Linguistic aspects of UK written judicial discourse: formal and substantive approach justification

The aim of the work is to present a comprehensive approach to the study of linguistic features of the UK written judicial discourse, describe its features in terms of professional communication and social practice. We give a consistent analysis of the major factors which scaffold judicial discourse as a whole – the formal structure of the legal discourse and the formal content (textual sources) of judicial discourse. We believe the legal sources (texts of previous decisions and texts of legislative acts) contribute to the multi-faceted nature of the judicial legal discourse in which we can observe various processes: legal interpretation, recontextualization of ordinary facts in the professional legal field, statutory treatment and nominalization of facts and deeds etc. These and other characteristics created the dynamic nature of judicial discourse which is commonly seen as a static relic. Proper analysis and understanding of the formal structure of the legal discourse and its formal content (textual sources) bears major importance when addressing the analysis of linguistic features of written judicial discourse. Based on the analysis, the main characteristics of the written judicial discourse of Anglo-Saxon system are identified and the framework for further study of its linguistic features is determined. From our point of view, the study of the phenomenon of professional discourse is interdisciplinary in nature, in particular, the study of written judicial discourse is based on the positions of sociologists, linguists, philosophers and legal scholars. We use description and synthesis methods, as well as comparative and contextual methods. The theoretical significance of the study lies in the development of the comprehensive approach to the linguistic analysis of professional discourses as a means of actualizing a certain social practice.

1. Bhatia V. Worlds of written discourse. A genre based view. New York, Continuum, 2004.

2. Burdye P. Sotsial’noye prostranstvo: polya i praktiki [Social Space: Fields and Practices]. Moscow, Institute of Experimental Sociology Publ., St. Petersburg, Alethea Publ., 2005. (In Russian).

3. Solan L. (ed.). Speaking of Language and Law. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2015.

4. Freeman M. (ed.). Language and Law. Vol. 15. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2013.

5. Volodina M.N. Kognitivno-informatsionnaya priroda termina [Cognitive and Informational Nature of the Term]. Moscow, Moscow State University Publ., 2000. (In Russian).

6. Bourdieu P. Language and symbolic power. Cambrigde, Harvard University Press, 1994.

7. Kubryakova E.S. Nominativnyy aspekt rechevoy deyatel’nosti [Nominative Aspect of Speech Activity]. Moscow, Editorial URSS, 2012. (In Russian).

8. Bakhtin M.M. Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva [Aesthetics of Verbal Creativity]. Moscow, Iskusstvo Publ., 1986. (In Russian).

9. Berkenkotter C., Huckin T.N. Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition/culture/power. Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1995.

10. Paducheva E.V. Vyskazyvaniye i ego sootnesennost’ s deystvitel’nost’yu [The Statement and its Relation to Reality]. Moscow, LKI Publ., 2010. (In Russian).

11. Mcleod I. Legal Method. 7th еd. Basingstoke, Palgrave McMillan, 2009.