This study arises out of the intention to examine the features of expert-lay interaction in a jury trial. The paper studies closing arguments constructed by legal experts as possible worlds which ...would be attractive for jurors. Theory of possible worlds is employed to present discourse practices as versions of the real world which may overlap, supplement or contradict one another. Legal experts construe and present possible worlds to jury members who deliver verdicts on the case, i.e. possess decisional power. Efficient involvement of jurors into the possible world constructed by the legal expert signals formation of discourse of concord. In order to make their own possible world more credible than the world of the procedural opponents, legal experts employ different interaction tools: description of legal concepts, empathy, appeals to social values, imperative and question utterances, personalization.
The paper aims at expanding the theoretical basis of discourse analysis by involving the theory of fields by P. Bourdieu who says that there is a social genesis of perception and thinking patterns ...and actions (habitus), on the one hand, and social structures and fields, on the other one. The speaking subject is influenced by objective relations of forces typical for a certain field – a social area with specific social relations, means and purposes. All agents of the legal field are able to use polysemy of legal formulas, tend to use the elasticity of the law, existing ambiguity and gaps in their own interests. Using expert knowledge as a manipulative resource, agents of the legal field enforce their own views on lay people. Social differences between agents of the legal field (legal experts) and their clients (lay people) are due to their struggle for monopoly which means increase in distance between formally specified legal rules and na−ve intuitive concepts of legal phenomena. Individuals who are prone to behavior complying with a certain matrix of social actions are a typical feature of legal discourse practices. When interacting with lay people, experts, whose actions comply with specific institutional status, control their discursive behavior.
Verbalization of the Writer in Academic Prose Krapivkina, Olga A.
Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences,
08/2015, Letnik:
8, Številka:
8
Journal Article
The article deals with the modal verb shall in English legal discourse. The analysis of theoretical and factual data shows that shall performs a number of semantic functions in legal texts that ...violate the main drafting requirements – clarity, precision, lack of ambiguity of legal utterances. Lexical units and grammatical constructions with ambiguous meanings obscure legal provisions for lay persons, so their use goes against one of the main principles of the rule of law – equitable access to legal information for all citizens, not only for legal experts. Furthermore, the ambiguity of linguistic units involves considerable difficulties for legal translators as they need to have deep legal knowledge in order to interpret unclear intentions of legislators. The article examines three approaches developed in law-making practice to the use of shall in legal documents: restricting shall to one sense, avoidance of shall, and keeping the verb with all its existing meanings. The analysis showed that in legal discourse shall may be replaced by other modal verbs – may, must, should, be to with less ambiguous meanings.
PDF
