Abstract:
This article is devoted to the study of legal discourse, taking into account the latest achievements of the current paradigm of modern interdisciplinary research, i.e. discourse complexology. Emergence of this theoretical paradigm was facilitated by the research of languages from the standpoint of their complexity and the development of methods for quantifying the complexity of texts. Based on the analysis of approaches to the study of language complexity and text complexity, the author suggests a possible adaptation of methodological techniques of discourse complexology to the analysis of not only inter-linguistic, but also intra-linguistic comparisons, for example, to the analysis of professional types of discourse. It is stated that, by analogy with the existence of different levels of complexity among different languages, different types of professional discourse can also be characterized by different degrees of complexity. The scientific novelty of the research lies in initiating the analysis of legal discourse from the standpoint of discourse complexology. Considering the complex nature of communication within legal discourse, the author applies a research concept that describes three models of interaction within a certain type of discourse: “language–communicant”, “language–language”, “language–discourse”. Based on the analysis of the research material, as well as taking into account the theoretical developments of discourse complexology, the author develops a preliminary classification of the parameters of legal discourse complexity, which includes phonetic, morphological, syntactic and lexical and semantic parameters. It is concluded that further study of legal discourse and other professional types of discourse, taking into account the latest achievements of discourse complexology, will contribute to the development of a typology of professional types of discourse from the standpoint of their complexity, as well as the practical application of the results obtained in various linguistic and pragmatic conditions.
Keywords: discourse complexology, legal discourse, text complexity, discourse complexity, complexity parameters, complexity predictors.
For citation:
Litvishko O.M. The Research of Legal Discourse Based on Discourse Complexology.
Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2023, no 3, pp. 76–90. https://doi.org/10.29025/2079-6021-2023-3-76-90 (In Russ.).
Bionote:
Olga M. Litvishko
Pyatigorsk State University;
9 Kalinin Ave., Pyatigorsk, Russian Federation, 357532;
ORCID ID: 0000-0001-8430-8501; Web of Science Researcher ID:
ABC-9290-2020; Scopus Author ID: 57224895519;
e-mail: olitvishko@yandex.ru
References:
1. Trufanova ЕО. Information oversaturation: key problems. Philosophical Problems of IT and Cyberspace. 2019; 1(16): 4-21. https://doi.org/10.17726/philIT.2019.1.16.1. (In Russ.).
2. The brain is under siege. What to do with information overload? Nauka TASS. March 22, 2022. Available at: https://nauka.tass.ru/nauka/14141231?ysclid=ll8d7huwd5555367409. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Russ.).
3. Solovyev VD, Solnyshkina MI, McNamara DS. Computational linguistics and discourse complexology: paradigms and research methods. Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2022; 26(2): 275-316. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30161. (In Eng.).
4. Solnyshkina MI, Kiselnikov AS. The indices of examination texts complexity. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2015; 1(25): 99-107. http://dx.doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2015.1.11. (In Russ.).
5. Martynova EV, Solnyshkina MI, Merzlyakova AF, Gizatulina DY. Lexical parameters of the academic text (based on the texts of the academic corpus of the Russian language). Philology and Culture. 2020; 3(61): 72-80. https://doi.org/10.26907/2074-0239-2020-61-3-72-80. (In Russ.).
6. Mayer RV. Didactic complexity of academic texts and its evaluation. Glazov: GGPI; 2020. Available at: http://maier-rv.glazov.net/Mayer_monograph2020.pdf. Accessed July 25, 2023. (In Russ.).
7. Kazachkova MB, Galimova KN. Comparative Analysis of Text Complexity in English Textbooks. Professional Discourse & Communication. 2022; 4(4): 22-32. https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2022-4-4-22-32. (In Russ.)
8. Joseph JE. Why does language complexity resist measurement? Frontiers in Communication. 2021; 6: 624855. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2021.624855. (In Eng.).
9. Hiltunen R. The grammar and structure of legal texts. The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. General eds. of Solan LM, Tiersma PM. Oxford University Press; 2012: 39-51. https://doi.or//10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0004. (In Eng.).
10. Tiersma P. The plain English movement. Available at: http://www.languageandlaw.org/PLAINENGLISH.HTM. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Eng.).
11. Williams Ch. Legal English and plain language: an update. ESP Across Cultures. 2011; 8: 139-151. Available at: https://edipuglia.it/wp-content/uploads/ESP%202011/Williams.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Eng.).
12. Karasik VI. Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse. Volgograd: Peremena; 2002: 477. Available at: http://library.lgaki.info:404/2019/Карасик_Языковой.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Russ.).
13. Kulyavina AP. Text – discourse correlation as a methodological proposition. Izvestia of Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2015; 1(5): 1157-1161. Available at: http://www.ssc.smr.ru/media/journals/izvestia/2015/2015_1_1157_1161.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Russ.).
14. Vorontsova YA, Galieva DA, Khoroshko EY. Lexico-semantic organization of legal discourse. Philology. Theory and Practice. 2022; 12(15): 3830-3836. https://doi.org/10.30853/phil20220640. (In Russ.).
15. Chernyshev AV. Legal discourse and its main characteristics. Slovo.ru: Baltic Accent. 2016; 2(7): 22-28. Available at: https://journals.kantiana.ru/slovo/3506/. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Russ.).
