of language, which happens to be contradictory to the ultimate goal of legal language—precision. In the process of pursuing precision, there are a variety of disputes over what interpretations words or terms in the legal system should be made. How do judges strike the balance between vagueness (uncertainty) and precision (certainty) and affirm that every rule be justly applied to every individual and every case? This research attempts to explore how these two extremes interweave and compete and to provide explanations for some controversial cases and offer a perspective from forensic linguistics to solve the problems among the various interpretations of the language used in the legal system, in this case, the Criminal Law. To elucidate the meaning of words, this study tries to construct the frame of legal language with linguistic approaches such as frame semantics, checklist theory, and prototype theory. Another objective of the research is to see whether the linguistic phenomena observed in the system can reflect and convey the spirits and essences behind the Criminal Law. |
| Reference: | (Those references with a * sign are originally written in Chinese. The Chinese version is provided at the end.)
Aikenvald, Alexandra Y. 2003. Some Thoughts on Serial Verbs. Paper presented at International Workshop on Serial Verb Constructions, La Trobe University.
Aitchison, Jean. 1994. Words in the mind: an introduction to the mental lexicon (2nd ed). Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell.
Anne Wagner & Sophie Cacciaguidi-Fahy (eds.) 2006. Legal language and the search for clarity: practice and tools. Bern; New York: Peter Lang.
Arrigo, Bruce A. 1993. Madness, language and the law. New York: Harrow and Heston. Beverly Hills, California: Sage Publications.
Ashworth, A. 1991. Principles of criminal law. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press.
Austin. John L., 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Austin, John L. 1979. Other Minds. In Urmson, J.O. & G.J. Warnock (eds.), Philosophical Papers. (3rd ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Beaugrande, R. de & W. Dressler. 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman.
Bennion, F. 2002. Statutory Interpretation: a Code. (4th ed.) London: Butterworths.
Bhatia, V. K., 1993. Analyzing Genre: language use in professional settings. New York: Longman.
Bix, Brian, 1996. Law, Language and Legal Determinacy. Oxford: Clarendon Press; New York: Oxford University Press.
Cao, Deborah, 2007. Translating law. Clevedon; Buffalo: Multilingual Matters.
Chan, S. W. 1974. Asymmetry in Temporal and Sequential Clauses in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics. 2(3): 340-353.
Chan, Y. W. 1997. Temporal Sequence and Chinese Serial Verb Constructions. Paper presented at the Ninth North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics. University of Victoria, Canada.
*Chang, L. Q. 2003. Guanyu Weixie De Yijian [About the opinions with regard to obscene]. Taiwan Law Journal. 42: 129-131.
*Chang, L. Q. 2008. Xingfa Zongze Lilun Yu Yingyong [The Theory and Application of the General Rules of the Criminal Law]. Tai-zhong: published by L. Q. Chang.
Charrow, R. P., & V. Charrow. 1979. Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review 79: 1306-74.
*Chen, Z. P. 2003. Cong Qiangwen An Tan Qiangzhi Weixie [On forcible molestation from the kissing case]. Taiwan Law Journal. 42: 83-93.
Cook, Walter Anthony. 1998. Case Grammar Applied. Dallas, TX: Summer Institute of Linguistics; [Arlington, Tex.]: University of Texas at Arlington.
Cotterill, Janet. (ed.) 2002. Language in the Legal Process. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coulthard, Malcom. 1997. A failed appeal. Forensic Linguistics, 4(2): 278-302.
Coulthard, Malcom. 2000. Whose text is it? On the linguistic investigation of authorship. In Sarangi S., & R.M. Coulthard (eds.), Discourse and Social Life. London: Longman. 270–87.
Coulthard, Malcom. (ed.) 2007. Advances in Written Texts Analysis. London; New York: Routledge.
Croft, William. 1990. Typology and Universals. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Croft, William, & Alan Cruse. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge, U.K.; New York : Cambridge University Press.
Cruse. D. A. 1986. Lexical Semantics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Cuyckens, H. et al. (ed), 2003. Cognitive Approaches to Lexical semantics. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter Press.
Danet, Brenda. 1980. Language in the Legal Process. Law and Society, 14(3): 447-563.
Den Dikken, Marcel, & Rint Sybesma. 1998. Take serials light up the middle. Paper presented at the 20th GLOW Colloquim, Tiburg.
