法律语言的语言特征及其翻译原则(外文翻译资料)

Statutes and contracts: An analysis of legal speech acts in

the English language of the law

The Aarhus School of Business, Department of English, Fuglesangs All~ 4, DK-8210

Aarhus V, Denmark

Abstract

This paper is concerned with the language ud in legal speech acts in legislative texts

and contracts in the field of English Contract Law. The central objects of study are

regulative functions with a particular view to establishing realization patterns of the

rhetorical functions of directive and commissive acts. The findings show that the

language of the law characteris-tically lects patterns of regulatives distinct from, for

example, the patterns typically lected in everyday conversational English. The

characteristics of the language of the law can be interpreted within the adherence to legal

institutions, as well as in terms of the face redress required by the socio-pragmatic

situation.

1. Background

The field of legal language within the written medium is unique with regard to

distinctive lexical features, such as technical terms, archaic expressions, etc., and it

is renowned for its syntactic complexity, which has given ri to a number of stud-

ies of the aspects (e, e.g. Danet, 1985: 278-287). However, with the exception

of a few studies (e.g. Kurzon, 1986; Werther and Helmern, 1989), little attention

has been given to pragmatics and politeness in written legal discour. In the field of

pragmatics (including work on politeness phenomena), rearch has been concerned

primarily with oral discour, often bad on non-quential hypo-thetical data, and very

few studies are concerned with pragmatics and politeness in written discour (e, e.g.

Myers, 1989; Pilegaard, 1990). This paper prents a pragmatic study of a highly

specialized discour, viz. the language of authentic legislative texts and contracts, which

are analyzed for socio-pragmatic occurrence and pragmalinguistic realization of

regulative acts. Politeness is discusd within a consideration of the imposition of

regulative acts. This rearch has been financed partly by The Danish Rearch Council

for the Humanities and I would like to express my gratitude for their support. The article

is bad on my findings published in

preliminary versions as Trosborg (1991) and Blom and Trosborg (1992). tionship which

exists between the legislative power and the citizens, in which ca the former has the

authority to make rules for citizens to obey in order to maintain

law and order. An empirical question to be answered in this connection is whether this

difference in authority results in a difference, for example in directness levels, between

the two kinds of the law, i.e. between the language ud in legislation compared to the

lan-guage employed in private law (contracts and deeds).

Commission shall be paid on a quarterly basis and shall be bad on the previous quarter's

nett sales. (4-001 )

Employees shall work such overtime as the Company from time to time thinks necessary

according to the needs of its business. (4-014)

As in (4-001), the illocution is frequently constructed by the application of pas-sivization

involving agent suppression, and/or by the u of non-human subject. Tho are

prominent features of the legal register, and may be explained in terms of

face redress in order to reduce the face-threat involved in issuing a directive.

4.1.2. Prohibitions

In the regulation of behaviour by means of prohibitions, the modal shall is ud

almost exclusively (6.0% out of 6.8% of the strategies obrved):

the Reprentative shall not be entitled to enter into any contract or obligation on behalf

of the Company without the express written connt of the Company being first obtained.

(4-016)

Nothing in this Clau shall confer any right upon the Distributor to return Products

purchad by it pur-suant hereto or to refu or delay payment for them. (4-068)

The officer shall have no entitlement to any further period of holiday with or without

remuneration unless expressly agreed between the company and the officer. (4-006)

The three examples reflect some of the different types of negation which were men-

tioned in 2.2.1.2.

4.2. Rights

4.2,1. Permission

In contracts, a symmetrical relation holds between the two parties, either of which

is able to grant permission to the other party:

The Hirer may determine the hiring at any time by giving one month's previous notice in

writing expir-ing on one of the days appointed for payment of rent (4-015)

The Owner hereby grants to the Distributor [...] the sole and exclusive right to licence,

sub-licence and generally to market, distribute and support the Software (4-047)

The company hereby gives the officer permission to reside with his wife and children in

the dwelling-hou and premis [...] as the company's reprentative (4-006)

Statements of permission amounted to 5.8% of the total number of strategies.

