On Legal Fact-finding In Court Hearing

Reasoning is one of the main research object of logic, legal reasoning is also legal logic focus on the core of the problem. Trial is the process of legal application, and the applicable law must rely on legal reasoning. Because our country belongs to continental law system, is given priority to with statute law, the trial in our country is mainly used in the judicial syllogism reasoning. The judicial syllogism in legal norms as the major premise, minor premise for legal fact. In fact, the whole trial process is mainly doing two things, looking for legal norms major premise, minor premise determine the legal facts. Judicial ruling as legal reasoning conclusion concerning the vital interests of the parties and even to life, and important influence to the society, so to ensure the rationality of the judicial ruling, legitimacy and acceptability. But in practice to make legal conclusion conforms to the fairness and justice, has the acceptability, the point is not of the previously mentioned conclusion reasoning process is to provide as a premise of the law and the facts to justify mode and process. Legal reasoning can not only meet the requirements of the rules of formal logic, only the pursuit of the effectiveness of the form, but also pay attention to the substance, the premise of the legitimacy. Legal facts as minor premise is the logical starting point of legal reasoning, to determine the true legal facts is justified the conclusion of the judicial decision. The legal facts occurred in the past, can’t repeat itself, and therefore the legal facts in legal trial is a very complicated thing.In pragmatics, semantics, language learning on the basis of focus on some non-linguistic factors, such as context, the main body, conclusion acceptability and other issues, is the great development of linguistics. In logic academic circles have begun to combine language form, semantics, pragmatics, and applicable law in a dynamic and complex process more not only from the viewpoint of static language form, semantic research, but to the language form, semantics, pragmatics road of the combination of three dimensions. In this article, from the perspective of pragmatics, the exploration in the great speech act under the law court fact that problem, and the speech act theory of pragmatics, conversational implicature theory, conversational inference theory and principles of purpose and cooperative principle is applied to the legal fact that trial, is for the interpretation of legal reasoning on pragmatics. This article mainly discusses from the following parts:Part I: Introduction to the theory of legal fact that in the trialThis part first simply introduce the connotation of the meaning of "logic", reasoning, after overview of legal reasoning, legal reasoning, in which a traditional meanings and its acceptability and introduces the legal reasoning of the trial, the finally Outlines the theory of legal facts, this paper expounds the legal fact forming process of trial, and the fact of Zou Bihua verification steps are introduced.Part II: Legal fact that analysis of the speech act theoryThis section first describes the basic theory of speech ACTS has made the simple introduction, mainly including account of Austin and shi sentences dichotomy, speech act three points, four points, and categorize things behavior in words and deeds, the last trial law fact that the discussion of application of speech act theory.Part III: Legal fact that analysis of the conversational implicature theoryThis section on grice’s conversational implicature theory, session reasoning theory and the legal reasoning theory, on the basis of the analysis of legal fact that problem.Part IV: The cooperative principle and purpose of legal fact that principle analysisThis part mainly discusses the basic principles of pragmatics purpose principle and cooperative principle, and application principle and the cooperation principle, to the law of the fact that, in the final analysis in violation of the cooperative principle of legal facts that influence.Part V: conclusionThis part, according to the research status quo of legal fact that put forward in the perspective of pragmatics, discusses the meaning of legal fact that question.