Devos, F. 2003. Semantic Vagueness and Lexical Polyvalence. Studia Lingusitica 57-121.
Du, Jin-bang. 2001. The transition from uncertainty of legal language to certainty of the judicial result. Modern Foreign Languages. 2001(3): 305-310.
Dumas, B. K. 2001. US pattern jury instructions: problems and proposals. Forensic Linguistics. 7(1): 49-71.
Eagleson, R. 2004. Forensic analysis of personal written texts: a case study. In J Gibbons (ed.), Language and the Law. London: Longman. 362–373.
Edgington, D. 1997. Vagueness by degrees. In Keefe & Smith (eds.), Vagueness: A Reader. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. 294-316.
Endicott, Timothy Andrew Orville. 2000. Vagueness in law. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power. (2nd ed.). Harlow, England; New York: Longman.
Fillmore, C. J. 1975. Santa Cruz lectures on deixis, 1971. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.
Fillmore, C. J. 1982. Frame semantics. In Linguistics in the Morning Calm. (selected papers from SICOL-1981) Seoul, Hanshin Publishing Co., 111-137.
Fillmore, C. J., & B. T. S. Atkins. 1994. Starting where the dictionaries stop: The challenge for computational lexicography. In Atkins, B. T. S. & A. Zampolli (eds.), Computational approaches to the lexicon. London: Clarendon Press.
Fillmore, C. J., and B. T. S. Atkins. 2000. Describing Polysemy: The case of ‘crawl’. In Ravin, Y., & C. Leacock (eds.), Polysemy: Theoretical and Computational Approaches. New York: Oxford University Press. 91-110.
Fillmore, Charles J. 2003. Form and Meaning in Language. Stanford, Calif.: CSLI Publications, Center for the Study of Language and Information.
Fletcher, G. P. 1998. Basic concepts of criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fowler, R., & G. Kress. 1979. Critical linguistics. In Fowler et al. (eds) Language and control. Routledge & Kegan Paul, London. 185-213.
Frankfurter, F. 1947. Some reflections on the reading of statutes. Columbia Law Review. 47: 527-46.
Gan, T. G. & T. H. Xie, 2006. Jiejing Xingfa Zonglun [The Shortcut to the General Theory of the Criminal Law] Taipei: Rayxing Publisher.
Garner, Bryan A. 2002. The elements of legal style. New York: Oxford University Press.
Geeraerts, D. 1986. On Necessary and Sufficient Conditions. Journal of Semantics. 5(4), 275-291.
Gibbons, John. (ed.) 1994. Language and the law. Harlow, Essex, England; New York: Longman.
Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. London: Blackwell.
Givón, Talmy. 1984. Syntax: A functonal-Typological Introduction, Vol. 1. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Givón, Talmy. 1988. Mind, code and context: Essays in Pragmatics. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Givón, Talmy. 1990. Syntax: A functional-Typological Introduction (Vol. 2). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Goddard, Cliff. 1998. Semantics analysis: a practical introduction. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele E. 2006. Constructions at Work: The Nature of Generalization in Language. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Goldstein, T. and J.K. Lieberman. 2002. The Lawyer’s Guide to Writing Well. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Greenawalt, Kent. 1989. Speech, crime, and the uses of language. New York: Oxford University Press.
Grice, P. 1975. Logic and conversation. In P. Cole and M. Morgan (eds.) Syntax and Semantics: Speech Acts. New York: Academic Press. 41-58.
Grice, P. 1989. Studies in the way of words. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
Haiman, J. 1980. The Iconiticity of Grammar: Isomorphism and Motivation. Language. 56(3): 515-540.
Halliday, M. A. K. 2004. (3rd ed. revised by Christian M.I.M. Matthiessen) An introduction to functional grammar. New York: Oxford University Press.
Harris, Roy, & Christopher Hutton. 2007. Definition in theory and practice: language, lexicography and the law. London; New York: Continuum.
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The language of jury trial: a corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Hofmann, T. R. 1993. Realms of Meaning: An Introduction to Semantics. London: Longman.
Hopper, Paul J., & Sandra A. Thompson. 1985. The iconicity of Noun and Verb. In Haiman John (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. 151-183. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hornby, A.S. 1989. Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary of Current English. (4th ed.) London: Oxford University Press.