4.2.2. Assignment of benefit~liability

The examples below are linguistic manifestations of the subcategories (i) assign-

ment of benefits, (ii) negated assignment of benefits, (iii) limitation of liability, and

(iv) negated limitation of liability, respectively:

the Company shall have power [...] to carry on its business alone or in association with

any one or more persons (whether natural or legal) or by any one or more subsidiary

companies (4-026)

The duty to disclo contained in this clau shall not impo on either party any

obligation to develop any such modification or improvement (4-027)

The Carrier shall be relieved of its obligation to perform the Contract to the extent that the

performance thereof is prevented by failure of the Trader (4-038)

no liability whatsoever shall be accepted by the Contractor for any alterations or

additions carried out in contravention of this Clau (4-059)

4.3. Constitutive rules

Constitutive rules establish the terms of the contract (for example, concerning lia-

bility), and spell out conditions relating to price, date, amount, etc. Furthermore, they

1

define expressions and terms in the contract or supply information concerning appli-

cation of the terms. Examples typically involve lexical main verbs such as mean,

apply, include, exclude, and constructions with be + copula.

"ACCIDENT" includes exposure resulting from a mishap to a conveyance in which the

Assured is travelling (4-021)

The Agent is responsible for finding out and notifying in detail of Governmental and

other requirements in the Territory affecting this Agreement (4-018)

Future reference by the u of the modal shall may indicate a constitutive spelling

out a rule of the contract with a legal effect. ANY notice required to be rved upon the

Owner or Hirer hereunder shall be deemed to be duly rved 48 hours after posting if nt

by first class recorded delivery post (4-053)

4.4. Commissives

By making a promi a party to the contract commits him/herlf before the law.

Promis were typically expresd by means of performative verbs, such as agree,

undertake, acknowledge, warrant, accept:

The Supplier warrants to the Customer that the Equipment marketed by the Supplier is

believed to be free from defects of workmanship and materials (4-057)

The Licene acknowledges that the copyright in [...] all written, printed and

photographed matter sup-plied by the Grantor under this agreement [...] shall belong to

and remain vested in the Grantor (4-027)

The verbs promi and covenant were obrved but they were not in frequent u.

5. Discussing the findings

No detailed comparison of the u of regulatives in legislative texts compared with the

u in simple contracts will be provided. A few comments shall suffice. In both types of

legal documents, the category of direct directives dominates (leg-islation 47.6%, contracts

46.3%) with mandatory shall as the single most frequently ud sub-category (legislation

21.4%, contracts 38.0%). A higher number of consti-tutives in statutes (39.3%) compared

with contracts (22.7%) reflects the very func-tion in the former of establishing rules and

regulations. Commissives occurred only in contracts. A difference was obrved in the

u of explicit performatives in directives compared with commissives. Strategies of the

prototype I hereby order you to do X were rarely obrved, neither in statutes, nor in

contracts, whereas strategies of the type I hereby promi to do X amounted to 9.5% in

contracts. This difference can be explained with reference to the face-threat (e 1.2.1)

involved in the two acts. When trying explicitly to enforce the desired behaviour (which

is for the benefit of the nder and normally at the cost of the receiver) onto the receiver,

the nder openly threatens the requester's right to remain unimpeded. This explains why

explicit performative verbs are avoided. On the contrary, when issuing a promi, the

speaker commits him/herlf (and not someone el) to carry out the act specified in the

proposition, but does not impo on the other party. The promi is at the cost of the

nder and believed to be for the benefit of the receiver. For the reasons, a promi is

less face-threaten-ing to the receiver and the promi can be emphasized by being made

explicit by means of a performative verb.

When comparing the directives obrved in English Contract Law with directives

obrved in everyday conversations, the lection of directness levels differs markedly in

2

the two domains (e Trosborg, 1991).5 The strategies ud most fre-quently in everyday

conversational English belong to the category of conventionally indirect directives, which

finding is in agreement with the findings of previous stud-ies (e.g. Ervin-Tripp, 1976

