СУДЕБНЫЙ ДИСКУРС: ГЕНЕЗИС И ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЕ ПОНЯТИЯ

Abstract

The article is devoted to the problem of studying verbal conflict through the prism of judicial discourse. Consideration of this problem becomes especially important in the framework of verbal conflict studies. It examines the consolidation of the studied terminology in historical retrospect, singles out and describes the main approaches used by researchers to define the content of the notion «judicial discourse». Special attention is paid to the establishment of differences in the interpretation of the term «discourse», its functioning in linguistic and legal literature by domestic and foreign researchers. The prerequisites for the emergence of the notion in question are revealed, and the author's definition of the terms «judicial discourse» and «verbal conflict» is proposed. The spheres of usage of the notion in question (linguistic, publicist and social action theory), the basic interpretations of the notion of discourse taking into account its nature of interdisciplinary from the perspective of various sciences particularly philosophy, jurisprudence, legal linguistics, sociolinguistics, pragmalinguistics and linguophylosophy are established. Emphasis is placed on the need to address a verbal conflict, bearing in mind its pragmatic nature within the social-role characteristics of judicial discourse. Given that the clarification of contradictions between the parties is carried out in the course of verbal judicial interaction, it is particularly important to take into account the verbal behavior in the communication phase of the verbal conflict. Representing a state of confrontation between two sides, verbal conflict is considered by the authors as a kind of bilateral process of exchange of verbal acts, within the framework of which illocution of communicators is realized. Judicial discourse is defined by the authors as a linguistic professional activity, which has characteristics: sphere of functioning — a branch of law (legal discourse can be observed, where legal issues are dealt with and regulated); the subject matter and main motive of the judicial discourse — the notion of the law, as well as compliance with the law of the precedent under consideration; communication focus of judicial discourse — adjustment of social relations; the general cognitive identity of judicial discourse is the prevalence of facts over values.