英语高手帮忙写下，多谢1
发布网友
发布时间：2023-10-18 00:26
共5个回答
热心网友
时间：2024-12-04 08:20
This thesis is developed from my years of study on campus; Numerous people have lent me a helping hand in completing this research.
Firstly, special thanks go to Mr. Zhou Wenge, the instructor of this paper as well as a respectable teacher in School of Foreign Studies, Hunan University of Science and Technology, whose frequent guidance and invaluable suggestions lead to the accomplishment of the thesis. Mr. Zhou’s hardworking and responsible spirits set a good example for all the undergraates of 2006.
Secondly, thanks go to all the university leaders and teachers, who have imparted the essence of knowledge to me, especially to Mr. Zhang Jinghua, who has taught me Translation and whose original ideas and interesting lectures make great impression on me and finally lead to the start of the thesis.
Last but not the least, thanks go to all the school librarians, who have done very much in supplying us with reference books, as well as to those authors whose works have been quoted by me in the thesis.
Abstract
Based on the characteristics of spoken language and strategies used in negotiation, this thesis discusses the methods to avoid pragmatic failures and understand the different language communicative skills in different cultures, and elaborates several ways to master good language communicative skills in order to give full play to language’s advantages so as to increase the successful chances of international business negotiation.
Key words: language communicative skill; international business negotiation; characteristic; pragmatic failure
中文摘要
贸易谈判是贸易活动很重要的环节,而语言则是谈判的媒介，商务谈判的过程是1个围绕双方经济利益, 通过语言进行沟通和协商的过程，实质上就是谈判者运用语言进行协调磋商，谋求1致的过程。本文从语言表达和施展谈判策略出发，探讨了避免谈判语境中的语用失误，分析了不同文化背景下的语言交际方式，阐述了如何运用语言，掌握良好的语言表达技巧，从而更好地发挥语言在谈判中的作用，以提高商务谈判的成功率。
英美法系与*法系的异同比较研究
Civil law and common law is the world's principal legal systems of the two, covering some of the world's major countries. Representatives of civil law in Germany, France and China; and common law is of course the United Kingdom and the United States as its representative. Civil law and common law between the different points of comparison, has been compared by jurists keen topic. Two Legal, in many ways, there is a larger difference, I only proceedings to compare them.
All along, the comparison jurists tend to assume that all the world's well-developed legal systems, similar to the need always to meet a similar approach. [1] However, the civil law and common law in the proceedings on the great differences on the assumption that it broke. Such as the summary of the preparation and conct of civil proceedings, to the court for the fact that the way to choose or to question a witness or expert mode of the great differences have made this assumption can not be established. And Two Legal because there are so many differences, they are subject to various reasons, such as geographic differences, ethnic habits, cultural characteristics, historical traditions, etc., but I think the main reason or the ideological and cultural traditions impact. Two Legal countries different in many ways of thinking habits, created a big difference in Two Legal.
Anglo-American legal systems in many of the features of the proceedings, in fact, is a decisive result of the fact that the proceedings from the jury system. Now, the general view was that Britain only in criminal cases to use the jury system, and is in serious crimes and the defendant himself that "not guilty" when used. [2] Nevertheless, the civil proceedings in the United Kingdom is still permeated with the traditional jury system. And the impact of the jury system, so that civil trials and criminal trials, as there are many specific proceedings. [3] This will make the proceedings from civil law countries.
In civil law, the proceedings can be divided into multiple partitions hearing. Thus, for a party in court raised an unexpected point of view or evidence, the other party can have sufficient time to the next court hearing further evidence in rebuttal. In the Anglo-American legal systems are very different, e to take a one-time trial, lawyers in order to prevent the same thing happened, not only to their own arguments and evidence make it clear, we must also understand each other's arguments and evidence. Because in common law countries of the trial, if there is unexpected evidence, any party can not easily ask for an adjournment. This makes lawyers must meet with him before the hearing of witnesses in order to find out they will say in court what to do. For such acts, Germany's lawyers say that is a violation of professional ethics. [4] This is not hard to imagine why we are also common law countries litigation often unexpected results, why those who can in the courts to force their own lawyers always respected. And civil law countries the courts have always given people the feeling step by step, and looked good enough, lawyers very difficult to have a very good performance.