(American English), Blum-Kulka et al., 1989 (British and American English)). Querying

the hearer's ability/willingness to perform a given act (Could you spare me a

cigarette ?/Would you mind mailing this package for me?) amounts to 50.6% of the total

number of strategies obrved in conversational Eng-lish, while statements of the

speaker's wishes and desires (1 would like you to nd me a parts list) amount to 16.9%,

altogether comprising 67.5% of the total number of strategies. The strategies occur

neither in contract law, nor in contracts. The most frequent category in the language of the

law and in contracts is direct ordering (47.6%, 46.3%, respectively), which is the category

employed least fre-quently in the conversational data (9.6%). As for individual strategies,

statements

5 The data of comparisonderivefromdiadic conversationsbetweennative speakersof

Englishelicited by means of roleplay materialconstructedon the basis of

anticipatedillocutionaryactswith a directive function. The rolerelationshipsbetweenthe two

participantsvaried along two parameters: 'dominance' and 'social distance', and the

situationsinvolveda high 'degree of imposition'.

5.1. The u of politeness markers

In everyday conversations, the illocutionary force of directives is often hedged or

mitigated by the inclusion of politeness markers (I wonder if you could possibly ...).In the

language of the law, mitigators are almost abnt (unlike the language employed in

judgments and mediation, e Maley, this volume). However, one device, which has been

obrved to occur frequently, is defocalization of agent as well as patient. A preliminary

analysis has shown that only 19.4% of the obrved directives in contract law have a

human subject. Depersonalization is one way of mitigating the impact of a directive on

the addre, as in such sum shall be recov-erable~regard shall be had. Another reason

for the high number of directives employing a non-human subject is the fact that the law

operates by laying down its own constitutive rules with legal actants as subjects, such as

'this act', 'the provi-sions of this ction', 'a statutory instrument', 'the guarantee'. In

contracts, subjects pertaining to 'conditions of the contract', such as price, data, amount,

licen fees, etc. amount to 23.1% of the subjects employed in regulative acts, and as such

it is the cond largest subject category (only surpasd by 'collective nouns' (35.4%)).

Further discussion of this point is postponed to a future paper.

5.2. Concluding remarks

This paper has analyzed the occurrence of legal speech acts in English Contract Law. It

has pointed to declarations by means of the enactment formula as unique to legislative

texts. In contracts, explicit commissive acts occur as affirmative state-ments. Furthermore,

an analysis has been prented of directive acts obrved in the corpus revealing the

communicative acts of statements of obligation, statements of

prohibition, statements of permission (involving 'assignment of rights', 'limitation

of liability', and 'assignment of benefits'), as well as constitutive statements as directive

acts typical of the language of the law. When comparing the obrved directives to

directives obrved in everyday con-versations, it has been shown that the lection

3

patterns, drawn from a continuum of directness levels, differ. Legislative texts and simple

contracts of English Contract Law show a predominance of direct strategies (statements

of obligation and prohibi-tion), whereas conversational English favours conventionally

indirect strategies. It was argued that this difference could be ascribed to the external

factors of the social situation, rather than to a difference in medium (written vs. spoken).

Further-more, it is not just a matter of the English language of the law being more direct

than conversational English (no imperatives were obrved); it is a question of lecting

strategies to express a specific communicative function in a particular nder/receiver

relationship within the considerations of the 'felicity conditions' of the act in question and

within the socio-pragmatic requirements of the situation.

