COMMON SENSE AND LINGUISTIC EXAMINATION IN DIFFERENT LEGAL SYSTEMS
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2016-3-214-219
Abstract
The paper discusses the role of linguistic examination in civil law and common law legal systems. It argues that while it is forensic linguistic expertise that often plays an important role in civil law systems, the lay people’s opinion is crucial in common law systems. It suggests that the best way to obtain adequate results for civil law systems (including the Russian legal system) is to combine the two approaches, that is, to make use of an expert linguistic analysis of the linguistic competence of lay speakers of the language in question. Various examples illustrate the point (among them the problems arising in civil suits of honor protection and business reputation defense as well as the famous “tomato case”, in which the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a tomato was classified as a fruit or a vegetable). In addition, the paper discusses vague wording and consequent difficulty of implementation of the “Federal Law on the National Language of the Russian Federation.”
References
1. Baranov A. N. Lingvisticheskaia ekspertiza teksta: teoriia i praktika [Linguistic examination of the text: theory and practice]. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2007, 592.
2. Bulygina T. V., Shmelev A. D. Grammatika pozora [Grammar of shame]. Logicheskii analiz iazyka: Iazyki etiki [Logical analysis of language: Languages of ethics]. Moscow, 2000, 216 – 234.
3. Golev N. D. Iuridicheskii aspect iazyka v lingvisticheskom osveshchenii [Legal aspect of the language in the linguistic illumination]. Iurislingvistika – Jurilinguistic, no. 1 (1999): 11 – 58.
4. Kotov A. A., Mineeva Z. I. Ispol'zovanie natsional'nogo korpusa russkogo iazyka pri provedenii lingvisticheskoi ekspertizy [Using the national corpus of the Russian language when carrying out a linguistic expertise]. Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki – Philological Sciences. Issues of theory and practice, no. 8-2(26) (2013): 99 – 103.
5. Krongauz M. A. Rodnaia rech' kak iuridicheskaia problema [Native language as a legal problem]. Otechestvennye zapiski – Otechestvennye Zapiski, no. 2 (2003): 497 – 501.
6. Levontina I. Bukva i zakon. Sudebnaia lingvisticheskaia ekspertiza [The Letter and the law. Forensic linguistic expertise]. Otechestvennye zapiski – Otechestvennye Zapiski, no. 2(23) (2005). Available at: http://www.stranaoz.ru/2005/2/bukva-i- zakon-sudebnaya-lingvisticheskaya-ekspertiza (accessed 01.02.2016).
7. Ozhegov S. I., Shvedova N. Iu. Slovar' russkogo iazyka [Dictionary of the Russian language]. Moscow: Az" Ltd, 1992, 960.
8. Shmelev A. D. Voprosy iazykoznaniia v Gosudarstvennoi dume [Linguistic Questions in the State Duma]. Otechestvennye zapiski – Otechestvennye Zapiski, no. 2 (2003): 490 – 496.
9. Shmelev A. D. «Delo o pomidorakh»: nauchnaia terminologiia ili bytovoi iazyk ["The case of the tomatoes": scientific terminology or everyday language]. Terminologiia i znanie – Terminology and knowledge. Moscow, 2010, 159 – 166.
10. Shmelev A. D. Lozhnaia trevoga i podlinnaia beda [A False alarm and true trouble]. Otechestvennye zapiski – Otechestvennye Zapiski, no. 2(23) (2005): 18 – 35.
11. Shmelev A. D. The tomato case reopened. Available at: http://www.spsl.nsc.ru/FullText/konfe/SlovoJazyk2010.pdf S. 272-281. (accessed01.02.2016).
12. Wierzbicka A. English: meaning and culture. New York: Oxford University Press, 2006, 352.
Review
For citations:
Shmelev A.D. COMMON SENSE AND LINGUISTIC EXAMINATION IN DIFFERENT LEGAL SYSTEMS. The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2016;(3):214-219. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2016-3-214-219
Views:
773
Email this article 