法律语言的意义及其确定方法在司法活动中至关重要，不同法学流派的核心主张与其对法律语言意义的立场息息相关。此前，张翅翔与雷磊以法律语言的意义为主线，对司法实用主义者所主张的语义虚无论进行了批驳，并在批驳过程中对法律语词意义的自主性、解释层面的稳定性和可预测性进行了有效论证。但张文在论证过程中仍然有需要补充及商榷之处，如未明确其意义立场、对语言的语境依赖性论证不充分等。根据哲学的意义理论，语言并没有脱离语境的自主意义，但是在一般情况下，语言的意义能够在特定语境中确定下来，这并不会影响法治对安定性以及可预测性的追求。在较为复杂的情况下，如法律文本中包含模糊语词以及法律语词的意义尚未固定时，法律适用存在不确定性，此时需要借助各种法律解释方法确定法律文本的真实意义。

法律语言, 语义内容, 语境, 法律解释

The content of the meaning of legal language and its determination methods are crucial in judicial activities. The core propositions of different legal schools are related to their positions on the meaning of legal language. Previously, Zhang Chixiang and Lei Lei refuted the linguistic nihilism advocatedby judicial pragmatism from the perspective of the meaning of legal language, and effectively argued for the semantic autonomy of language, stability and predictability at the interpretation level in the process of refutation. However, there are still some points in Zhang and Lei’s paper that need to be supplemented and discussed, such as not clarifying the meaning theory they support and insufficient arguments for the contextual dependence of language. According to the philosophical theory of meaning, language does not have autonomous meaning out of context, but in general, the meaning of language can be determined in a specific context and will not affect the pursuit of stability and predictability by the rule of law. Only in more complex situations, such as when the legal text is vague and the meaning of legal words has not yet been fixed, there is uncertainty in the application of the law. At this time, legal interpretation methods can be used to determine the content of law.

legal language, linguistic meaning, context, legal interpretation