《反思中国法学界的"权利话语"》之反思

自上世纪80年代以来，“权利话语”逐渐成为我国法学界的主流话语。“权利本位”也在中国法学界的激烈讨论中获得了正统学说的地位。有论者基于经济学思维与理念对“权利话语”、“权利本位”进行批判甚至解构。这种经济学进路的背后，是一种建立在自然科学研究意义上的“经济学帝国主义”思维。在它看似无立场的研究角度的背后，却是一种追求效率至上的价值取向。这与法学所应追求的正义底线价值是格格不入的。它可能导致一种专制主义思维。尽管“权利本位”作为法律的普适价值存有争论，但是没有它却是极其危险的。     

刑事错案概念的深层次分析

刑事错案是刑事司法活动中客观存在的一种现象,中国古代和西方都对刑事错案有所研究,并形成了具有时代特点和地域特点的刑事错案概念。可以将刑事错案存在的语境分为诉讼语境和诉讼外语境。在诉讼语境中,学者对刑事错案的概念有“主观说”、“客观说”、“主客观统一说”以及“三重标准说”等等。实践中,有些存在错误的诉讼情形不属于错案：漏罪、漏人情形、量刑偏重偏轻、存疑案件、一般性违反刑事诉讼程序的行为、被否定的正常诉讼行为以及法律的变化导致刑罚变化。     

浅议英美文学作品中人名俗语的寓意方式及文化内涵

人名俗语不仅是一种语言现象,更是一种具有丰富内涵的文化现象。对英美作品人名俗语的寓意方式和文化内涵进行深刻的探讨,不仅有利于语言学习和文学创作,而且有利于提高学习及文学创作的兴趣。     

"道"作为形上之语言

作为老子哲学本体论的"道"是一种语言存在论."道"是对语言的形上化.老子对"道"的规定、解释均以本真语言为原型,"道"的基本特性与语言的本质特征是基本吻合的.     

谈警察规劝性言语的得体性

得体性原则是修辞学重要的原则,也是评判交际言语优劣的最重要标准。警察使用的规劝性言语,是语言的具体使用,属于言语活动的范畴,它是一种特殊的言语交际活动。规劝性言语具有可接受性、向善性和艺术性三个特征,得体的规劝性言语必须遵循四个原则,即:合境原则、言语与交际对象协调原则、礼貌与诚信原则。只有把握了规劝性言语的这些特征和原则,才能较好地完成规劝性言语交际活动。     

文体学理论在英语口语教学中的应用

文体学的研究对象是如何在适当的场合使用适当的语言,使言语交际达到最佳的表达效果。英语教学的目的不仅是要使学生掌握语言形式,还要培养学生的交际能力,即运用语言的能力。在教学中,教师应当导入文体学知识,培养学生正确使用语域的意识,从而有效提高语言交际的能力。     

21世纪写作学发展的思考

21世纪写作学发展的思考 ,首先是学科定位的思考 ,即在注重以往文本的社会学认识基础上充分注重写作与语言及表述的关系 ,以发展写作学科 ;其次注意对写作“体”的区分 ,不同“体”的写作 ,对语言、思维都有不同的要求。因而根据“体”的不同而使用不同的语言表述 ,即宽式语言方式、严式语言方式。而写作与社会关系之维面 ,一方面体现写作与写作者的目的性、自觉性相关联 ;另一方面强调写作者满足服务社会某一方面需要所使用的规范的表述语言。     

Using Named Entities for Computer‐Automated Verbal Deception Detection

There is an increasing demand for automated verbal deception detection systems. We propose named entity recognition (NER; i.e., the automatic identification and extraction of information from text) to model three established theoretical principles: (i) truth tellers provide accounts that are richer in detail, (ii) contain more contextual references (specific persons, locations, and times), and (iii) deceivers tend to withhold potentially checkable information. We test whether NER captures these theoretical concepts and can automatically identify truthful versus deceptive hotel reviews. We extracted the proportion of named entities with two NER tools (spaCy and Stanford's NER) and compared the discriminative ability to a lexicon word count approach (LIWC) and a measure of sentence specificity (speciteller). Named entities discriminated truthful from deceptive hotel reviews above chance level, and outperformed the lexicon approach and sentence specificity. This investigation suggests that named entities may be a useful addition to existing automated verbal deception detection approaches.     

The problem with English(es) and linguistic (in)justice. Addressing the limits of liberal egalitarian accounts of language

Van Parijs’s Linguistic Justice for Europe and the World furthers a nascent examination of multilingualism within political philosophy, drawing on continental European contexts where multilingualism is the norm. Van Parijs argues, in effect for linguistic cosmopolitanism via English as the current world language, and this seems ostensibly to be a considerable improvement on ‘the untrammeled public monolingualism’ of Anglo-American political theory. However, Van Parijs’s account is flawed in four key respects. First, there is the fundamental problem of his reductionist account of language – by which language is viewed only in terms of its communicative uses and reach and not in relation to its symbolic and identity functions. Second is his simplistic advocacy of English as a global lingua franca, which ignores issues of power and inequality, along with related delimited access to high-status English language varieties. Third are the inherent limitations associated with his advocacy of linguistic territoriality, which recognizes state-sanctioned languages but little else, thus failing to mitigate existing linguistic hierarchies. Finally, the wider argument for English as a global lingua franca is inevitably underpinned by a monolithic/hegemonic view of English itself. This monolithic conception of English stands in contradistinction, not only to the actual plethora of Englishes in the world today, but also, more importantly, to their widely varying status and use in furthering cross-communication and related notions of social and economic mobility. The latter thus fatally undermines Van Parijs’s central argument linking social and economic mobility ineluctably to access to English.