*Hsu, Y. H. 2002. Qiangwen Fei Qiangzhi Wiexie? [Forcible kissing is not forcible molestation?] Taiwan Law Review. 90: 305-313.
Huang, C.-T. James. 1982. Logical Relations in Chinese and the Theory of Grammar. Cambridge: MIT dissertation.
*Huang, Ming-hsiu. 2007. Semantics of Laws of the Republic of China. Chung-cheng Universtiy MA thesis.
*Huang, R. J. 1999. Xingfa De Jixian [The Limit of Criminal Punishments]. Taipei: Angle Publisher.
*Huang, R. J. 1999. Xingfa Wenti Yu Liyi Sikao [Problems of the Criminal Law and the Consideration of Benefits]. Taipei: Angle Publisher.
*Huang, R. J. 2005. Xingfa de Ruogan Wenzi zhi Tantao. Paper presented at the Symposim of the Integration of Legal Chinese Use of East Asia.
Huang, R. R., & Jen Ting. 2006. Are there dangling topics in Mandarin Chinese? Concentric: Studies in Linguistics. 32(1): 119-146.
*Huang, Z. F. 2008. Xingfa Jingyi [Essences of the Criminal Law]. Taipei: Angle Publisher.
Jackendoff, R. 1983. Semantics and cognition. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1990. Semantic Structures. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Jackendoff, R. 1996. The Architecture of the Language Faculty. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Jenkins, Iredell. 1980. Social Order and the Limits of law: A Theoretical Essay. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
*Kao, Rong Zhi. 2008. Weixie, Weifa De Wiexie, Falu MingqyuexingYu Nantongzhi Seqing De Da Butong—You Sanze Guanyu “Weixie Wuping” De Panjue Tanqi [The great difference among obscenity, illegal obscenity, law clarity and gay pornography—to start with the three judgements concerning obscene things]. Taiwan Bar Journal. 12(5): 13-22.
Keefe, R., & Smith, P. (eds.) 1997. Vagueness: A Reader. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Keefe, R. 2000. Vagueness. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, C. 2005. Vagueness and Grammar: The Semantics of Relative and Absolute Gradable Adjectives. Ms., U of Chicago. [available at http://home.uchicago.edu/~ck0/prose] (access time: Jan. 10, 2008)
Kramarae, Cheris, & Muriel Schulz, William M. O`Barr. (eds.) 1984. Language and power. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Kurzon, Dennis. 1986. It is hereby performed …: explorations in legal speech acts. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Labov, William. 1973. The boundaries of words and their meanings. In Bailey, C.-J. N., & R. W. Shuy (eds.), New ways of analyzing variation in English. Whashington, DC.: Georgetown University Press.
Lakoff, G. 1987. Women, Fire and Dangerous Things: What Categories Reveal about the Mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Langacker, Ronald W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, R. 1999. Grammar and Conceptualization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Leech, G. 1980. Explorations in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Levi, Judith N., & Anne Graffam Walker. (eds.) 1990. Language in the judicial process. New York; London: Plenum Press.
Li, Charles N., & Sandra A. Thompson. 1976. Subject and Topic: A New Typology of Languages. In Li, Charles N. (ed.) Subject and Topic. New York; San Francisco; London: Academic Press, 457-490.
Li, Charles N., and Sandra A. Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Lieberman, J., & Sales, B. 1997. What social science teaches us about the jury instruction process. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law. (3): 589-664.
*Lin, Dong Mau. 2003. Weixie De Gainian [The concept of obscene]. Taiwan Law Journal. 42: 77-82.
*Lin, Dong Mau. 2008. Xingfa Zonglan [The General Overview of the Criminal Law]. Taipei: Yi-ping Publisher.
*Lin, Xingguang. 1990. Hanyu Juxing [Chinese Sentence Patterns]. Beijing: Zhongguo Guoji Guangbo Chubanshe.
Loewy, A. H. 2004. Criminal law. (4th ed.) Beijing: Law Press.
*Lwu, Y. J. 2002. Qiangwen An Zhi Pingxi [Comment on the kissing case]. Taiwan Law Review. 90: 236-240.
*Lwu, Y. J. 2003. You Qiangwen An Tanqi [To start with the kissing case]. Taiwan Law Journal, 42: 94-100.
Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maley, Yon. 1994. The language of the law. In John Gibbons (ed.), Language and the Law. New York: Longman. 11-50.
Martin, J. R. 1990. Literacy in science: learning to handle text as technology. In F. Christie (ed.), Literacy for a Changing World. Hawthorn: Victoria.
McMenamin, Gerald R. (ed.) 2002. Forensic linguistics: advances in forensic stylistics. Boca Raton, Fla.: CRC Press.
Mellinkoff, D. 1963. Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown & Co.
Mertz, Elizabeth. 2007. The language of law school: learning to “think like a lawyer. Oxford [England]; New York: Oxford University Press.
Molan, M. T. 2007. Criminal law: 2007 and 2008. (5th ed.) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Nordman, Mannon. 1984. Om juridisk svenska. Svensk Juristtidning: 955-968.
O`Barr, William M. 1982. Linguistic evidence: language, power, & strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Olsson, John. 2004. Forensic linguistics: an introduction to language, crime, and the law. London; New York: Continuum.
Pearson, Jennifer. 1998. Terms in context. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Philips, A. 2003. Lawyers’ Language: How and why legal language is different. London & New York: Routledge.
Reichenbach, H. 1947. Elements of Symbolic Logic. New York: The Free Press.
Roesch, Ronald, Stephen D. Hart, & James R.P. Ogloff. (eds.) 1999. Psychology and Law: the state of the discipline. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Sager, J. 1990. A Practical Course in Terminology Processing. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sainsbury, R. M. 1995. Paradoxes. (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Salmi-Tolonen, Tarja. 2004. Legal Linguistic Knowledge and Creating and Interpreting Law in Multilingual Environments. Brooklyn Journal of International Law, 29(3): 1167-1191.
Scalia, Antonin. 1997. A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schane, Sanford A. 2006. Language and the law. London; New York: Continuum.
Schauer, Frederick. (ed.) 1993. Law and language. Aldershot, Hants: Dartmouth.
Schweber, Howard H. 2007. The language of liberal constitutionalism. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R., 1969. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sebba, M. 1987. The Syntax of Serial Verbs: an Investigation into Serialization in Sranan and Other laugages. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shi, Dingxu. 2000. Topic and topic-comment constructions in Mandarin Chinese. Language 76(2):383-408.
Shibatani, Mathew. 1985. Passives and related constructions. Language 61(4): 812-48.
Shuy, Roger W. 1993. Language crimes: the use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shuy, Roger W. 1998. The language of confession, interrogation and deception. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Shuy, Roger W. 2005. Creating language crimes: how law enforcement uses (and misuses) language. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, Roger W. 2006. Linguistics in the courtroom: a practical guide. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, Roger W. 2007. Fighting over words: language and civil law cases. New York: Oxford University Press.
Solan, L. M. & Peter M. Tiersma, 2005. Speaking of crime: the language of criminal justice. Chicago; London: University of Chicago Press
Solan, L. M., 1990. Does the Legal System Need Experts in English Syntax. In W. Stewart & R. Reiber (eds.), The Language Scientist as Expert in the Legal Setting. New York: New York Academy of Sciences. 87-112.
Solan, L. M., 1993. The language of judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solan, L. M. 1995. Judicial Decisions and Linguistic analysis: Is There a Linguist in the Court? Washington University Law Quarterly, 73(3): 1069-83.
Solan, L. M. 1998. Law, Language and Lenity. William and Mary Law Review 40: 57-85.
Stanley, Jason. 2005. Semantics in context. In Preyer, Gerhard, & Georg Peter (eds.), Contextualism in Philosophy: Knowledge, Meaning, and Truth. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 221-54.
Stygall, G. 1994. Trial Language: Differential Discourse Processing and Discursive Formation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Svartvik, J. 1968. The Evans Statements: a case for forensic linguistics. Gotheborg Studies in English, No. 20. Gotheborg: University of Gotheborg.
Tai, H.-Y. James. 1985. Temporal Sequence and Chinese Word Order. In J. Haiman (ed.), Iconicity in Syntax. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 49-72.
Tai, H.-Y. James. 1989. Toward a cognition-based funtional grammar of Chinese. Functionalism and Chinese Grammar, Monograph Series of the Journal of the Chinese Language Teachers Association, 1: 187-226.