Since the common law countries in the use of one-time trial mode, then the judge's role be? Before the start of the trial, the lawyers had carefully prepared for the judges for the controversial issue and the evidence is extremely unclear. It is believed that the judge relied on oral statements through a lawyer to provide all the necessary facts and the law. [5] We all know that in common law countries of the court, lawyers independently decide what to call witnesses, question witnesses. Each party to question witnesses were, and then from the other anti-question. Lawyers question witnesses is also the embodiment of wisdom, good lawyers are often the other witness's testimony can not be trusted, and the judge or jury can not be accepted, thereby losing the effectiveness of the evidence.
Lawyers question witnesses, and judges have a general pay attention only to listen to witnesses. If a judge to speak, are usually only "no effective" or "No null and void" and the judge of statements to determine the question of whether the parties can be adopted. However, common law countries, judges can question witnesses, but their involvement in order to avoid conflict, and remain neutral, and less inclined to open question. There was a very classic case from the negative interpretation of the judge to do so wisely, that is, "Jones v. National Coal Board" case: In that case when the trial judge too many questions, so that the parties can not be with his view that the best way evidence, the Court of Appeal only on the basis of the case back to lower court retrial. [6] This case also illustrates the law of "procere is superior to the rights of" principle.
Anglo-American judge in the trial have demonstrated a more negative, they are the beginning of the case on the merits ignorant, we must understand in the course of a hearing, which the parties and their lawyers must play a major role. This is mainly because in the Anglo-American legal systems of countries, more common view is that in court proceedings to obtain the true situation in the best way is to allow parties to debate the real situation, which judges would only act as a supervisor of rules of court role, that is, "adversarial" litigation. In civil law countries is just the opposite. In their view, if the judge allows a greater role may be more concive to discover the true situation. Thus the judge is obliged to ask questions, inform, encourage and persuade the parties, the lawyers and witnesses in order to obtain from them all of the real situation, to avoid the fault of the parties lead to lose. Civil law countries the number of civil trials or with some "inquisitorial" in nature, have some bureaucratic characteristics. [7] for the conct of proceedings and evidence are required to investigate the main court, the judge who is a positive image of the trial presided over the court. In the United States, "against the system" the implementation of the proceedings is very strict. This is mainly because the common law as long as it is not equitable request, the first phase of civil litigation is still to participate in trial by jury.
l Conclusion
Civil law system inherited from Roman law is mainly generated, and the law is not the succession of Roman law precisely, the difference between the two is enormous. Such as civil law is statutory law, common law and case law, such as it is. In this paper, selected proceedings of comparison, the only civil law and common law judicial system in a concrete difference. Of different legal systems of the differences between it is very meaningful that allows us to learn from each other, in other legal systems in a good system, to improve the country's legal system, which will have an extremely far-reaching implications.
China's socialist legal system construction is in full swing of the stage, in the civil law system based on the statute book at the same time, the appropriate law countries learn from the case law system, to enrich, and improve China's legal system, but also have practical significance. Under the socialist market economic operation process, will inevitably encounter a variety of new situations and problems, which will require us to look at the global, boldly absorb and draw on foreign legal systems of the essence.
Civil law and common law distinction
Generally speaking the distinction between different standards will proce different results, civil law and common law on the judicial, trial basis, the way the proceedings and the court's organizations in four areas, there would be some obvious differences, their summarized as follows: (a) judicial organs: civil law countries generally speaking, its administrative litigation in this case, is not attributable to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, while others accept the establishment of the Administrative Court, the civil law is the Administrative Court and ordinary courts parallel system, different The two-track system; and the principle of law there is no establishment of the Administrative Court, and in criminal and administrative proceedings, such as property belonging to the ordinary courts to accept jurisdiction, not to set up the Administrative Court. (B) trial basis: civil law countries generally speaking, is mainly to statutory and customary law and case law as a supplement; and law in addition to the Constitution of the United States, the other so-called law, all attach importance to the unwritten code Therefore, in order to implement the customary law and the jurisprudence of the main. (C) proceedings by: civil law countries generally speaking, are generally imposed stereotypes referee organs; and Anglo-American legal systems usually adopt the jury system, as well as tour the trial system. (D) the court organizations: civil law countries generally speaking, usually the implementation of collegiate system, so a large number of judges; and Anglo-American legal systems usually adopt a single system, the fewer the number of judges. III Summary In summary, we can on the judicial, trial basis, the way the proceedings and the court's organizations in four areas to explore the civil law and common law on the distinction between the judicial system, a basic understanding of legal systems, there are help us to enter the halls of the law, but also contribute to the overall structure of the legal system and the overall understanding, to build all the people are aware of the legal community.
