【作者】 田荔枝；

【导师】 范进学；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 法学理论， 2010， 博士

【摘要】 本研究选取古代、近代、现代几个时间节点上的典型判词,用语体学的理论考察我国判词语体从古至今的发展变化,力图通过具体判词文本语言证实：我国的判词语体从古至今走过了一条封闭——开放——封闭——开放的路径,呈现出一个“之”字形走向,从古代判词的文学化、情感化、道德化至近代判词对传统的扬弃及域外的引鉴,以至现代判词语体的政策化、政治化、军事化、新闻化等等,均说明从古至今判词语言更多地是被背后的意识形态所操控,未能完全走上法律语体规范轨道,中国判词语体的规范化(或现代化)尚需假以时日；判词语体的形成除了制判主体的主观制导因素外,社会客观语境的变更亦会决定判词语体异质要素的增加、个体特征的形成,从判词语体在不同历史文化语境下分化、融合的嬗变轨迹即可显示其在社会文化因素作用下所呈现的不同个体特征,归结出判词语体形态与社会文化共变的规律性。法律语言的本质属性是工具,因而对法律语言的研究,更重要的意义还在于影响、指导法律实践。对法律语言规范化问题的研究也如此,而有了语体的规范,语言的规范才可能是全面、科学的规范。本文除导言和结语外,共包括五章内容。导言部分介绍了选题的国内外研究现状及研究意义,论文的大致框架和写作的思路与方法,以及必要的文献综述。第一章阐明我国判词语体及其特性,界定概念并明确判词语体在语体体系中的位置,为下文的展开奠定理论基础。作为语用学范畴的语体是适应不同交际功能、不同题旨情景需要而形成的运用语言特点的体系,这些经过抽象而形成的特点的综合体就构成了语体。每一种语体均系适应人类社会交际需要才产生,都有着表现自己语体特点的不同的语言材料、语言手段。它们实际上是各种修辞现象所组成的一个抽象综合体。一种修辞现象或少数修辞现象是够不成综合体的,只有多种修辞现象才能组合成特有的语体。判词因其重要的社会价值而为世人所重视并成为法律文书中最具代表性的文种,其语体特色足以代表司法书面语体特征,因此选取判词语体规范问题加以研究应该颇具代表性。我国判词源远流长,历经数千年的发展变化,形成独具特色的语言风格。判词语体作为语体体系中的一个独立的语体样式,是语言运用在司法判决领域时所形成的功能变体,是为适应司法裁判交际领域、目的、任务需要,运用全民语言形成的语言特点体系。其语体特点表现为：理性化、专业化、书面化、中性化。语体可以划分出诸多种类,从语言表达方式是可以分为口头语体和书面语体,前者主要诉诸于声音,而后者则诉诸于书面文字。书面语体又因其交际领域、目的、任务的不同划分为事务语体、政论语体、文艺语体和科技语体。判词语体在语体体系中所处位置应该为：语体——书面语体——事务语体——法律事务语体——司法事务语体——判词语体。第二章我国古代判词语体的阐释。包括古代判词语体的简要历史流变、语体特征阐释以及形成因素等三个方面。本章主要选取《朕匜铭》、《春秋决狱》、《龙筋凤髓判》、《甲乙判》、《名公书判清明集》、《折狱新语》以及清代于成龙、陆稼书、张船山、樊增祥等判词语料,证实古代判词经历了由萌芽、雏形、繁荣、成熟几个历史阶段,每个历史阶段虽然在语体上略有变化,但总体上风格趋同没有明显变化,即主要表现为语体的文学化、道德化及情感化三方面特征。形成古代判词语体上述特征的原因主要涉及制判主体与社会文化两个方面。古代(尤其是唐代以后)制判主体的诠选途径和方式注定了判词语体文学化的趋势。据《文献通考》记载,唐代科举选官考察制判目的是为了检验士子“必通晓事情,谙练法律,明辨是非,发摘引伏”的水平,从而保证这样诠选的官员不仅精通诗词歌赋,而且具有处理社会实际问题的能力。然而在实际的操作过程中,对于判词优劣判断的重心却又放在判词的文采之上,讲究文辞的华美,对仗的工整,用典的精当。如此以来判词写作的文学价值得到提升,实践意义和实用价值反倒被贬抑了,因为所取者无非学问精通,文章美丽,而不一定适合从政。在现存的唐代判词中,绝大多数都有一种自觉不自觉的文学化倾向,具有相当高的文学价值。另外更重要的是社会文化因素的制约作用。古代中国礼法合一,引礼入法的法律制度,为判词语言的道德化提供了坚实的话语环境,因此,中国古代判词自汉代董仲舒开创《春秋决狱》的制判笔法后,形成一种制判传统,即判决依据法律和社会道德,法律和道德部分,语言的道德教化色彩浓厚。同时,古代中国司法行政合一,司法专横,不公开、不平等,司法行政化,重刑轻民等司法制度的状况,制判主体既是行政长官又是审判人员,尤其唐宋以来的判词,一般用于基层州县地方官对民间纠纷和轻微刑事案件,流传于进的唐宋判词多为应试之作的“拟判”,而非实际审理案件的“实判”。明清的实判,一般很简短,很少成文成章。总之,古代判词与现代判决书的差异甚大,不应同日而语。注定制判主体往往以“父母官”而不是法律职业人的话语来处理案件,训导说教甚至情感化语言出现非常明显,情感化是古代判词语体的别样特色。第三章我国近代判词语体分析。主要对近代(1848——1949)清末、民国的判词语体特色、成因等问题进行分析。选取清末、民国及陕甘宁边区的典型判词语料为分析对象。此期,我国古代判词在语体特色上发生重大转变,可以说晚清以来的中国在西方列强的步步紧逼之下被迫融入现代世界体系,正是在这种社会变迁中,传统判词语体开始了向现代判词语体的转型。在语体特色上呈现出一种新的发展趋势：模式化、简明化、逻辑化。其成因主要涉及法律制度与语言运动的现代两个方面。自1840年(清道光二十年)鸦片战争以后,中国逐步沦为半封建半殖民地社会,西方的法律思想和法律制度传入,中华法系解体,司法文书发生了巨大变化,传统的古代司法文书被废弃,判词制作从模式到内容都发生了重大转变。清末变法休旅,宣统年间有沈家本编纂的《考试法官必要》所载,借鉴日本、德国的司法文书制作经验,结合中国法律文化实际,启动现代司法文书格式,对民刑等主要判决文书格式做出了统一规定,我国判词语体模式化程度初见端倪。民国时期的司法文书承袭清末制定的司法文书模式基础上发展而来,期盼次对于清末指定的民事判决书和刑事判决书均有不少变化,论证讲求逻辑性增强,内容要素细化,语言专业化程度加强,同时保持简明晓畅的风格,结构更加严谨。判词语体呈现出较高的规范性。民国时期革命根据地和解放区政权所使用的司法文书格式基本上采用当时通行模式,虽有变动但甚微,语言风格上虽文白间杂但更加通俗,易于理解,只是因为政权性质的不同、司法制度的不同判词内容上发生了实质性变化。另外,自鸦片战争打开了闭关自守的清朝帝国大门以后,中西文化的接触和交流逐渐增加。最初中国只知道西洋船坚炮利,后来意识到要革新武器必须革新生产,最后明白基本问题在于革新教育。对于鸦片战争以来的近代中国而言,挽救民族危亡的危机意识催生了现代意义上的语言统一运动——以开启民智、普及知识为目的而展开的白话文运动,这一语言运动对传统判词语体的现代性转型起到了极大的推动作用。第四章我国现代判词语体思考。现代中国司法文书的最大特点是四个法域即大陆、香港、澳门、台湾的司法文书并存。主要探讨新中国成立以来大陆判决书语体规范问题。其中选取建国初期、文革时期、上个世纪八十年代和近年来的判决书语料为分析对象兼及与台湾、香港判决书的语体比较。总体上来说,我国大陆判词语体1949年以后处在一种封闭的语境中发展,并在毛泽东语言这种权威话语、核心话语的影响下形成了其现代化、大众化、民族化的独特个性；而台湾判词语体较多地保留了20世纪40年代末大陆判词语体原型的模式共性,充分显示了两者间相延相续的血脉关系。伴随20世纪现代汉语书面语的发展,新中国成立后大陆判决书语体可大致分四个时期：1949年建国初期至二十世纪六十年代初期的创建时期；1966年—1976年间的文革时期的破坏时期；上世纪七十年代末至九十年代初的重建时期；20世纪90年代中期至今规范时期,为顺应时代发展和建设法治国家的需要,对各类判词的制作模式和要求进行了重构。而判词语体的发展则主要表现为根据中国国情,传承民国时期判决书格式“主文——事实——理由”的三段论结构形式,建构了半文半白的杂合判词语体,在语言风格上表现出较强的政策性。经历了20世纪20年代的白话文运动,30年代的大众语运动和40年代初期以民族形式为本位的语文建设运动的发展,现代汉语到40年代中后期逐步成熟规范。实现了中国语文从文言文到白话文,再到现代汉民族共同语的转型,完成了语文形式现代化、大众化、民族化的协调统一。可以说,现代汉语是“以北京语音为标准音,以北方方言为基础方言,以典范的现代白话文著作为语法规范”。考察50年代末60年代初的判词语体,表现为与口语吻合的现代白话文,与此同步,50年代后期,判词结构模式由“主文——事实——理由”演变为“事实——理由——结论”的结构形式。