Legal discourse as a model of institutional discourse
Abstract
The article considers the problem of studying legal discourse as one of institutional ones. A model of institutional discourse is defined as well as its characteristic features. The article presents various approaches to interpretation of legal discourse, the author and the recipient as its immediate participants are described. Special attention is paid to differential features of the legal text due to the multivaluedness of semantics and extralingual factors which play an important part in reception of legal documents. Dominant features of legal discourse are singled out – texts of judicial documents and their language which includes the language of legislation and by-laws, the language of legal science and education and so on. Based on the analysis of coherent relations between legal texts, such types of coherence were represented: thematic, iconic, definitive, verification, inferential.
Downloads
References
Aleksandrov, A.S. (2005). Chto takoe «sudebnaya lingvistika» i kakovo ee otnoshenie k nauchnoy dogme ugolovnogo protsessa [What is forensic linguistics and what is its relation to scientific doctrine of criminal proceedings?]. Shkolyi i napravleniya ugolovno-protsessualnoy nauki. Dokladyi i soobscheniya na uchreditelnoy konferentsii Mezhdunarodnoy assotsiatsii sodeystviya pravosudiyu, 5-6 October 2005, SPb [Schools and trends of criminally-remedial science. Proc. of inaugural conference of the International association of promoting justice, 5-6 October 2005. Saint-Petersbourg]. St. Petersburg, 72–81.
Derdi, E.T. (2013). Slovotvirni ta strukturno-semantichni harakteristiki angliyskih yuridichnih terminiv. Dys. kand. fIlol. Nauk [Word building and structural-semantic characteristics of English legal terms. Cand. philol. sci. diss.]. Kyiv. 284 p. (in Ukrainian).
Dridze, T.M. (1984). Tekstovaya deyatelnost v strukture sotsialnoy kommunikatsii. Problemyi semiosotsiopsihologii [Textual activity within the structure of social communication. Semasiological issues]. Moscow: Nauka Publ.
Dorda, S.V. (2014). Pro deyaki osoblyvi harakteristiki yuridichnogo diskursu [On ceratin specific characteristic features of legal discourse]. Svitoglyad – FIlosofiya – Religiya. – World Outlook. – Philosophy. – Religion, 5, 146–154 (in Ukrainian).
Kerimov, D.A. (2010). Metodologiya prava. Predmet, funktsiyi, problemi fIlosofii prava [Legal method. Subject, functions, issues in philosophy of law]. Moscow: Avanta+ Publ.
Kobozeva, I.M. (2010). Lingvisticheskaya semantika: uchebnik [Linguistic Semantics: textbook]. Moscow: Editorial URSS Publ.
Kozhemyakin, E. A. (2006). Diskurs-analiz v sovremennom sotsialno-gumanitarnom znanii [Analysis of discourse in modern socio-humanitarian knowledge]. Chelovek. Soobschestvo. Upravlenie. – Person. Community. Management, 3, 25–39 (in Russian).
Konovalova, M.V. (2008). Tipy kogerentnosti yuridicheskogo diskursa [Types of coherence of legal discourse]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. – Messenger of Cheliabinsk state university, 21, 83–86 (in Russian).
Kosonogova, O.V. (2008). Yuridicheskiy diskurs: lingvopragmatika imeni sobstvennogo [Legal discourse: linguistic pragmatics of noun]. Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie. – Knowledge. Understanding. Skills, 2, 188–192 (in Russian).
Le Goff, Zh. (2000). Simvolicheskiy ritual vassaliteta [Symbolic ritual of vassalry]. In: V.A. Babintsev (ed.). Drugoe srednevekove. Vremya, trud i kultura Zapada [Different Middle Ages. Time, work and culture of the West]. Ekaterinburg: Ural U-tet. Publ, pp. 211–262.
Golev, N.D., and Saykova, N. V. (ed.). (2016). Lingvopersonologiya: tipyi yazyikovyih lichnostey i lichnostno-orientirovannoe obuchenie [Linguistic personology. Types of language personalities and person-oriented teaching]. Barnaul – Kemerovo: Izd-vo BGPU Publ.
Makarov, M.L. (2003). Osnovyi teorii diskursa [Basics of discourse theory]. Moscow: ITDGK «Gnozis» Publ.
Maltsev, R.V. (2007). Sotsialni pidstavi prava [Social basis of law]. M: Norma Publ.
Ostin, Dzh. (1986). Slovo kak deystvie [How to do things with words]. Novoe v zarubezhnoy lingvistike: Teoriya rechevyih aktov. – New developments in foreign linguistics. Speech Acts theory, 17, 22–129 (in Russian).
Palashevskaya, I.V. (2010). Funktsii yuridicheskogo diskursa i deystviya ego uchastnikov [Functions of legal discourse and actions of its participants]. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiyskoy akademii nauk. – Bulletin of Samara scientific centre of RAS, 12, 5(2), 535–540 (in Russian).
Pirs, Ch.S. (2000). Izbrannyie filosofskie proizvedeniya [Selected philosophical papers]. M. : Logos Publ.
Samokhina, V.O. (2012). Zhart u suchasnomu komunikatyvnomu prostori Velykoi Brytanii ta SShA: monohrafiia [Joke in the Present-Day Communicative Space of Great Britain and the USA: monograph]. Kharkiv: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina Publ.
Suhih S.A. (2000). Kognitivnaya i semanticheskaya organizatsiya poznavatelnyih protsessov [Cognitive and semantic organization of cognitive processes]. Filologiya na rubezhe tyisyacheletiy: Materialyi Mezhdunar. nauch. konf. Chelovek. Deystvitelnost. Yazyik. Rostov n/D [Philology at the turn of millennium. Proc. of Int. Sci. conf. Person. Activity. Language. Rostov n/D]. Rostov n/D, 39–41.
Suhih, S.A. (2000). Mehanizmyi manipulyativnoy kommunikatsii [Mechanisms of manipulative communications]. Teoreticheskaya i prikladnaya lingvistika. Yazyik i sotsialnaya sreda. – Theoretical and applied linguistics. Language and social environment, 2, 17–20 (in Russian).
Shemshuchenko, Yu. S et al. (ed.). (2004). Yuridichna entsyklopediya : v 6 t. Vol. 6. T–Ya [Legal Encyclopaedia: in 6 volumes. Vol. 6. T-Ya]. Kyiv: Ukr. Entsyklopedia Publ.
Yatsishin, N.P. (2013). Yurydychna terminologiya yak spetsializovana systema pravovykh ponyat [Legal terminology as a special system of legal concepts]. Terminologichniy visnik. – Messenger on terminology, 2(2), 99–103 (in Ukrainian).
Podlech, A. (1976). Rechtlinguistik. In: D. Grimm (ed.). Rechtswissenchaft und Nachbarwissenschaften. München, Bd. 2. pp. 110–128.
