МОВНІ ЗАСОБИ ПРАВОВОЇ АРГУМЕНТАЦІЇ: ЗАГАЛЬНА ХАРАКТЕРИСТИКА

Abstract

The article is dedicated to a general overview of language tools of legal argumentation. It is concluded that legal arguing should be presented according to the scheme «from standpoint to argument», designated for better identification of legal argumentation. Nevertheless, decision writing guidelines for judges recommend to present judicial argumentation according to the scheme «from argument to standpoint». This scheme is embodied in the argumentation of judicial decisions by the majority of Ukrainian judges. However, the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court introduces the first approach, presenting its legal argumentation from the standpoint to the argument in certain of its resolutions. Lexical and syntactic means are considered as the tools of legal arguing. The author points out that language tools of legal argumentation introduce the elements of the argumentation – the arguments and the standpoint as well as connect the separate argumentations in a multiple one. Simultaneously, lexical and syntactic means can serve as language indicators of argumentative moves in legal argumentation as far as they introduce the standpoint or the arguments. The author analyses language indicators of argumentation in legal reasoning in Ukrainian legal system. The conjunctions «and», «but», «therefore», «because» and their semantic equivalents serve different purposes and may indicate different elements of argumentative constructions. The conjunction «and» often serves to combine the premises of the argument. The conjunction «but» and similar can be used both for the introduction of counter-argumentative constructions and for the introduction of parts of the counter-argument. The conjunction «because» or its semantic equivalents is indicator of causal relation in the broader sense. The conjunction «therefore» and similar often serve to explain or continue the idea. Language indicators of legal argumentation in law-making, official legal interpretation and legal application are considered. Lexical and syntactic means of legal argumentation are not always used correctly. Therefore, they can hardly indicate the argumentative moves correctly. Long sentences of arguments create additional opportunities for «hanging» additional senses on these premises. This may lead to weaker support for the conclusion of the argumentation. Consequently, the premises of the argument may need further justification.