法规与合同：法律语言行为在法律英语语言中的分析

[摘要]：本文研究的是英国合同法领域法律文本与合同中法律语言行为里语言的使用，研究的主

要内容是用有特殊视角的规范功能来建立指示与命令行为的修饰功能的实现方式。结果显示法

律语言多具有规范性特点，与日常对话中使用的英语有很大不同。法律语言的这种特点可以通

过与立法机关的传承性以及社会语用学环境所要求的表面诉讼来理解。

1． 背景

书面形式的法律语言是非常具有特色的，因为它具有不同寻常的词汇特征，如实用专业术

语，古体词表达等，并且法律语言也引起复杂的句式特征而著称，这种特点引起了对这方面的

诸多研究（见Danet,1985：278-287）。但是，除了很少的几项研究之外（如Kurzon，1986;Werther

and Helmern,1989），很少有人将注意力投向书面法律语言的实用性和礼貌性。

在语用学领域（包括有关敬语现象的研究），研究的主要对象是口头语言表达，它通常建立

与非连续的假设数据基础之上，并且几乎没有关于口头语言的实用性和礼貌性的研究（见

Myers,1989;Dilegard,1990）。

本文将对高度专业化的语言进行语用学研究，通过对真正法律文本和合同的语言分析来进

行。其目的是为了语用学的使用及使用语言学的规范性行为的实现。在规范性行为的考虑范围

之内进行礼貌性的讨论。

3. 英国合同法中（法律、法规和规章）规范性语言的使用

法律文本的语料库可以通过指示性行为来分析。很少有行为性的语言来显示指示性的含义。

相反，使用情态动词则可以作为“含蓄的行为性语言”。结果（见表3）显示指示性行为语言占

主导地位（类别四，义务性与禁止性规则，其比例为总数的47.6%）。不明显的策略（类别一，

命令性规则）也经常使用（39.3%）。在类别二中，传统的非直接性策略中只有许可性语言被使

用（13.1%）。而提问性准备条件的策略（听者的能力/愿意程度）则一点也没有出现。以说话者

为基础的表达愿望与渴求的策略也没有观察到。在下文中，我们将讨论并列举在法规中所观察

到的表达指示性语气的词语的实现方式。

3.1指示性语气

从表3我们可以清楚地看到，指示性语气词是英国合同法中最经常使用的指示性词语。表示

义务性规则的词语占了34.5%，表达禁止性规则的词语占了11.9%。祈使性语气词根本没有，并

且只有几个行为性词语。

3.1.1行为性词语

正如上文所述，开始的立法原则是“行为性的”而法律文本本身的功能则是建议性的。除了

立法原则包括“立法”这个动词，行为性的动词repeal也是一个明确的行为性词语：

The Infants Relief Act 1974 and the Betting and Loans (Infants) Act 1892 are hereby repealed (in

accordance with ction I of this Act) (Minor's Contracts Act 1987)

4

1974年的婴儿救济法案和1892年的赌博和借款法案从此废止（根据本法案第一条）（1987

年未成年人合同法）

在英国法规中。动词declare也可用作明确的行为性词语，但是在现在的数据中，我们并没

有看到这个词的行为性用法。在美国法规中(kurzon,1986:24),动词authorize, entitle和amend 也

有行为性的用法.在英国法规中,这些动词并没有以上的行为性用法,但是在具体法案的条文中它

们有命令性规则的用法.在行为性的表达方式中并未观察到包含有命令的行为性动词(order,

commend, request等等).

3.1.2 义务性词语

在法律文本中shall这个词是一个典型的表达命令语气的词,占到了21.4%. shall用来表达命令

的非语言表达的力量.说话人即立法者指示听话人去做某事.听话人别无选择只能遵守:

Where a person has entered into a contract after misreprentation has been made to him by another

party thereto and as a result he has suffered loss, then, if the person making the misreprentation

would be so liable to damages in respect thereof had the misreprentation been made fraudulently,

that person shall be so liable not withstanding that the misreprention was not made fraudulently,

unless he proves that he had reasonable ground to believe and did believe up to the time the contract

was made that the facts reprented were true. (Misreprentation Act 1967)

合同一方基于另一方所造成的重大误解而订立合同,并因此而遭受损失,如果造成重大误解对损

害结果负有责任并对其重大误解行为有过错,则应承担责任,除非其能证明自己有合理的理由相

信在合同订立时所有事实都显示的是真实的.(1967年重大误解法案)

All sums paid or payable to any party in pursuance of the contract before the time when the parties

were so discharged (in this act referred to as 'the time of discharge'), shall in the ca of sums so paid,

be recoverable from him as money received by him for the u of the party by whom the sums were

paid, and, in the ca of sums so payable, cea to be so payable: ... (Law Reform (Frustrated

Contracts Act 1943)

在上述例子中,情态动词shall分别用来表示法庭和合同一方的义务.注意后面的例子中不是以

人为主语(All sums …shall…be recoverable from him.)

情态动词shall还广泛运用于指示性词语中表示规则,这样有问题的法律便可不用任何媒介而

得到实行:

Nothing in this ction shall be taken to prejudice any other remedy available to the plaintiff.

