This paper is developed from my years of campus study; Many people helped me finish this research.

First of all, I would like to thank the instructor of this paper, Mr. Zhou from the School of Foreign Languages, Hunan University of Science and Technology, for his constant guidance and valuable suggestions, which enabled this paper to be completed. Teacher Zhou's diligence and responsible spirit set a good example for all college students in 2006.

Secondly, I would like to thank all the school leaders and teachers, who gave me the essence of knowledge, especially Mr. Zhang Jinghua, who taught me translation. His unique opinions and interesting lectures left a deep impression on me, which eventually led to the beginning of the paper.

Last but not least, I would like to thank all the school librarians who have provided us with a large number of reference books, and also thank those authors whose works I quoted in my paper.

abstract

Based on the characteristics of spoken language and the strategies used in negotiation, this paper discusses the ways to avoid pragmatic failures and understand the communication skills of different languages in different cultures, and expounds several ways to master good language communication skills in order to give full play to the advantages of languages and increase the chances of success in international business negotiations.

Keywords: language communication skills; International business negotiation; Features; pragmatic failure

chinese abstract

Trade negotiation is a very important link in trade activities, and language is the medium of negotiation. The process of business negotiation is a process of 1 communication and negotiation around the economic interests of both parties, which is essentially a process in which negotiators use language to coordinate negotiations and seek 1 results. Based on language expression and negotiation strategies, this paper discusses how to avoid pragmatic failures in negotiation context, analyzes the ways of language communication in different cultural backgrounds, and expounds how to use language and master good language expression skills, so as to give full play to the role of language in negotiation and improve the success rate of business negotiation.

A Comparative Study of Similarities and Differences between Anglo-American Legal System and Continental Legal System

Continental law system and Anglo-American law system are two major legal systems in the world, covering some major countries in the world. German, French and China civil law representatives; The common law is of course represented by Britain and the United States. The comparison of the differences between civil law and common law has always been a hot topic for comparative jurists. There are great differences between the two laws in many aspects, and I only compare them by litigation procedure.

For a long time, comparative jurists tend to assume that all developed legal systems in the world always meet similar needs in a similar way. [1] However, the great difference between civil law system and common law system in litigation procedure lies in that it breaks the hypothesis. For example, the preparation and summary of civil proceedings, the choice of court fact finding methods or the huge differences in questioning methods of witnesses or experts make this assumption untenable. Because there are so many differences between the two laws, they are subject to various reasons, such as geographical differences, national habits, cultural characteristics, historical traditions and so on. But I think the main reason is the influence of ideological and cultural traditions. The different thinking habits of the two legal countries in many aspects have created great differences between the two laws.

In fact, many characteristics of the proceedings in the Anglo-American legal system are determined by the fact that the proceedings in the jury system. Now, the general view is that the jury system is only used in criminal cases in Britain, and it is used in serious crimes and when the defendant himself thinks that he is "innocent". [2] Nevertheless, the traditional jury system still permeates the civil litigation in Britain. And the influence of jury system makes civil trial and criminal trial have many specific procedures. [3] This will make the litigation procedure separate from the civil law countries.

In civil law, the litigation procedure can be divided into multiple district trials. In this way, if one party puts forward an unexpected point of view or evidence in court, the other party can have enough time to further refute the evidence in the next court hearing. There is a big difference in the common law system. Because of the one-time trial, in order to prevent the same thing from happening, lawyers should not only make their arguments and evidence clear, but also understand the arguments and evidence of the other side. Because in the trials of common law countries, if unexpected evidence appears, neither party can easily ask for an adjournment. This makes it necessary for lawyers to meet with witnesses before the hearing to know what they will say in court. For this kind of behavior, German lawyers said that it was against professional ethics. [4] It is not difficult to imagine why lawsuits in common law countries often have unexpected results, and why lawyers who can force themselves to defend themselves in court are always respected. The courts in civil law countries always give people a step-by-step feeling, which looks good enough for lawyers to perform well.

Since common law countries are using the one-time trial mode, what is the role of judges? Before the trial began, lawyers had made careful preparations for the judges on controversial issues and extremely unclear evidence. It is believed that judges rely on lawyers' oral statements to provide all necessary facts and laws. [5] As we all know, in the courts of common law countries, lawyers independently decide what witnesses to call and what witnesses to ask. Each side asks the witness questions, and then the other side asks them back. It is also a manifestation of wisdom for lawyers to question witnesses. A good lawyer is often that the testimony of the opposing witness is not credible, and the judge or jury cannot accept it, thus losing the validity of the evidence.

Lawyers question witnesses, while judges generally only pay attention to hearing witnesses' testimony. If the judge speaks, usually only "invalid" or "no invalid" and the judge's statement can determine whether the questions of the parties can be adopted. However, judges in common law countries can ask witnesses, but in order to avoid conflict, they remain neutral and are less inclined to ask questions publicly. There is a very classic case that explains the wisdom of the judge from the opposite side, that is, the case of "Jones v. National Coal Bureau": in that case, the judge raised too many questions when trying the case, so that the parties could not give evidence in the best way he thought, and the court of appeal could only send the case back to the lower court for retrial on this basis. [6] This case also illustrates the principle of "procedure is superior to rights" in law.

