法律語言中之對抗隱喻:認知語言學觀點

Abstract

本研究探討對抗隱喻在法律文本中的呈現，進而分析我國新的刑事訴訟制度實施後對法律語言使用、意識及行為認知所產生的影響。從認知建構正負面不同的視角，本文同時釐清對抗隱喻在建構訴訟概念上的兩種角色。 2003年台灣修正刑事訴訟法，採行「改良式當事人進行主義」，使我國刑事訴訟制度由原本的大陸法系「職權主義」，走向英美法系的「當事人進行主義」。新法實施對抗制，被告由訴訟客體變成訴訟主體，與檢察官立於平等對抗的地位，同時強調檢察官、被告雙方在訴訟上的武器平等。而為了貫徹武器平等的原則以及施行交互詰問的程序，刑事訴訟也逐漸採行國選辯護人制度，由公設辯護人、義務律師或法律扶助律師為被告辯護，充實被告在訴訟上的防禦能力。由於這些改變，使得法庭上檢辯對立嚴重，氣氛更為火爆。因此，本研究以概念隱喻、框架理論、批判論述分析及語料庫語言學為研究方法，分析台灣法律條文及司法判決書內之對抗隱喻，同時探究存在於對抗隱喻背後的概念認知過程與意涵。 運用「概念隱喻理論」及「批判論述分析」兩層式的分析模式，本研究得到一些發現。首先，藉由分析法律文本中「訴訟是一場對抗」的概念隱喻及檢視語言及意識的互動過程，我們證明了2003年刑事訴訟新法實施之前及之後，法律語言確有差異性，而文本中對抗隱喻以各個面向呈現，更具體地再現了對立不讓的訴訟意識及景象。另外，新的刑事訴訟制度實施後，司法判決書內大量增生使用的對抗隱喻相關詞語，也顯示此類語言對訴訟認知的影響力。我們認為，對抗隱喻除了具有強化對立及敵視意識之潛藏效果外，也可能導引後續更敵對的法庭語言行為。 其次，當運用第二層理論－「批判論述分析」中之「社會行動者」理論去檢視訴訟相關人士所扮演的角色、握有的訴訟程序權及彼此之間權力關係的流動現象，我們發現，法律文本中之對抗隱喻並不僅僅與攻擊、侵略、敵對等負面認知概念連結，它同時也蘊含了公平、對等、及追求正義的訴訟意涵。從這個概念層次而言，對抗隱喻被賦予了新的意義，象徵了刑事訴訟中公民意識的提升，同時也是彰顯人權概念的一種表徵。這個以實現公民利益為考量的角度，使得我們視對抗隱喻為一個「必要」，也是追求訴訟公平及權利保障無法缺少的核心元素。我們因此主張，作為一個人類思考及影響意識的語言機制，對抗隱喻在導引人們對訴訟概念的建構上具有正面的認知功能。 然而，由於「改良式當事人進行主義」植基於「對抗是唯一的一條發現真實之路」的理念上，因此，從意識框限的角度而言，對抗隱喻對人性具有長遠的負面影響。我們主張，人們應該要放棄二維式的思考模式，去除兩極化的對立，並重新建構思維，尋找「對立」以外的方案。考量隱喻普遍存在於認知與概念系統的結構當中，以及語言與思維彼此互動強化的關係，本文因此建議，訴訟相關人士使用此類語彙時應更為謹慎，而對抗隱喻對訴訟文化及更宏觀的人類生活之影響，也值得進一步省思。

This dissertation investigates the role of FIGHT metaphors in the construction of the notion of litigation. In doing so, this research not only identifies the influence of a new criminal procedural system on language use but demonstrates the relationship among concepts, ideologies, and linguistic configurations in legal discourse. It further elucidates both the positive and negative cognitive reframing effects of FIGHT metaphors on the conceptualization of litigation. In 2003 the Republic of China (Taiwan) passed an amendment to the Code of Criminal Procedure, which moves its original criminal proceedings away from the Japanese-German justice model (inquisitorial system) to the American Criminal Justice system (adversarial system). The newly enacted law makes the litigation proceedings more adversarial in nature and tones up the warring and antagonistic atmosphere around the courtrooms. Therefore, within the theoretical and methodological framework based on the Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT), Frame Theory, Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA), and Corpus Linguistics, this study examines FIGHT metaphors employed in Taiwan legal statutes and judgments and probes into the conceptual and cognitive processes underlying these FIGHT metaphors. The analysis of this study is two-layered and incorporates the Social Actors Approach within the paradigm of Critical Discourse Analysis into the Conceptual Metaphor Theory. First, in identifying the conceptual metaphor LITIGATION IS A FIGHT and examining the interplay between language and ideology, we demonstrate that there was a clear shift in the type of discourse before and after the 2003 amendment, and reveal how ‘fight’ metaphorical lexical uses reflect litigant ideologies and further shape legal reality. The proliferation of FIGHT metaphors appearing in judiciary judgments after enacting the revised law suggests that the concept of FIGHT to individuals engaged in litigation may have been mapped unconsciously to their thoughts and may have the potential to affect subsequent more contentious discursive behaviors in the courtroom. Second, when applying CDA to approach the social roles of individuals engaged in litigation, procedural rights of the participants, and the distribution of power relations among the partakers, we demonstrate that FIGHT metaphors, under the same storyline of adversarial system, entail an alternative cognitive function characterizing by pursuing trial fairness and civil justice, and thus recast the concept of fight in litigation as an action to secure the public’s interests and to value the human rights. FIGHT metaphors in litigation symbolize the protection of human rights and the realization of public interests, and on the long term they guarantee the development of democracy, since all human beings are born equal and must have the same chance to display their personality within the framework of the law. As such, FIGHT metaphors are endowed a new meaning, giving promise to both victims and the accused relief and justice. This public interest-centered perspective therefore urges us to view FIGHT metaphors as a ‘must’–an indispensable device to practice equity and justice. We hence argue that FIGHT metaphors are positive as a reframing device that people rely on to conceptualize the litigation. However, from the other cognitive perspective, FIGHT metaphors in litigation have a profoundly negative effect on individual human spirits since under the adversarial system there is an assumption that opposition is the path to truth. As such, we propose that we have to give up either-or thinking and reframe polarizing choices to find other ways to solution. We further suggest that the legal profession and any engaged individuals take a more reflective approach to their linguistic behaviors, whether oral or written, as well as to reconsider how FIGHT metaphors affect the legal culture and, by extension, the lives of individuals as part of society.