(Minors' Contracts Act 1987)

本节中的任何一条都不能用来使原告的任何救济措施受到损害.(1987年未成年人合同法案)

类似于情态动词的to be to 在有人称代词时的使用:

Subject to this, it is for tho claiming that a party does not deal as consumer to show that he does not.

(Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)

在这种情况下,是那些宣称其未受到消费者待遇的人显示出他们不是消费者.(1977年不平等

合同条款法案)

但是这个动词常与非拟人化的主语连用(参看shall在命令性陈述中与非人化主语连用):

……goods are to be regarded as 'in consumer u' when a person is using them, or has them in his

posssion for u, otherwi than exclusively for the person of a business; and ...

A contract term is to be taken - . (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)

当有人使用商品时,它们被看作是”顾客的需要”,或者作为其财产而使用,而不是由经营商品的

人所独有……

合同条款将……(1977年不平等合同条款法案)

在法律文本外常用来表达义务的情态动词must和have to 则很少使用.事实上没有含有must

5

的指示性词语,have to 也只有在下面与”违约后果”有关的例子中使用:

Where for reliance upon it a contract term has to satisfy the requirement of reasonableness, it may be

found to do so ... (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)

合同条款必须满足合理性的要求,可能会发现……(1977年不平等合同条款法案)

情态动词ought to 和should也很少用作表示指示性语气词,这可以通过表达义务的”弱语气”

来理解:

In relation to a notice (not being a notice having contractual effect), the requirement of reasonableness

under this Act is that it should be fair and reasonable to allow reliance on it, having regard to all the

circumstances obtaining when the liability aro or (but for the notice) would have arin. (Unfair

Contract Terms Act 1977)

道德责任,而非法律义务,通常是用上述两个情态动词来表达的.过去时情态动词是典型的用来

表示某种行为的具体条件.比较下列例子中shall表示义务与could, should和would的用法:

Where by reference to a contract term or notice a person eks to restrict liability to a specified sum of

money, and the question aris (under this or any other Act) whether the term or notice satisfies the

requirement of reasonableness, regard shall be had in particular (but without prejudice to subction (2)

above in the ca of contract terms) to - (a) the resources which he could expect to be available to him

for the purpo of meeting the liability should it ari; and In a ca where - ... a person is not

precluded by this Act from excluding or restricting liability for loss or damage, being loss or damage

for which the provisions of the Convention would, if they had the force of law in relation to the

contract, impo liability on him. (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)

3.1.3 禁止性规则

表示义务的条款外,禁止性规则也可以表示行为的规范性.shall not和非人称主语连用表示的

禁止性规则.如下面与疏忽责任有关的法规所示:

The following enactments shall not apply to any contract made by a minor after the commencement of

this Act - ... Where - ... the guarantee shall not for that reason alone be unenforceable against the

guarantor ... (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)

或用来强调一个人称主语:

In considering whether any sum ought to be recovered or retained under the foregoing provisions by

any party to the contract, the court shall not take into account any sums which ... (Law Reform

(Frustrated Contracts) Act 1943)

情态动词may是典型的用来表示许可的词语,表明法人与自然人的权利(见下文). 而情态动词

can则最常用用于否定式,表明不会发生的事件.当用来表示行为规范时,也常用这些词:

A person dealing as consumer cannot by reference to any contract term be made to indemnify another

person (whether a party to the contract or not) in respect of liability that may be incurred by the other

for negligence or breach of contract, except in so far as the contract term satisfies the requirement of

reasonableness. (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)

只有在一些案例中才会明确提到合同当事人双方.在法规的其他例子中,立法上常用被动语态

来突出非人称主语,如下例中的”liability”:

Liability for breach of the obligations arising under ction 2 of the Supply of Goods and Services Act

1982 (implied terms about title etc. in certain contracts for the transfer of property in goods) cannot be

excluded or restricted by references to any such term. (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)

3.2 许可性条款

许可性条款通常由权威部门制定,通常是说话者,即公布法令的人的语言行为.在立法中,立法

机关是权威的源泉,其许可当事人去做某种行为,它并不命令其去做某种行为(如义务性规则那样),

6

但是给予其行为方向的指导.许可性规则可用来赋予立法机关权利,如法院和仲裁机关:

In estimating, for the purpos of the foregoing provisions of this ction, the amount of any expens

incurred by any party of the contract, the court may without prejudice to the generality of the said

provisions, include such sum as appears to be reasonable in respect of overhead expens and in

respect of ny work or rvices performed personally by the said party. (Law Reform (Frustrated

Contracts) Act 1943)

在下例中,注意行为要满足的许多条件(where, if,ought to ,would)

Where a person has entered into a contract after a misreprentation has been made to him otherwi

than fraudently, and he would be entitled, by reason of the misreprentation, to rescind the contract,

then, if it is claimed, in any proceedings arising out of the contract, that the contract ought to be or laas

been rescinded the court or arbitrator may declare the contract subsisting and award damages in lieu of

rescission, if of opinion that it would be equitable to do so, having regard to the nature of the

misreprentation and the loss that would be caud by it if the contract were upheld, as well as to the

loss that rescission would cau to the other party. (Misreprentation Act 1967)

考虑下面一个有关授权立法的例子:

For the purpo of subction (3)(a), the values which shall be taken to be the official values in the

United Kingdom of the amounts (expresd in gold francs) by reference to which liability under the

provisions of the Convention is limited shall be such amounts in sterling as the Secretary of State may

from time to time by order made by statutory instrument specify. (Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977)

在下面许可性规则中,赋予了当事人订立合同的权利:

Cas where contracts need not be under al (1) Contracts may be made on behalf of any body

corporate, wherever incorporated, as follows: - (a) a contract which if made between private persons

would be by law required to be in writing, signed by the parties to be charged therewith may be made

on behalf of the body corporate in writing signed by any person acting under its authority, expresd or

implied, and

(b) a contract which if made between private persons would by law be valid although made by parol

only, and not reduced into writing, may be made by parol on behalf of the body corporate by any

person acting under its authority, expresd or implied. (Corporate Bodies' Contracts Act 1960)

许可性规则只占指示性规则总数量的13.1%.

3.3 命令性规则

不包括行为动词或模糊的表示行为动词的情态动词的条文可用来表示立法目的,法规中用来

定义或解释词组和短语的句子,或者用来提供使用法律规则的句子,或二者兼有之,是命令性规则

的一部分(参看Kurzon,1986:23),典型的例子是包含有非行为动词, 如to apply, to extend, to mean,

to effect等词. 包含有impo, purport to, include, exclude, fall, within, come into force等词的表述

也是命令性规则的一部分. 如以下的例子所示:

In the ca of both contract and tort, ctions 2 and 7 apply (except where the contrary is stated in

ction 6(4)) only to business liability, that is liability for breach of obligations or duties arising - ...

The liabilities referred to in this ction are not only the business liabilities defined by ction 1(3), but

also include tho arising under any contract of sale of goods or hire-purcha agreement. A person is

not bound by any contract term prejudicing or taking away rights of his which ari under, or in

connection with the performance of, another contract, so far as tho rights extend to the enforcement

of another liability which this Part of this Act prevents that other from excluding or restricting.

不含有行为动词标记的(明确的或模糊的)命令性规则是最常用的方法(39.3%).

4. 英文合同中规范性条文的使用

7

合同语料库可通过规范性行为来分析.行为动词并不用来显示指示性的力量.相反,情态动词

用作”模糊的行为动词”. 结果显示(见表4), 指示性动词占主导地位(类别3, 表示义务与禁止的

陈述), 其占了总数的46.3%. 不明确的方法(类别1, 命令性规则) 也经常使用(占 22.7%). 在类

别2中,传统的非直接方法只能通过许可性陈述(5.8%)来表达; 除此之外,还有”受益人转

让”(16.6%) 和”责任的否定局限性”(3.4%). 询问准备性条款的方法(听者能力/意愿来进行意愿的

行为)和”表达愿望与渴望的以说话者为基础的方法”却很少出现,尽管它们在日常对话中经常发

生.(T rosborg, 1991)

委任性行为是通过清楚地表达承诺的行为动词来实现的(9.5%). 由模糊的行为动词表示的

义务是由占4%的情态动词will来实现的.

合同中所使用的方法下面一一举出,由于类别与法规中所使用的有些重复,就不再详细的进

行评述.

4.1 直接指示性词语

从表4可以清楚的看出,直接性的表达方式 (类别2) 是英文合同中最经常使用的指示性语

言.表示义务的陈述占了39.5%,表示禁止的陈述占了6.8%,祈使语气和行为动词并未使用.

4.1.1 义务性词语

在法律合同中为表示义务,几乎是独一无二的使用情态动词shall(38.0%). Shall 用来表示命

令的非语气力量. 说话者,即合同一方,指示合同另一方去做某事. 通过签署合同,听话者承担了义

务:

Commission shall be paid on a quarterly basis and shall be bad on the previous quarter's nett sales.

(4-001 )

Employees shall work such overtime as the Company from time to time thinks necessary according to

the needs of its business. (4-014)

如4-001所示,常使用被动语态和/或使用非人称主语来组织句子. 这些是法律术语的显著特

点,并可用表面纠正来解释,以降低包含有指示性词语的表面威胁.

4.1.2 禁止性规则

通过禁止性规则表示的行为规则,常使用的是情态动词shall(占所使用6.8%的方法中的

6.0%):

the Reprentative shall not be entitled to enter into any contract or obligation on behalf of the

Company without the express written connt of the Company being first obtained. (4-016)

Nothing in this Clau shall confer any right upon the Distributor to return Products purchad by it

pursuant hereto or to refu or delay payment for them. (4-068)

The officer shall have no entitlement to any further period of holiday with or without remuneration

unless expressly agreed between the company and the officer. (4-006)

这三个例子反映了2.2.1.2提到的三种不同否定方式.

4.2 权利

4.2.1 许可性规则

在合同中,两个当事人之间是一种对称关系,其中任何一方都可向另一方做出许可:

The Hirer may determine the hiring at any time by giving one month's previous notice in writing

expiring on one of the days appointed for payment of rent (4-015)

The Owner hereby grants to the Distributor [...] the sole and exclusive right to licen, sub-licen and

generally to market, distribute and support the Software (4-047)

The company hereby gives the officer permission to reside with his wife and children in the dwelling

hou and premis [...] as the company's reprentative (4-006)

许可和陈述占据了总数的5.8%.

8

4.2.2 利益/责任转让

下面的例子是小类别的语言学证明.分别市(1)利益转让; (2) 利益的否定转让; (3) 责任的有

限性; (4) 责任的否定有限性:

Company shall have power [...] to carry on its business alone or in association with any one or more

persons (whether natural or legal) or by any one or more subsidiary companies (4-026)

The duty to disclo contained in this clau shall not impo on either party any obligation to develop

any such modification or improvement (4-027)

The Carrier shall be relieved of its obligation to perform the Contract to the extent that the

performance thereof is prevented by failure of the Trader (4-038)

no liability whatsoever shall be accepted by the Contractor for any alterations or additions carried out

in contravention of this Clau (4-059)

4.3 命令性规则

命令性规则是合同条款的组成部分(例如,与责任有关) 并表明了与价格,日期,数量有关的条

件. 而且,它们定义了合同中的表述与条款或提供了适用这些条款的信息.

下列是包含有如mean,apply, include , exclude 等主要词汇和 be+系词的结构的例子:

"ACCIDENT" includes exposure resulting from a mishap to a conveyance in which the Assured is

traveling (4-021)

The Agent is responsible for finding out and notifying in detail of Governmental and other

requirements in the Territory affecting this Agreement (4-018)

使用情态动词shall的进一步参考可以显示出具有法律效果的合同法规特点:

ANY notice required to be rved upon the Owner or Hirer hereunder shall be deemed to be duly

rved 48 hours after posting if nt by first class recorded delivery post (4-053)

4.4 委任性规则

作承诺时,合同一方使自己受法律的约束.通过像agree, undertake, acknowledge, warrant, accept

等行为动词可做出承诺:

The Supplier warrants to the Customer that the Equipment marketed by the Supplier is believed to be

free from defects of workmanship and materials (4-057)

The Licene acknowledges that the copyright in [...] all written, printed and photographed matter

supplied by the Grantor under this agreement [...] shall belong to and remain vested in the Grantor

(4-027)

Promi 和covenant 并不经常使用.

9