*法系与英美法系是当今世界的两大主要法系，涵盖了世界上一些主要的国家。*法系的代表有德国、法国、中国等；而英美法系则当然以英国和美国为其代表。*法系与英美法系之间的不同点的比较，一直都是比较法学家们所热衷的话题。两*系在许多方面都存在着较大的差异，下面我仅从诉讼程序方面对它们加以比较。
一直以来，比较法学家们都倾向于假定，世界上所有发达的法律体系中，相似的需要总是以相似的方法来满足。[1]但是，*法系与英美法系在诉讼程序上的巨大差异却打破了这一假定。诸如简易民事诉讼的准备和进行、向法庭提出事实的方式、选择或询问证人或鉴定人的方式等的巨大差异，都使这一假定不能成立。而两*系之所以会有如此多的差异，则受到了多方面原因的影响，如地理差异、民族习惯、文化特点、历史传统等，但我认为其最主要的原因还是意识形态和文化传统的影响。两*系国家在许多方面不同的思维习惯，造就了两*系的巨大差异。
英美法系中诉讼程序的许多特性，实际上是由一个决定性的事实造成的，即该诉讼程序来源于陪审制。现在，普遍的观点认为，英国只有在刑事案件中才使用陪审制，而且是在严重的犯罪并且被告主张自己“无罪”时才使用。[2]尽管如此，英国的民事诉讼中仍然渗透着陪审制的传统。而陪审制的影响，使民事审判和刑事审判一样，有许多特定的诉讼程序。[3]这也就使其诉讼程序区别于*法系国家。
在*法系中，诉讼可以有间隔地划分为多次的审理。因而，对于一方当事人在法庭上提出的出人意料的观点或证据，另一方当事人可以有充足的时间在下一次的法庭审理中提出进一步的证据予以反驳。而在英美法系中则大不相同，由于采取的是一次性的审理，律师为了防止同样的事情发生，不但要把自己的论点和证据想清楚，还必须了解对方的论点和证据。因为在英美法系国家的审判中，如果出现了意想不到的证据，任何一方都不能轻易地要求休庭。这就使得律师必须在开庭之前会见他的证人，以搞清楚他们会在法庭上说些什么、做些什么。对于这种行为，德国的律师却认为是违反职业道德的。[4]由此我们也不难想象为什么英美法系国家的诉讼经常有出人意料的结果，为什么那些能在法庭上以一己之力翻云覆雨的律师总是受人尊敬。而*法系国家的法庭审理却总是给人按部就班的感觉，而显得不够精彩，律师很难有非常精彩的表现。
既然在英美法系国家中采用一次性审理的模式，那么法官的作用如何呢？在审判开始之前，律师们进行了精心的准备，而法官对于争议的问题和有关的证据却极不清楚。据认为，法官靠律师通过口头陈述提供全部必要的事实和法律。[5]我们都知道，在英美法系国家的法庭上，律师独立地决定传唤哪些证人、提问证人。每个证人都是被一方提问之后，再由另一方进行反提问。提问证人也是律师智慧的体现，出色的律师常常能使对方证人的证词不可信，而无法被法官或陪审团采纳，从而失去了证据的效力。
律师提问证人，而法官一般只注意听取证人的证词。法官如果发言，通常都只是“反对有效”或“反对无效”之类的判断性语句，以决定当事人的问题是否可以被采纳。然而，英美法系国家中的法官是可以提问证人的，但他们为了避免卷入冲突，并且保持中立，而倾向于少开口提问。曾经有一个案例非常经典地从反面诠释了法官这么做的明智，即“琼斯诉全国煤炭委员会”案：在该案初审时法官提问过多，使双方当事人不可能用他认为最好的方式提出证据，上诉*仅据此就将该案发回下级*重审。[6]这个案例同时也说明了英美法系中“程序优于权利”的原则。
英美的法官在审判中处处表现得较为消极，他们在案件的开始阶段对案情一无所知，必须在审理过程中了解，因而当事人及其律师就必须发挥主要的作用。这主要是因为，在英美法系的国家，比较普遍的观点是，在法庭审理过程中获得真实情况的最好办法是让当事人辩论出真实的情况，而法官则只是充当法庭规则的监督者的角色，即“对抗制”的诉讼。而在*法系的国家却正好相反。他们认为，如果能让法官发挥较大的作用，可能会更有利于发现真实的情况。因而法官有义务提问、告知、鼓励和劝导当事人、律师和证人，以便从他们那里获得全部真实情况，避免当事人的过失导致败诉。*法系国家的民事审判多少还是带有一些“纠问式”的性质，具有一些官僚特征。[7]对于诉讼的进行和证据的调查皆以*为主，法官是以积极审判者的形象主持法庭审理。在美国，“对抗制”诉讼程序的实行是非常严格的。这主要是因为，只要是普通法而非衡平法上的请求，民事诉讼的初审阶段仍然由陪审团参加审理。
l 结 语
*法系主要是继承了罗马法而产生的，而英美法系恰恰是未继承罗马法，二者之间的差异是巨大的。如*法主要是成文法，而英美法却是判例法等。本文所选取的诉讼程序的比较，只是*法系与英美法系在具体司法制度上的一个差异。研究不同法系之间的差异是非常有意义的，可以使我们取长补短，吸收别的法系中的好的制度，来完善本国的法律制度，这将会产生极其深远的影响。
我国当前社会主义法制建设正处于紧锣密鼓的阶段，在立足于*法系成文法的同时，适当借鉴英美法系国家的判例法制度等，来充实、完善我国的法律体系，也是具有现实意义的。在社会主义市场经济运行的过程中，将不可避免地遇到各种各样的新情况、新问题，这都需要我们放眼于全球，大胆地吸收、借鉴外国的法律制度中的精华。
*法系与英美法系的区别
一般来说不同的区分标准会产生不同的结果，*法系与英美法系就审判机关、审理的依据、诉讼程序的方式及法庭组织等四方面，会产生明显的差异，其简述如下： (一) 审判机关：通常对*法系国家来说，其行政案件的诉讼，不归于普通*管辖，而另外设立行*院受理，故*法系是属于行*院与普通*并行制，成为不同的双轨系统；而英美法系原则上并无行*院的设立，而刑事及行政诉讼等都归属于普通*来管辖受理，不另外成立行*院。 (二) 审理的依据：通常对*法系国家来说，乃是以成文法为主，习惯法及判例法为辅；而英美法系美国除了*外，其它所谓的法律，都重视不成文法典，故以实行习惯法及判例为主。 (三) 诉讼程序的方式：通常对*法系国家来说，通常实行定型的裁判机关；而英美法系通常采陪审制度以及巡回审判制度。 (四) 法庭组织：通常对*法系国家来说，通常实行合议制，故法官的人数较多；而英美法系通常采独任制，故法官的人数较少。三、小结综上所述，我们可以就审判机关、审理的依据、诉讼程序的方式及法庭组织等四方面来探讨*法系与英美法系就司法制度的区别，法系的基本了解，有助于我们进入法律的殿堂，更有助于整体法律系统及结构的整体了解，以构建全民都了解法律的社会。
热心网友
时间：2024-12-04 08:21
热心网友
时间：2024-12-04 08:21
热心网友
时间：2024-12-04 08:22
热心网友
时间：2024-12-04 08:23
Sorry,I can't help you!
参考资料：me