1957年下半年的“反右”运动开始,,极左思潮泛滥成灾,法律虚无主义猖獗肆虐,否定司法程序和司法文书规格,错误地认为讲究司法程序和司法文书格式是搞“繁琐哲学”,1959年司法部被撤销后,司法文书质量日益下降,特别是在“文革”十年里,随着“砸烂公、检、法”的狂潮,司法文书格式亦遭破坏。60年代以后,大陆判词语体在现代白话文的道路上走得更为迅速彻底,判词语体朝着通俗易懂的大众化方向演进。“文革”十年,判词语体强烈的政治功用性使大陆判词写作朝个人崇拜化、革命化方向发展,判词写作越来越偏离语体原型,形成了带有畸形生态的判词语体。主要表现为：政治话语取代法言法语,情绪性话语取代理性话语,直白性话语取代思辨性话语,主观性话语取代中性话语。20世纪八九十年代以来改革开放提供了判词语体发展的崭新语境,随着法制建设的加强,刑法、刑事诉讼法等重要法律制定和颁布,检察机关和司法行政机关的恢复,司法文书再度受到重视并得到了发展。司法部恢复后,即由普通法院管理司负责制定并于1980年6月颁发了《诉讼文书样式》计八类六十四种,重新统一了司法文书格式。1982年国家机构改革,调整政府职能,司法部的普通法院管理司和专门法院管理司被撤销,法院系统的司法行政工作划给最高人民法院管理,从而形成了公安、检察、法院、司法行政四系统分别各自制定和修订本系统的文书格式的局面。最高人民法院在原有文书格式的基础上于1992年6月制定了《法院诉讼文书样式(试行)》计十四类三百一十四种,判词格式日益完备。1996年3月,全国人大对刑事诉讼法作了重大修订,判词格式须伴随之进一步修订。最高人民法院于1999年4月修订下发了《法院刑事诉讼文书样式(样本)》,其中删除了不再使用的刑事诉讼文书样式八种,新增加了刑事诉讼文书样式53种。同时,随着国际往来的日益增多和现代媒体的广泛传播,外来词语也伴随着新事物、新概念纷纷涌人汉语的词汇系统,形成了汉语发展史上继两汉西域借词、汉魏唐宋佛教借语、近代西方科技文化借词之后的第四次大规模借词浪潮,大量的法律术语涌进汉语词汇,判词语体进入一个新的发展阶段,伴随着司法改革的逐步深入,《人民法院五年改革纲要》指出,“通过判词,不仅记录裁判过程,而且公开裁判理由,是向社会公众展示司法公正形象的载体,进行法制教育的生动教材”①,判词的社会价值凸现,人们对其制作的要求亦愈来越高,格式和制作规范更需要不断完善和提高,针对判词规范问题的讨论成为人们关注的焦点,因此,上世纪八十年代以来判决书语体风格主要表现为模式化与个性化,规范性与习惯性、明确性与模糊性、详尽性与简约性之间的冲突与协调问题。第五章我国未来判词语体的思考。主要针对判词语体的个性化与模式化、判词语体融合、判词语体的语境制约、判词语体的比较与借鉴等问题展开。针对当代判词改革研究中存在的上述问题,提出个人的思考。指出未来判词的发展须在解决好个性化与模式化、封闭与开放、坚守与借鉴等问题基础之上展开,认为传承古代判词语体精髓部分具有现实意义及深层文化基础,我国判词语体的规范化还尚需假以时日。更多还原

【Abstract】 In this article several typical verdicts in the ancient times, the past a few centuries and nowadays are picked out to probe the change and development of China’s verdict writing style in a critically linguistic perspective. Through the specific language employed in the verdicts the author tries to demonstrate that China’s verdict writing style has experienced a "close-open-close-open" mode from the ancient till now, presenting us a "Z"-like trend. Whatever they are the literary, emotional and moralization of the ancient verdicts, or the sublation of traditions of the verdicts in the past a few centuries together with its introduction of external samples (unfortunately sometimes end up with confusions), or even the policy-orientation, politicization, militarization, publication and so on of the verdicts nowadays, they manifest that all the verdicts are manipulated by the underlying ideology of their own times, that they never completely make it into the sphere of legal style, and that China’s verdict writing style needs to be standardized (or modernized). Apart from the verdict-writer’s subjective factors, the objective social language environment contributes a lot to the verdict style. Its change will result in the increase of the elements of style’s shift and the formation of individual features. From the path of split and merge of the verdict style in different historical language contexts, the individual features will appear in its own social cultural background and also we are able to conclude the regularity between the verdict style and the social and cultural factors. This article consists of five chapters, except from the introduction and conclusion. The introduction deals with the present situation of the research home and abroad of the issue in the question and its significance. The main idea and the summary of references will also be found in the introduction.Chapter One illustrates China’s verdict style and its features, defines relevant concept and explicit the verdict style’s position in the style system, laying the foundation for the following parts. In pragmatics, style is a system which is consistent with each communication function and context. Those features formed from abstract progress make up a complex which becomes a style. Each style comes into being as a result of social intercourse needs and each one has its own material and skill to represent its features. Actually, it is an