British and American judges showed more negativity in the trial. At first, they knew nothing about the merits of the case. We must understand that the parties and their lawyers must play a major role in the process of a hearing. This is mainly because in common law countries, the common view is that the best way to get the real situation in court proceedings is to let the parties debate the real situation, and the judge will only act as the supervisor of court rules, that is, "confrontational" litigation. In civil law countries, the opposite is true. They believe that if judges are allowed to play a greater role, it may be more conducive to discovering the real situation. Therefore, the judge has the obligation to ask, inform, encourage and persuade the parties, lawyers and witnesses, so as to obtain all the true information from them and avoid the failure of the parties. The number of civil trials in civil law countries may have some "inquisitorial" nature and some bureaucratic characteristics. [7] Both litigation and evidence collection need to investigate the subject of the court, and the judge is the positive image of presiding over the court trial. In the United States, the execution of "adversary system" litigation procedure is very strict. This is mainly because as long as the common law is not the requirement of equity, the first stage of civil litigation is still the jury's participation in the trial.

L conclusion

The civil law system is mainly inherited from Roman law, which is not the inheritance of Roman law, and the difference between them is huge. For example, civil law is written law, so are common law and case law. The comparison of the litigation procedures selected in this paper is only the concrete difference between the civil law system and the common law system. The differences between different legal systems are very meaningful, which can make us learn from each other and learn from the good systems in other legal systems to improve our legal system, which will have a far-reaching impact.

China's socialist legal system construction is in full swing. At the same time of codification based on the civil law system, it is of practical significance to learn from the case law systems of other countries appropriately for enriching and perfecting China's legal system. In the process of socialist market economy, we will inevitably encounter all kinds of new situations and problems, which requires us to take a global view and boldly absorb and learn from the essence of foreign legal systems.

The difference between civil law and common law

Generally speaking, the distinction between different standards will produce different results, and there will be some obvious differences between the civil law system and the common law system in four aspects, such as judicature, trial basis, litigation mode and court organization, which can be summarized as follows: (1) Judiciary: Generally speaking, administrative litigation cases in civil law countries are not under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, while other countries accept the establishment of administrative courts. The civil law system is a parallel system of administrative courts and ordinary courts with different dual-track systems; Moreover, in principle, there is no administrative court in law, and in criminal and administrative proceedings, if the property belongs to the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, there is no administrative court. (2) Basis of trial: Generally speaking, countries with civil law system mainly rely on written law and customary law, supplemented by case law; Besides the Constitution of the United States, other so-called laws attach importance to unwritten law to implement customary law and major jurisprudence. (3) Litigation procedures: Generally speaking, countries in the civil law system are generally the adjudicative organs that impose stereotypes; The common law system usually adopts jury system and circuit trial system. (d) Court organization: Generally speaking, countries with civil law systems usually adopt collegiate system, so there are a large number of judges; The common law system usually adopts a single system and the number of judges is small. To sum up, we can discuss the differences between the civil law system and the common law system in four aspects: judicature, trial basis, litigation mode and court organization. A basic understanding of the legal system will help us to enter the legal palace, and also help us to understand the overall structure and structure of the legal system and build a legal community known to all.

Continental law system and Anglo-American law system are two major legal systems in the world today, covering some major countries in the world. The representatives of civil law system are German, French and China. Anglo-American legal system is of course represented by Britain and America. The comparison of differences between civil law system and common law system has always been a hot topic for comparative jurists. There are great differences between the two legal systems in many aspects, and I only compare them from the aspects of litigation procedures.

For a long time, comparative jurists tend to assume that similar needs are always met in a similar way in all developed legal systems in the world. [1] However, the huge differences in litigation procedures between civil law system and common law system break this assumption. Such as the preparation and conduct of summary civil litigation, the way to state the facts to the court, the way to choose or ask witnesses or experts, etc. , all make this assumption untenable. There are so many differences between the two legal systems, which are influenced by many reasons, such as regional differences, national habits, cultural characteristics, historical traditions and so on. But I think the main reason is the influence of ideology and cultural tradition. The thinking habits of the two legal systems are different in many aspects, which has created great differences between the two legal systems.

As a matter of fact, many characteristics of the proceedings in the Anglo-American legal system are caused by a decisive fact, that is, the proceedings originated from the jury system. Nowadays, it is generally believed that the jury system is only used in criminal cases in Britain, and only when the defendant claims that he is "innocent" in a serious crime. [2] Nevertheless, the tradition of jury system still permeates the civil litigation in Britain. The influence of the jury system has led to many specific proceedings in civil and criminal trials. [3] This also makes its litigation procedure different from that of civil law countries.

