<<
>>

lexical and structural-semantic characteristics of a judicial discourse

In legal language in whole and in language of judgements, in chastnoyosti, the attention is given, first of all, to norm of language which is defined by sphere of its use. In any sphere language creativity of the subject svjayozano with sign searches, «with which help it could by means of fragyomentov present to the thought whole as set of unities» [Humboldt 1984: 301].

The sign finding assumes its the subsequent atributizatsiju - classification in which result the sign is fixed in the certain system opening its structure.

Models of legal interaction are based as on the general rules of speech behaviour which should be observed within the limits of any subculture, and on the special rules caused by problems and conditions of realisation of judicial-remedial activity within the limits of separately taken subculture. The legal sphere demands as much as possible accurate execution of conventional norms. Functioning social instiyotutov substantially leans against dialogue conventions, i.e. on fonoyovye requirements to communications. J. Austin has revealed, what exactly in jurisprudence practice the speech behaviour is most of all subject to influence konyoventsy [Austin 1999].

Mutual relations of language and the law are a subject of studying of such discipline, as jurislingvistika. The number increase lingyovisticheskih the works devoted to various aspects of legal texts is traced. Numerous researches are carried out in such spheres, as stylistics of judicial texts [Kozhin 1977; Savitsky 1987; CHerdantsev 1993; Shmelev 1977; Tiersma 2007; Bhatia 1998; Garner 2001;], legal transfer [Pankratov 2003; Thomson 2004; Arntz 1991; Groot 1999, Sandrini 1999; Sarcevic 1997], a legal language [Glinsky 2002; Maksimenko 2002; Hizhnjak 1997], judicial textual examination [Golev 1999], judicial rhetoric and rechevedenie [Galjashina 2003; Gubaeva 2003].

The purpose of studying of a legal discourse not only to "canonise" right language, having allocated standard characteristics of used language but also to consider refraction of norms and laws of a natural language, koyotorye arise at approach of the last by a legal life, and preyoobrazovanija which arise at its passage through a legal prism [Golev 1999: 234].

In the attention centre at research of language of legal dialogue there should be a conceptual picture of the world as correct ponimayonie realities, a situational context and nonverbal support juridiyocheskogo dialogue is an indicator of its efficiency.

Institutsionalnye discourses are specific not only conditions reyoglamentirovannogo manufactures of knowledge, ierarhizirovannymi the participants, special teleology, but also a code uniting semantic, sinyotaksicheskie and pragmatical characteristics for achievement kommunikayotivnoj of the purpose. Interestingly not only presence of a certain code, but also it isyopolzovanie, that is substantially characteristic for diskur the c-analysis. Language of a legal discourse represents one of most svoeobyoraznyh codes that the cliche, kantseljarizmov is expressed in use conceptually-semantic jazyyokovyh means (terms), absence of expressional means, difficult syntactic structure, limitation of use of zhanrovo-stylistic means, low kontekstualnosti, etc. All hayorakternyj for a legal discourse the set of language and stylistic means, types of speech certificates submit to the purpose of a legal discourse - normalisation of relations between individuals.

The society plays regulations role, selecting language forms and deteryominiruja spheres of their appendix whereas the creation falls to a lot indiyovida. During a regulation the generalised templates, carriers znayochimosti are born, that creates stability of language in the existential plan, mutual understanding between the subjects divided by space and time [Borbotko 1998: 25-26].

The legal discourse has similar lines both with a scientific discourse, and with an instruction discourse as carries out both informative, and ordering functions. One of characteristic signs of such kinds of a discourse is presence original «text signs», allowing to allocate the most essential parties of a subject facilitating them poniyomanie, mastering. Pretexts, pretexts-forewords concern them, razyodely (paragraphs) and their titles, subtitles, internal titles, also a various sort comments, explanatories [Krjukova 2001: 11]. Each of peyorechislennyh signs carries out informative, informative functions.

Within the limits of the theory normoobrazovanija in right language we will consider juridiyochesky a discourse as special terminological system. Terminology javyoljaetsja special is functional-communicative area of language, the channel of intellectual dialogue |11ыж 2004: 218]. Institutsionalno zakreplenyonaja the treatment of legal terms is represented correct while ordinary interpretation is nominated as incorrect, that is frequent prepjatyostvuet to understanding the recipient of language of the right. Legal terms first of all bear kognitivnuju the information.

Specificity of the terms used in a judicial discourse, projavyoljaetsja in following characteristics: uniform sense (one term in opredeyolennoj situations), obshchepriznannost (use regularity), stayobilnost (invariable sense), availability, sistemnost, correlation to professional sphere. High degree terminologiziro - vannosti a discourse of legal documents - 0,33 %, above only at tehnicheyoskogo a discourse - 0,45 % [Kushneruk 1999] is marked.

In a legal discourse cliches, characteristic for dannoyogo language are used: illegally obtained evidence, legal agent, commit a crime, case papers, sitting of the court, I lead up to your data, taking into consideration, on osyonovanii stated etc. Cliches are original keys for understanding of all system of relations in separately taken social instituyote [Shiryaev 2007: 66].

