Abstract:
In our research we perform a comparative analysis of the category of threat in the scientific and naïve pictures of the world. In the former case we treat threat as an object of research in modern linguistic text evaluation, in the latter – as a concept reflected in the naïve language consciousness. The analysis is based on the characteristics of the parametric forensic linguistic model of threat as defined in article 186 of the Criminal Code of the Republic of Belarus, namely offences committed verbally, and on the survey data collected from individuals residing in Vitebsk Region (100 respondents). The methodological basis of our study comprises methods of parameterization, a survey, the comparative method as well as statistical tools for preparing and processing the resultant survey information. As a result, the research provides a detailed description of identification parameters of threat as they are defined by the Belarusian national legislation: 1) type of offensive action; 2) subjectivity of action; 3) targetness; 4) temporal markedness. The attempt to construct a parametric model of threat as a phenomenon of everyday language consciousness is based on the results gathered from the survey conducted on residents of Vitebsk Region (60 female respondents: 40 – urban residents, 20 – rural residents; 40 – male respondents: 30 – urban residents, 10 – rural residents). The comparative analysis shows that there is a noticeable gap between the scientific and naïve perceptions of threat. Unlike the forensic linguistic model of threat, its perception by Belarusian individuals does not have identifiable features for markedness and is recognized at the intuitive level; the parameter that the naïve picture of the world regards as important is a harmful action. It also appears worthwhile to note that though there are no gender or age peculiarities in everyday perception of threat as an illegal action, it features distinct local specificity.
Keywords: legal linguistics, threat, forensic linguistic expertology, naïve picture of the world, scientific picture of the world, language consciousness, parametric modeling
For citation: Lavitski A.A. The Notion of Threat in Linguistic and Legal Expert Understanding and in Belarusians’ Naïve Linguistic Picture of the World. Current Issues in Philology and Pedagogical Linguistics. 2020, no 4, pp. 52–61 (In Russ.)
Bionote:
Anton A. Lavitski
Vitebsk Branch of the Education Establishment of the Trade Union of Belarus
Federation «International University MITSO»
(The Republic of Belarus, Vitebsk)
ORCID ID: 0000-0002-9102-4440;
e-mail: anton_lavitski@mail.ru
References:
1. Maslova VA. Modern linguistics is the science of man, his consciousness, language and culture. Humanitarian vector, 2018;13,1:6–11. (In Russ.).
2. Sеpir E. Selected Works on Linguistics and Cultural Studies. Moscow, 1993. (In Russ.).
3. Alexandrov AS. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics. N. Novgorod, 2003. (In Russ.).
4. Golev ND. Legal regulation of speech conflicts and legal linguistic expertise of conflictogenic texts. Legal reform in the Russian Federation: general theoretical and historical aspects. Barnaul, 2002:110–123. (In Russ.).
5. A Large Legal Dictionary. Ed. by I. Sukharev. Moscow: INFRA-M; 2007. (In Russ.).
6. Ushakov D. Big Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language. Modern edition. Moscow, 2014. (In Russ.).
7. Osadchij MA. Russian Language in the Lawsuit. Moscow, 2020. (In Russ.).
8. Searle J.R. What is a Speech Act. New in Foreign Linguistics, 1986;17:151–169. (In Russ.).
9. Brinev KI. Theoretical Linguistics and Forensic Linguistic Examination: Dokt. Dis. Kemerovo; 2010:363. (In Russ.). Available at: https://www.academia.edu/42935047/ТЕОРЕТИЧЕСКАЯ ЛИНГВИСТИКА_И_СУДЕБНАЯ_ЛИНГВИСТИЧЕСКАЯ_ЭКСПЕРТИЗА?auto=download. Accessed Aug. 25, 2020. (In Russ.).
10. Maslova V. Linguistic-Culture: a Russian Picture of the World. Columbia, 2018. (In Eng.).
11. Kasevich VB. Buddhism. Picture of the World. Language. St. Petersburg, 1996. (In Russ.).
12. Weisgerber JL. Mother Language and the Formation of the Spirit. Moscow, 2009. (In Russ.).
13. Ufimtseva NV., Balyasnikova OV. Language Picture of the World and Associative Lexicography. Science Journal of VolSU. Linguistics, 2019;18,11:6–22. (In Russ.).
14. Sharifian F. Cultural Linguistics and Linguistic Relativity. Language Sciences, 2017;59:83–92. (In Eng.).
15. Kolshansky GV. An Objective Picture of the World in Knowledge and Language. Moscow, 1990. (In Eng.).
16. Apresyan YuD. Selected Works. Vol. II: Integral Description of the Language and Systemic Lexicography. Moscow, 1995:629–650. (In Russ.).
17. Duskaeva LR. Speech Etiquette in Online Communities: Medialinguistics Anal. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 2020;24,1:56–79. (In Eng.).
18. Romanov АА., Novoselova ОV. Discursive Realization of threat in Pre-election Communication. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 2020;24,2:419–448. (In Russ.).
19. Epshtein OV. Indirect speech act of threat in political discourse (based on the material in English). Izvestia of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2009;11,4:1337–1343. (In Russ.).
20. Miller GS., Misonzhnikov BYa. Political change as unethical speech behavior. Humanitarian vector, 2018;13,1:121–129. (In Russ.).
21. Karaulov YuN. Russian language and linguistic personality. Moscow, 1987. (In Russ.).
22. Norman BJu. Syntactics, Cognition and Compositional Semantics. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 2019;23,3:714–730. (In Russ.).
23. Sible A., Godfroid А. Sampling Bias and the Problem of Generalizability in Applied Linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 2020;40:134–142. (In Eng.).
24. Kolesov VV., Kolesova DV., Kharitonov AA. Dictionary of Russian mentality: in 2 volumes. St. Petersburg; 2014;2. (In Russ.).
25. Ozhegov SI. Explanatory Dictionary of the Russian Language: Approx. 100,000 Words, Terms and Phraseological Expressions. Moscow, 2012. (In Russ.).