abstract complex of various figures of speech. Only one figure of speech or few can not make one specific complex, multiple can do. Verdicts are to be valued by people for its important social value and are the most representative type among legal documents. Its style features are enough to represent judicial written style; thereby standardization of the verdict style should be typical to be researched. China’s verdicts enjoy a long history and have experienced thousands years of changes, and now it possesses its special character. As an independent style sample, verdict style is a functional variant when language is applied in the judicial verdicts and is created to fit in the judicial judgment and objectives. Its features can be reflected as:rational, specialization, in written form and neutral.Linguistic style can be categorized into many groups. From the aspect of expression methods it can be categorized as spoken and written styles. The former one mainly deals with the sound while the latter the written words. The written style can be further categorized into official business style, political argumentative style, literary style and technology style. The position that verdict style occupies in the language style system should be:style-written style-official business style-legal official business style-judicial official business style-verdict style.Chapter Two illustrates China’s verdict style in the ancient times, including the brief development, features and factors of formation. This article is mainly based on <Zhen Yi Ming>,<Adjudicating Case by Chunqiu>,<Long Jin Feng Sui Pan> and <Jia Yi Adjudication>,< Ming Kung’ Verdicts>,<New Comments on the Precedents>, Yu Chenglong, Lu Jiashu, Zhang Chuanshan, Fan Zengxiang in Qing Dynasty and so on. The author demonstrates that the ancient verdicts had gone through the bud, embryo, boom, restoration and sublimation, in each stage of which the style experienced a slight shift but shared the same trend in the whole, i.e. the literary, moralization and emotional of the style. The reason of the existence of the mentioned features involves the verdict-writers and social culture. In the ancient, especially after Tang Dynasty, the literary trend of the verdict style was determined by the interpreting methods used by the writer. According to <Verifying Documents>, in Tang Dynasty the verdict writing part in the imperial examination was for testing whether examinee could "grasp the facts, apply laws skillfully, tell right from wrong and cite precedents and masterpieces". Therefore, the outstanding examinee was qualified to not only be proficient in verses but also deal with practical issues. In reality, however, when judging a verdict the examiners put emphasis on the literary gift of the verdict. They paid attention to the flowery language, the neat antithesis and the precise quotation. Reasonably, the literary value of verdict writing was promoted to a higher level while the practical and pragmatic value was suppressed because the tops were better at writing poem than entering politics. In the existing verdicts of Tang Dynasty, almost every one inclined to literature style with rather high literary value. The other important factor is the effect of contemporary social culture. The ancient China combined discipline rite and law and implanted rite into legal system, which created a firm environment for the moralization of the verdicts. Thus from Dong Zhongshu< Adjudicating Case by Chunqiu> in Han Dynasty the ancient China’s verdicts formed a tradition, i.e. verdicts relied on law and morality; and the language embedded in the verdicts had a strong inclination to advocate morality. Meanwhile, the ancient China did