Tang, C.-C. Jane. 1990. Chinese Phrase Structure and the Extended X’-Theory. Ithaca: Cornell University dissertation.
Taylor, John R. 2003. Linguistic Categorization. (3rd ed.) New York: Oxford University Press.
Thiher, Allen. 1997. The power of tautology: the roots of literary theory. Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press.
Tiersma, Peter. M. 1993. Linguistic issues in the law. Language, 69(1): 113-137.
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
*Tsai, S. I. 2006. Legal Language Used in Laws of the Republic of China. National Tsing-hua University Ph. D. dissertation.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1979. A Functional Study of Topic in Chinese: The First Step towards Discourse Analysis. Taipei: Stduent Book Co.
Tsao, Feng-fu. 1990. Sentence and Clause Structure in Chinese: A Functional Perspective. Taipei: Student Book Co.
Ungerer, Friedrich, & Hans-Jörg Schmid. 1996. An introduction to cognitive linguistics. London; New York: Longman.
Walton, D. N. 2002. Legal Argumentation and Evidence. Penn: Pennsylvania State University Press.
Weinreb, L. L. 2003. Criminal law: cases, comment, questions. (7th ed.) New York: Foundation Press/Thomson/West.
White, James Boyd. 1990. Justice as translation: an essay in cultural and legal criticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Williamson, T. 1994. Vagueness. London: Routledge.
Wittgenstein, L., 1958. Philosophical Investigations (translated by G.E.M. Anscombe) Oxford: Prentice Hall.
Wydick, R, C. 1998. Plain English for Lawyers. (4th ed.) Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
Zadeh, L.A. 1965. Fuzzy sets. Information and Control 8: 338-353.
Zhang, Q. 1998. Fuzziness-Vagueness-Generality-Ambiguity. Journal of Pragmatics. 29(1): 13-31.
*Zheng, Y. Z. 2003. Cong Qiangwen An Tan Weixie, Kefa De Weixie, Han Ruhe Chufa Kefa De Weixie [On obscenity, punishable obscenity and how to punish punishable obscenity from the kissing case]. Taiwan Law Review. 95: 183-193.
*Zhong, Wen-yin. 2002. Yongyuan De Ganlanshu [The last bohemian]. Taipei: Da-tian Publisher.
中文部分:
甘添貴，謝庭晃(合著)，2006，捷徑刑法總論，臺北市，瑞興圖書。
林東茂，2003，猥褻的概念，台灣本土法學，第42期第77-82頁。
林東茂，2008，刑法總覽，臺北市，一品文化出版社。
林興光，1990，漢語句型，北京，中國國際出版社。
杜金榜，2001，從法律的模糊性到司法的確定性，現代外語，第2001年 03第305-310頁。
高榮志，2008，猥褻、違法的猥褻、法律明確性與男童志色情的大不同—由三則關於猥褻物品的判決談起，全國律師，第12(5)期第13-22頁。
張麗卿，2002，關於猥褻的意見，台灣本土法學，第42期第129-131頁。
張麗卿，2007，刑法總則理論與運用，臺北市，張麗卿發行。
許玉秀，2002，强吻非強制猥褻?，月旦法學，第90期第305-313頁。
陳子平，2002，從強吻案談強制猥褻，台灣本土法學，第42期第83-93頁。
黃仲夫，2008，刑法精義，臺北市，月旦出版社。
黃名秀，2007，我國法律語言語意研究，中正大學碩士論文。
黃榮堅，1995，刑法的若干文字之探討，東亞法律漢語整合研討會論文。
黃榮堅，1995，刑法問題與利益思考，臺北市，元照出版社。
黃榮堅，1999，刑罰的極限，臺北市，元照出版社。
蔡尚憶，2006，我國立法語言之研究，清華大學語言學研究所博士論文。
鄭逸哲，2003，從強吻案談猥褻、可罰的猥褻和如何處罰可罰的猥褻，月旦法學，第95期第183-193頁。
盧映潔，2002，由強吻案談起，台灣本土法學，第42期第94-100頁。
盧映潔，2002，強吻案之評析，月旦法學，第90期第236-240頁。
鐘文音，2002，永遠的橄欖樹，臺北市，大田出版社。 |
| Description: | 博士
國立政治大學
語言學研究所
93555502 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0093555502 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [語言學研究所] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 486 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