The big attention is given to studying of phraseological units in which basis legal terms lay. For example, in legal texts in English the use of phraseological units rather mnogoyochislenno. It speaks, first of all, big public znachimoyostju and a jurisprudence urgency in the Great Britain thanks to what the legal language is favourite aspect of English phraseology: put smb. in the cart - to put someone in heavy position (cart - a vehicle in which delivered criminals to a place of execution or carried on a city with a shame); add insult to injury (it is borrowed from an armour.) - to put new insults, action of the first impression - a legal investigation at otyosutstvii precedent. In English legal phraseology are known mnoyogochislennye the Roman phraseological units which have been borrowed by England and other European countries: expression the unwritten law - the unwritten law (belongs to Athenian legislator Solonu).

In judgements in Russian also there were sets recheyovyh turns and the words which basic purpose consists in that it is exact, objectively, in a strict business tonality and whenever possible short to designate stereotypic judicial situations: an order of carrying out of litigation, the reference on those or other persons, actions, the reasons, instructions on poyosledujushchee a statement etc. For example, in court it is considered, in connection with detection; for expired period; the above-stated; the aforesaid; niyozhesledujushchee. The subjects of texts of a legal discourse cover shiroyoky a spectrum kontseptov the rights: dignity, guilt, law, freedom, justice, accusation, sentence, condemned, amnesty, absence, correspondence manufacture to collect etc. By means of verbal structures with value of a modality neobhodiyomosti, compulsions and possibility modalities it is transferred predpisyvajuyoshchy character of the information in judgement texts.

For a legal discourse reductions, brackets and tsifyorovye designations (numerals, as a rule, are transferred by words) are not characteristic. Except

That, are not used index and personal pronouns and others sredyostva a secondary nomination.

Orientation to exact and unambiguous expression of legal concepts, relationships of cause and effect, substantiation of theses causes use of the syntactic structures expressing a condition and the reason (additional conditions) [Kozhemjakin 2009].

For today the structure and a readiness legal konyostruktsy is one of indicators of tehniko-legal level razyovitija the granted branch of the right, development degree in it standard obobshcheyony, them otrabotannosti. Legal designs are represented as though by ready typical samples, schemes in whom clothes standard mayoterial. Use of legal designs facilitates formulirovayonie legal norms, gives to a standard regulation of public relations clearness and definiteness, and, hence, provides neobyohodimuju formal definiteness of the right. The major problem at sozdayonii legal norms - to pick up the designs corresponding soderyozhaniju of a standard material and allowing with maximum effektivyonostju to provide the problems put by the legislator [Alexeys 1982: 276].

Arhitektonika (the general construction of product) the legal text also it is closely connected with strukturnostju, normativnostju legal kommuyonikativnogo fields. The document text as the external form of a statement soderzhayonija the statutory act is characterised: requisites, svidetelstvujushchiyomi about its official character, reflecting its validity, the structural organisation - an arrangement of a standard material in the text in a certain order, it raschlenennostju and a coordination.

A number of requirements to the structural organisation of the legal standard document is allocated: 1) consecutive differentsirovannost mateyoriala - allocation of general provisions, partitioning on sections and heads; 2) edinyostvo and the internal logic in the text; 3) maintenance of necessary conveniences in using standard documents.

The major characteristics of construction of legal texts javyoljajutsja integrity and coherence which are shown through external structural indicators, through formal dependence of components tekyosta. In texts of a judicial discourse the right-hand type of communication - anafora (instructions in the text on earlier told) is traced. Structural communication can be expressed and by means of syntactic parallelism when chains of statements repeat the same model. Communication is carried out at the expense of uniformity of aspectual-temporal forms of verbs and other means of the formal organisation.

Thus, process tekstoobrazovanija within the limits of judicial disyokursa demands strict observance of language, stylistic, structural norms.

1.3.

<< | >>
A source: Sushentsova Tatyana Vjacheslavovna. STRUCTURALLY-SUBSTANTIAL SPECIFICITY of the ARGUMENT In JUDGEMENTS. The dissertation on competition of a scientific degree of a Cand.Phil.Sci. Tver - 2014. 2014

More on topic lexical and structural-semantic characteristics of a judicial discourse:

  1. 2.2.2. The Lexical and grammatical paradigm of forms of a reduction of the semantic subject
  2. § 1.4. A place of judicial-expert research oblikovyh characteristics of the person on speech soundtracks in classification of the judicial Examinations
  3. Studying of a lexical making print advertising in lexico-semantic aspect
  4. § 4.3. TYPOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE IDEOGRAPHIC DICTIONARY OF THE BASIC LEXICAL FUND OF THE GERMAN LANGUAGES
  5. § 1.1. Communicative characteristics of a virtual discourse
  6. influence of strengthening technologies on prochnostnye and deformation characteristics of structural materials
  7. 1. 3 semantic spheres "music" and its lexical sets
  8. the Generalized semantic signs kontsepta FAMILIE, staticized in a biographic discourse
  9. a media discourse of the international ratios as interaction of semantic positions of the states-actors
  10. 2.4. Lexico-semantic and kognitivno-pragmatical aspects of the use of anglicisms in structure of a mass media discourse
  11. CHAPTER 4. APPLICATION OF OPTICAL SPECTROSCOPY FOR DEFINITION OF STRUCTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OF POLYMERIC DISPERSE SYSTEMS
  12. Institutsionalnyj a format of a judicial discourse