not distinguish between executive and judicial department. The judicial department was badly intervened by the executive one and the unequal phenomena were everywhere. Besides, people cared more of criminal and less of civil disputes; and the verdict-writer was the executive and judicial official. Especially in Tang-Song period, when facing with the civil disputes and minor criminal cases, the grass-roots officials usually referred to an examination model-"model verdict" rather than made a "genuine verdict" on a case-by-case basis. The verdicts in Ming-Qing period were very brief. Few of them could make it an article. In conclusion, there is a huge difference between ancient verdicts and verdicts nowadays. Verdict-writers always settle down cases in an executive official’s eye rather than a legal professional’s way. It is obvious that those writers convey their verdicts in a teaching and even emotional way. Consequently, full of emotion is a distinctive feature of ancient verdict style. Chapter Three analyzes China’s verdict style in the past a few centuries. This chapter chooses several typical verdicts in the late Qing Dynasty, Republic of China and Shensi-Kansu-Ningsia Border Region to analyze the features and causes of verdict style (1848-1949). At that time, the ancient China’s verdicts were going through a tremendous change in style. From the late Qing Dynasty, China was forced to merge itself into the global system under the invasion of western powers. It is right in this social change that traditional verdict style began to transfer to the modern style. A new trend in style features appeared:patterning, briefing and rational. The causes are involved with legal system and language movement. Following the Opium War of 1840 (Daoguang 20) China declined to a semi-feudal and semi-colonial country. Western legal thought and system flowed into China, rendering Chinese law system dissolved. In the meanwhile, judicial documents experienced a huge change. Traditional ancient judicial documents were abandoned and verdict-making differentiated from pattern to content. During the legal system reform in the late Qing Dynasty, according to Shenjiaben’s <A Must for Examiners> edited in Xuantong period, China explored the modern judicial document pattern and unified the civil and criminal cases verdicts based on the experience of Japanese and German judicial documents writing methods together with the practical situation of China’s legal culture. From then on the relatively fixed pattern for China’s verdict style gradually took shape. The judicial documents in Republic of China developed from the mentioned pattern and had a few changes compared with the civil and criminal cases verdicts in the late Qing Dynasty. They emphasized more on the logical reasoning and content, strengthened the specialization of the language while maintained brief and well-knit. The verdict style at that time presented relatively high standard. In the Republic of China, the revolutionary based area and the liberated area adopted current prevailing pattern with slight changes. The language style became more easy-to-read although it was mixed with classical Chinese. The content of verdicts changed materially because of the different political power and legal system.Moreover, the contact and exchange between Chinese and Western culture increased gradually since the Opium War tore down the wall around the provincial imperial country. At first China was only informed of the superior western firepower; later she realized that a new produce method was needed to update weapons; finally she understood that the issue lied in the revolution of education. As for the China after the Opium War, the