In the civil law system, litigation can be divided into multiple trials at intervals. Therefore, for the unexpected opinions or evidence put forward by one party in court, the other party can have enough time to present further evidence to refute it in the next trial. However, in the common law system, it is quite different. Because it is a one-time trial, in order to prevent the same thing from happening, lawyers should not only think clearly about their own arguments and evidence, but also understand the arguments and evidence of the other side. Because in the trials of common law countries, if unexpected evidence appears, neither party can easily ask for an adjournment. This makes it necessary for the lawyer to meet his witnesses before the trial to know what they will say and do in court. For this kind of behavior, German lawyers think it is against professional ethics. [4] It is not difficult to imagine why lawsuits in common law countries often have unexpected results, and why lawyers who can make love in court are always respected. However, the trial in civil law countries always gives people a step-by-step feeling, which is not exciting enough, so it is difficult for lawyers to have a very exciting performance.

Since common law countries adopt the mode of one-time trial, what is the role of judges? Before the trial began, the lawyers made careful preparations, but the judge was extremely unclear about the controversial issues and related evidence. It is believed that judges rely on lawyers to provide all the necessary facts and laws through oral statements. [5] As we all know, in the courts of common law countries, lawyers independently decide which witnesses to call and ask. Every witness was questioned by one party and then by the other. Questioning witnesses is also the embodiment of lawyers' wisdom. Good lawyers can often make the testimony of opposing witnesses unreliable and unacceptable to judges or juries, thus losing the effectiveness of evidence.

Lawyers question witnesses, and judges generally only pay attention to the testimony of witnesses. When a judge speaks, it is usually only a judgmental statement such as "valid objection" or "invalid objection" to decide whether the questions of the parties can be adopted. Judges in common law countries can ask witnesses, but in order to avoid being involved in conflicts and remain neutral, they often ask fewer questions. There was a case that explained the wisdom of the judge from the opposite side, that is, "Jones v. National Coal Commission": the judge asked too many questions in the first instance of the case, which led to both parties being unable to present evidence in the best way they thought, and the Court of Appeal only sent the case back to the lower court for retrial on this basis. [6] This case also illustrates the principle of "procedure is superior to rights" in the common law system.

Judges in Britain and America are passive everywhere in the trial. They knew nothing about the case at the beginning and had to know it during the trial, so the parties and their lawyers must play a major role. This is mainly because, in common law countries, it is generally believed that the best way to obtain the real situation in the court trial process is to let the parties debate the real situation, and the judge only acts as the supervisor of the court rules, that is, "confrontational" litigation. But in civil law countries, the situation is just the opposite. They believe that if judges can play a greater role, it may be more conducive to discovering the real situation. Therefore, the judge has the obligation to ask questions, inform, encourage and persuade the parties, lawyers and witnesses, so as to obtain all the true information from them and avoid the parties losing the case. Civil trials in civil law countries still have some "inquisitive" nature and some bureaucratic characteristics. [7] The court is the main body of litigation and evidence investigation, and the judge presides over the court trial as an active judge. In the United States, the litigation procedure of "adversary system" is very strict. This is mainly because, as long as it is a common law request rather than an equitable request, there is still a jury in the trial stage of civil litigation.

L junction

Continental law system mainly inherits Roman law, while Anglo-American law system does not. The difference between them is enormous. For example, continental law is mainly written law, while Anglo-American law is case law. The comparison of the litigation procedures selected in this paper is only the difference in the specific judicial system between the civil law system and the common law system. It is very meaningful to study the differences between different legal systems, which can make us learn from each other's strong points and absorb the good ones from other legal systems to improve our legal system, which will have a far-reaching impact.

At present, China's socialist legal system construction is in an intensive stage. It is also of practical significance to enrich and improve China's legal system based on the written law of civil law system and drawing lessons from the case law system of common law countries. In the process of socialist market economy, we will inevitably encounter all kinds of new situations and problems, which requires us to look at the world and boldly absorb and learn from the essence of foreign legal systems.

Differences between civil law system and common law system

Generally speaking, different standards will produce different results. There are obvious differences between the civil law system and the common law system in four aspects: judicial organs, trial basis, litigation procedure and court organization, which are briefly described as follows: (1) Judicial organs: Generally speaking, for civil law countries, administrative cases are not under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, but administrative courts are set up to accept them, so the civil law system belongs to administrative courts and ordinary courts. In principle, there is no administrative court in the common law system, and criminal and administrative proceedings are under the jurisdiction of ordinary courts, so there is no separate administrative court. (2) Trial basis: Generally speaking, for countries with civil law system, statutory law is the main one, supplemented by customary law and case law; In the Anglo-American legal system, apart from the Constitution, other so-called laws in the United States attach importance to unwritten law, so they mainly implement customary law and precedent. (3) the way of litigation procedure: usually, for countries with civil law system, a stereotyped judicial organ is usually implemented; Common law system usually adopts jury system and circuit trial system. (4) Court organization: Generally speaking, for civil law countries, the collegiate system is usually implemented, so there are more judges; The common law system usually adopts exclusive system, so the number of judges is small. Three. To sum up, we can discuss the differences between civil law system and common law system from the aspects of judicial organs, trial basis, litigation procedure and court organization. A basic understanding of the legal system is helpful for us to enter the legal palace and understand the overall legal system and structure, so as to build a society in which all people understand the law.