The Types Of Intertextual Connections In The Judicial Discourse

Abstract

The article studies the correlation of such concepts as discourse, institutional discourse, legal discourse, and judicial discourse. The judicial discourse is addressed as a specific type of institutional discourse that is involved in a legal trial. Its subjects are different legal agencies of a particular state with different sets of competencies and volumes of responsibility. The types of judicial communication traditionally distinguished in science (the discourse of criminal, civil, administrative, and arbitration proceedings) are characterized by the uniformity of basic principles of creation. The research analyzes the categories that ensure the integrity of the judicial discourse, in particular coherence and intertextuality. The types of intertextual connections inherent in the judicial discourse are studied based on the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in the case of Kononov vs. Latvia. The article analyses such intertextual connections as hypertextuality, architextuality, metatextuality, and intertextuality. The research determines the general properties of intertextual inclusions such as the reference to a textual source, the consideration of an addressee competence in a case, vertical and horizontal intertext. The study attempts to classify the cases of intertextuality in the form of quotations used in a judgment: quotations of the provisions of the international legal acts, quotations of the provisions of domestic laws, references to legal trials (case-law) depending on the place of a donor document in the hierarchy of legal acts.