Semantic Production as a Way of Forming Legal Concepts (Based on Russian Laws)
https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-2-489-498
Abstract
The research featured legal terms formed according to the semantic method, e.g. semantic generalization, expansion / narrowing of meaning, institutional specification, metonymic or metaphorical transfer, their correlation, etc. The author highlighted the interconnection of semantic term formation and polysemy. The article contains a list of factors that cause ambiguity of legal concepts: (a) the author of the legislative text and the recipient; (b) the open nature of the legal terminological system, as well as the reproduction of multivalued lexemes in the laws and their reinterpretation; (c) the development of various variants of legislative definitions, etc. The paper focuses on semantic generalization and institutional specification of legal concepts. The author describes the interconnection of denotative-predicative and logical-conceptual approaches, as well as the mechanism of generalization and abstraction of lexical meaning. The differences of metonymic and metaphorical transfers were interpreted in terms of contrasting functions, models of education, and connotation potential. The research revealed a high productivity of metonymic transfer and legal concepts based on a combination of different types of semantic terminology. The study featured the texts of Russian Federal and regional laws. The author applied various approaches, e.g. discursive, contextual, intertextual, component, denotative-predicative, logical-conceptual, interpretative, comparative, etc. The results, conclusions, and illustrative material presented in this work may be of some interest to scientists and practitioners who study legal terminology, legal texts, and issues of the Russian language as a state language.
About the Author
M. V. Batyushkina
Legislative Assembly of the Omsk Region
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina V. Batyushkina
Omsk
References
1. Prokhorova V. N. Russian terminology. Moscow: Filol. fak. MGU, 1996, 125. (In Russ.)
2. Apresian Iu. D. Selected Works. Vol. II. Integral description of the language and systemic lexicography. Moscow: Shk. "Iazyki rus. kultury", 1995, 156–177. (In Russ.)
3. Aroutiounova N. D. Functional types of linguistic metaphor. Izvestiia AN SSSR. Seriia literatury i iazyka, 1978, 37(4): 333–343. (In Russ.)
4. Aroutiounova N. D. Language and the world of man. Moscow: Iaz. rus. kultury, 1998, 895. (In Russ.)
5. Balashova L. V. Dynamic conception of metaphor: from Aristotle to modern cognitive linguistics. Vestn. Om. un-ta, 2015, (2): 169–177. (In Russ.)
6. Baranov V. M., Vlasenko N. A. Metaphors in law: methodological hazards and prospects. Legal science and practice: Bulletin of the Nizhny Novgorod Academy of the Ministry of internal Affairs of Russia, 2019, (1): 11–19. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.24411/2078-5356-2019-10101
7. Kustova G. I. Semantic shifts in abstract nouns. Novosibirsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 2016, (2): 73–85. (In Russ.) DOI: 10.15293/2226-3365.1602.06
8. Lakoff G. Women, fire, and dangerous things: what categories reveal about the mind, tr. Shatunskii I. B. Moscow: Iaz. slavian. kultury, 2004, 792. (In Russ.)
9. Lakoff G., Johnson M. Metaphors we live by, ed. Baranov A. N., tr. Baranov A. N., Morozova A. V. Moscow: URSS, 2004, 252. (In Russ.)
10. Moskvin V. P. On the classification of semantic transfers. Izvestiia RAN. Seriia literatury i iazyka, 2016, 75(3): 5–18. (In Russ.)
11. Skliarevskaia G. N. Metaphor in the language system. St. Petersburg: Nauka. S.-Peterb. izd. firma, 1993, 150. (In Russ.)
12. Teliia V. N. Foreword. Metaphor in language and text, ed. Teliia V. N. Moscow: Nauka, 1988, 3–10. (In Russ.)
13. Shmelev D. N. Problems of semantic analysis of vocabulary, 2nd ed. Moscow: KomKniga; URSS, 2006, 278. (In Russ.)
14. Lotman Iu. M. Inside the thinking worlds. St. Petersburg: Azbuka, 2016, 444. (In Russ.)
15. Beldiian V. M., Batiushkina M. V. Fundamentals of the theory of language and speech. Omsk: OmGPU, 2016, 425. (In Russ.)
16. Golev N. D., Vorobyova M. E. Interpretative functioning of the legal language in everyday consciousness. Kemerovo: KemGU, 2017, 117. (In Russ.)
17. Leskina E. I. Linguistic aspects in civil procedure law: problem setting. Arbitrazhnyi i grazhdanskii protsess, 2017, (8): 3–6. (In Russ.)
18. The language of law, ed. Pigolkin A. S. Moscow: Iurid. lit., 1990, 189. (In Russ.)
19. Sokolova E. V. The concept of "military facility" in Russian law: issues of terminological certainty. Pravo v Vooruzhennykh Silakh, 2017, (10): 93–103. (In Russ.)
20. Solganik G. Ia. Stylistics of the Russian language. Moscow: Flinta; Nauka, 2016, 244. (In Russ.)
21. Belyaevskaya E. G. The semantics of wide-valued nouns from a cognitive point of view. Vestnik Moskovskogo gosudarstvennogo lingvisticheskogo universiteta, 2007, (532): 4–14. (In Russ.)
22. Zhinkin N. I. Language – Speech – Creativity. Moscow: Labirint, 1998. 364. (In Russ.)
23. Novikov A. I. Semantics of the text and its formalization. Moscow: Nauka, 1983, 215. (In Russ.)
24. Ginzburg E. L. Metonymy and metaphor as semantic constructions of a word and text. Theses of the VI All-Union Symposium on Psycholinguistics and Theory of Communication, Moscow, April 17–20, 1978. Moscow, 1978, 46–49. (In Russ.)
25. Shkilev R. E. Metonymic transfer in stable terminological phrases (based on English and Russian legal terminology). Cand. Philol. Sci. Dis. Abstr. Kazan, 2005, 18. (In Russ.)
Review
For citations:
Batyushkina M.V. Semantic Production as a Way of Forming Legal Concepts (Based on Russian Laws). The Bulletin of Kemerovo State University. 2020;22(2):489-498. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21603/2078-8975-2020-22-2-489-498
Views:
515
Email this article 