sense of crisis in the national salvation brought about the movement of language unification in the modern sense, which was a vernacular movement spreading out to cultivate people and popularize knowledge. That movement promoted greatly the modernization transition of traditional verdict style.Chapter Four is about the critical thinking of China’s verdict style nowadays. The most significant feature of modern China’s judiciary documents is that judicial documents in four legal domains co-exist (mainland, Hong Kong, Macao, Taiwan). The author here probes into the verdict style standardization issues in the mainland since 1949. The verdicts in the early days, Cultural Revolution, the 1980s and the recent years are picked out to be compared with those in Taiwan and Hong Kong. Overall, the verdict style in the mainland after 1949 was developing in a closed environment and established its modernization, massilization and nationalization under the effect of Mao Zedong’s authoritative and core language style. While the verdict style in Taiwan was affected by the alien language-Japanese and dialects such as Fujian dialect, Hakka and Malayo-Polynesian to some extent, but it reserved the same pattern with the prototype in the mainland in the end of the 1940s. Therefore both of them share the same origin and have a strong link. With the development of modern written Chinese in the 20th century, the verdict style in the mainland after 1949 can be roughly divided into three phases:the mixture of classical Chinese and vernacular in 1920-1940; the modern vernacular absolutely consistent with spoken Chinese in 1950-1970; the infiltration of the alien elements in 1980-1990. In the 1920-1940 the development of modern Chinese was reflected by the vernacular movement, aiming to substitute the classical Chinese which was not spoken any more for vernacular which cohesive with the spoken language. The path of the development reflects the formation of syllogism "main body-fact-reason" passed down from the Republic of China; and then it established half-classic-half-vernacular style with a strong policy tendency based on the domestic situation. Having gone through the vernacular movement in the 1920s, public language movement in the 1930s and the Language Construction Movement based on the nation standard in the 1940s, the modern Chinese has been standardized maturely in the middle and later half of the 1940s. China has realized the transition from classical Chinese to vernacular Chinese and then to the universal modern language of Han nation; and completed the unification of Chinese modernization, massilization and nationalization. It can be said that modern Chinese "sets Beijing accent as standard, Beijing dialect fundamental dialect, model modern vernacular masterpiece the grammar regulation". After examining the verdict style in 1950-1960, we find the vernacular Chinese coincide with the spoken language. Meanwhile, in the late 1950s, the pattern of the structure of verdicts changed from "main body-fact-reason" to "fact-reason-conclusion (case judgment)". However, with the beginning of Anti the Right (reserved party) movement in the latter half of 1957, ultra-Left (radical party) trend of thought were rampant and the nihilism were sprawling. The legal procedure and legal documents pattern were ignored and even regarded as "red tape". The judicial documents were of low quality soon after the judicial department was dismissed in 1959. Especially in the ten-year catastrophe of Cultural Revolution, the patterns for judicial documents were destroyed during the crazy cult of "smashing public security organs, procuratorial organs and people’s courts". After the 1960s, the verdict style in the mainland drew much closer to the vernacular style and evolved towards massilization. During the Cultural Revolution, the violent political function of the verdicts drove the verdicts of the mainland towards individual-worshiping and revolution-oriented direction. The verdict writing drifted away from the style prototype, only to become a malformed style. This phenomenon displays: political language replaced legal language, emotional language replaced rational one, straight replaced speculative, subjective replaced neutral; a mess of patterns and flexible verdict-writers.From the 1980s and the 1990s, the Reform and Opening Up provided the verdict style with a brand new language environment. With the improvement of legislative construction, the passage of a few important laws and the restoration of procuratorial organs and judicial administrative organs, the judicial documents again received high attention. After the restoration of judicial department, the common court management implemented and carried out <The Form of Litigation Documents> in June 1980, with 8 categories and 64 types in all, unifying the pattern of judicial documents. In the process of reform of state’s organs in 1982, judicial department’s managements of common courts and special courts were dismissed; the judicial administrative work was assigned to the Supreme Court. Till then the pattern of documents were implemented and revised by public security organs, procuratorial organs, people’s courts and judicial administration, respectively. In June 1992 the Supreme Court implemented <Court’s Form of Litigation Documents (Prevail)> based on the original pattern, with 14 categories 314 types in all, manifesting that the verdict pattern was gradually complete. In March 1996, National People’s Congress made an important revision of the Criminal Procedural Law, resulting in the further revision of verdict pattern. The <Court’s Form of Litigation Documents (Sample)> the Supreme Court passed in April 1999 deleted 8 types in criminal procedural documents while added 53 new types. At the same time, with the increase of international communication and wide spread of modern mass media, foreign words pour into the Chinese vocabulary together with new stuff and new concepts, which make it a fourth big scale wave of loanword (the former three waves are Han’s loanwords from Western region, loanwords from Buddhism in Han-Wei-Tang-Song Dynasty, loanwords from western technology in the past a few centuries). In the fourth wave a large number of legal terms flooded into the Chinese vocabulary. The verdict style entered a new stage. In accompany of judicial reform, the social value of legal documents is highlighted now and people require higher and higher quality of the writing. Besides, the pattern and standardization also need constant improvement and the issue of the standardization has become a hot topic among people. Logically, from the 1980s verdict style is mainly reflected as the conflicts and coordination between pattern and individuality, standardization and custom, clarity and ambiguity, thoroughness and brevity.Chapter Five is about the future of China’s verdict style. It aims at the personalization, patterning, mergence, contextual restriction, comparison and reference of verdict style. The personal view focusing on the problems exist in the research of verdict style reform is raised. The development of verdict style is baised on the handle of patterning and personalization, close and open, inheritance and reference. There is deep cultural basis and modern significance in the inheritance of elite of ancient verdict style. China has a long way to go to make the verdict style perfect.更多还原