16. Malinovskaya TN, Menschikova GA. The peculiarities of the English-language legal discourse in the cognitive-pragmatic aspect (based on the films “Déjà vu”, “The Judge”). Philology and Man. 2020; 2: 135-140. https://doi.org/10.14258/filichel(2020)2-11. (In Russ.).
17. Avakova ML, Mosesova ME. Communicative features of the English-language judicial discourse. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2022; 1: 61-71. https://doi.org/10.29025/2079-6021-2022-1-61-71. (In Russ.).
18. Berezovskaya AV. Cognitive features of synonymy in German-language legal text at different stages of development of legal terminology in the system of law. Tomsk State University Journal. 2022; 477: 5-20. https://doi.org/10.17223/15617793/477/1. (In Russ.).
19. Vlasenko SV. Legal texts in the intra- and intertextual perspective. Herald of Tver State University. Philology. 2013; 5(24): 30-37. Available at: http://eprints.tversu.ru/3496/1/Вестник_ТвГУ._Серия_Филология._2013.__24._Выпуск_5._С._30-37.__.pdf. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Russ.).
20. Balandina ID, Moskvitina TN, Selyutin AA. Cognitive approach to the description of judicial discourse (as exemplified in English). Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. Philology Sciences. 2020; 1(435): 21-28. https://doi.org/10.24411/1994-2796-2020-10103. (In Russ.).
21. Solnyshkina MI, McNamara D, Zamaletdinov RR. Natural language processing and discourse complexity studies. Russian Journal of Linguistics. 2022; 2(26): 317-341. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30171. (In Russ.).
22. Berdichevsky A. Language сomplexity. Topics in the Study og Language. 2012; 5: 101-124. Available at: https://vja.ruslang.ru/ru/archive/2012-5/101-124. Accessed August 1, 2023. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/38/7. (In Russ.).
23. Solnyshkina MI, Kiselnikov AS. Text complexity: study phases in Russian linguistics. Tomsk State University Journal of Philology. 2015; 6(38): 86-99. https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/38/7. (In Russ.).
24. Kortmann B, Szmrecsanyi B. Linguistic complexity: second language acquisition, indigenization, contact. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter; 2012: 270. Available at: https://books.google.ru/books?id=HcbmBQAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Eng.).
25. Litvishko OM, Manukyan MR, Doctorevitch VA, Miletova EV, Grankina RM. Functional and stylistic features of pronomial adverbs in the English-language legal discourse. Modern Global Economic System: Evolutional Development vs. Revolutionary Leap: Institute of Scientific Communications Conference. Cham: Springer Nature, 2021; 198: 378-385. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-69415-9_43. (In Eng.).
26. Litvishko ОM, Bolshakova МG. Legal concept sphere in the context of legal discourse popularization. Theory of Language and Cross-Cultural Communication. 2022; 4(47): 200-210. Available at: https://api-mag.kursksu.ru/api/v1/get_pdf/4658/. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Russ.).
27. Ayvazyan NB, Garamyan AV, Litvishko OM. Terminological gaps in the context of digitalization of English-language terminological system of criminal law. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2022;2:43-53. https://doi.org/10.29025/2079-6021-2022-2-43-53. (In Russ.).
28. Poteryakhina IN. The integrity of corporate website texts as an indicator of linguo-ecological compatibility. Cognitive Language Studies. 2016; 25: 853-858. https://doi.org/10.20916/2071-9639-2016-25-853-858. (In Russ.).
29. Esina YY, Semenova EV. Lexical units functioning in juridical text structure (by the material of the English language). Philology. Theory and Practice. 2019; 6(12): 142-145. https://doi.org/10.30853.filnauki.2019.6.29. (In Russ.).
30. Kamensky MV. GATE as a linguistic platform for automated analysis of cognitive-functional properties of discourse markers. Newsletter of North-Caucasus Federal University. 2014;(3):234-237. Available at: https://vestnikskfu.elpub.ru/jour/article/view/1604/1596. Accessed August 1, 2023. (In Russ.).
31. Mosesova ME, Shiryaeva TA. Verbalization of performative units in English texts of international conventions: morphological aspect. Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics. 2020; 5(19): 110-121. https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2020.5.10. (In Russ.).
32. Mosesova ME. Text of the international convention as a space of verbalized performativity (by the material of the English language). PNRPU Linguistics and Pedagogy Bulletin. 2019; 3: 75-83. https://doi.org/10.15593/2224-9389/2019.3.8. (In Russ.).
33. Litvishko OM, Shiryaeva TA, Tikhonova EV, Kosycheva MA. Professional discourse: the verbal and visual semiosis interplay. Research Result. Theoretical and Applied Linguistics. 2022; 1(8): 19-40. https://doi.org/10.18413/2313-8912-2022-8-1-0-2. (In Eng.).
34. Zarezina SN, Moiseenko AA. Expressive intonation as a tool of influencing the addressee in advocacy discourse. Russian Journal of Humanities. 2018; 4-3(10): 41-53. https://doi.org/10.12731/2077-1770-2018-4-3-41-53. (In Russ.).