ON THE WAYS OF SUBJECT VERBALIZATION IN JURIDICAL DISCOURSE


Cite item

Full Text

Abstract

The article deals with the linguistic status of a subject in various genres of juridical discourse; analyzes the linguistic means which are involved in verbalization of the speaking subject. The author emphasizes that the subject can be verbalized in different ways in juridical discourse depending on its involvement in the discourse expert community. The author reevaluates the established in discourse-analysis point of view on the juridical discourse as an institutional form of communication only, specifying its status with the account of modern linguistics achievements. On the base of analysis the author distinguishes between two types of subjects in legal discourse – an I-subject and an institutional subject. The author notes that an I-subject is verbalized explicitly in discourse, not being at the back of impersonal constructions, while an institutional subject “masks” its personality for the sake of objectiveness of stated information, follows the discourse community conventions. The author distinguishes the linguistic means involved in the speaking subject positioning. They are as follows: first person subject pronouns, proper name, institutional role subject name, impersonal constructions. The graded subject representation in English and Russian legal discourse is considered as the interlingual and intercultural trends. The research is based on the achievements of theory of postmodernism (М. Foucault, R. Barthes, G. Deleuze et al.) and anthropocentrism (Yu. S. Stepanov, E. Benveniste, E.S. Kubryakova et al.) as well as on discourse analysis (V.I. Karasik, A.M. Kaplunenko, S.N. Plotnikova, E.F. Serebrennikova, E.I. Sheigal, J. Swales et al.).

About the authors

Olga Aleksandrovna Krapivkina

Irkutsk National Research Technical University, Irkutsk

Author for correspondence.
Email: koa1504@mail.ru

candidate of philological sciences, assistant professor, Associate Professor of Foreign Languages Department

Россия

References

  1. Krasik V.I. On the types of discourse. Yazikovaya lichnost’: institutsionalny i personalny diskursy. Volgograd, Peremena publ., 2000, pp. 15–19.
  2. Sheygal E.I. Semiotika politicheskogo diskursa [Semiotics of political discourse]. Volgograd, VGU publ., 2000, 325 p.
  3. Plotnikova S.N. Linguistic, communicative and discourse identity: on the problem of concepts distinction. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta. Seriya Lingvistika i mezhkulturnaya kommunikatsiya, 2005, no. 1, pp. 5–16.
  4. Shevyrdyaeva L.N. Yazik sovremennogo amerikanskogo sudebnogo diskursa [Language of modern American legal discourse]. Moscow, MGU publ., 2009, 190 p.
  5. Swales J. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990, 272 p.
  6. Bhatia V.K. Transparency, power, and control: perspectives on legal communication. New York, Ashgate Pubkishing, 2012, 234 p.
  7. Tiersma P.M. Legal Language. Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1999, 328 p.
  8. Tiersma P. Textualizing the Law. International Journal Of Speech Language and The Law, 2007, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 73–92.
  9. Foucault M. L'archéologie du savoir. Paris, Gallimard, 1969, 400 p.
  10. Foucault M. Les Mots et les Choses. Une Archeologie des Sciences Humaines. Paris, Gallimard, 1966, 400 p.
  11. Approaching postmodernism. Workshop on postmodernism, 1986, 21–23 September, pp. 211–231.
  12. Bathes R. Selected works: Poetics. Moscow, Progress Publ., 1989, 752 p.
  13. Kozhemyakin E.A. Juridical discourse as a cultural phenomenon: the structure and meaning-making. Mezhvuz. sbornik nauchnih trudov “Yurislingvistika-11: Pravo kak diskurs, tekst i slovo”. Kemerovo, 2011, pp. 131–144.
  14. Kaplunenko A.M. On advantages of systemic action-oriented approach to pedagogical discourse. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, 2012, no. 4, pp. 176–178.
  15. Kaplunenko A.M. The course of discourse: nailing the Foucalt colors to the mast of discourse analysis. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, 2013, no. 4, pp. 9–15.
  16. Badrillard J. Simulacres et simulation. Paris, Galilee, 1981, 204 p.
  17. Badrillard J. The consumer society. Myths and structures. London, Sage, 1998, 208 p.
  18. Miloserdova E.V. Semantika i pragmatika modalnosti (na materiale prostogo predlozheniya sovremennogo nemetskogo yazika) [Semantics and pragmatics of modality (a case study of simple sentence of the modern German language)]. Voronezh, VGU publ., 1991, 196 p.
  19. Krapivkina O.A. On the personified nature of modern legal discourse. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, 2010, no. 4, pp. 27–34.
  20. Krapivkina O.A. Language mechanisms of subject self-presentation in legislative genres of legal discourse. Vestnik Irkutskogo gosudarstvennogo tehnicheskogo universiteta, 2011, no. 7, pp. 243–248.
  21. Krapivkina O.A. Lingvistichesky status sub’ekta yuridicheskogo diskursa (na materiale angliyskogo i nemetskogo yazikov) [Linguistic status of juridical discourse subject (a case study of the English and Russian languages)]. Irkutsk, IGLU publ., 2011, 200 p.

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files
Action
1. JATS XML
Download

Copyright (c)



This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies