Rituality as a typological characteristic of legal discourse: semiotic dimension
https://doi.org/10.18384/2949-5075-2025-1-51-66
Abstract
Aim. To analyse rituality as a typological feature of legal discourse, to reveal its relationship with institutionality and performativity; to establish the pragmacognitive functionality of verbal, non-verbal and paraverbal components regulated by the parameters of legal discourse and to evaluate their performative effect.
Methodology. The methods of discursive, contextual, interpretive, cognitive and structural-semantic analysis are used, which ensure the systematic study of the semiotic characteristics of legal discourse. The integral methodological approach, based on semiotics, cognitive science and discourse theory, ensures the correctness of the study of verbal, non-verbal, iconic and artifactual components of legal discourse, providing rituality as its typological characteristic.
Results. The concept of rituality as a key feature of legal discourse in its interconnection with other discursive features is formulated; discourse components that ensure the rituality of legal discourse are established, as well as their role in ensuring the efficiency of communication in the professional legal environment.
Research implications. The study analyses the rituality of legal discourse from the point of view of semiotics – a promising direction of discourse linguistics, which allows expanding the understanding of the speech act by taking into account the influence of verbal and non-verbal sign codes, as well as other extra-linguistic factors on the communication process. From the point of view of pragmacognitive science, the functional effect of such discourse components as Latin phrases and clichéd formulas, symbolic objects and artifacts used during court hearings, and iconic symbols evaluated by the court as evidence has been established.
About the Authors
M. V. Larionova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Marina V. Larionova – Dr. Sci. (Philology), Prof., Department of Spanish Language
Moscow
A. D. Fokina
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Aleksandra D. Fokina – Lecturer, Department of Spanish Language
Moscow
References
1. Sheigal, E. I. (2004). Semiotics of political discourse. Moscow: Gnozis publ. (in Russ.).
2. Lotman, Yu. M. (1996). Inside the Thinking Worlds. Man – Text – Semiosphere – History. Moscow: Yazyki russkoy kultury publ. (in Russ.).
3. Khramtsova, N. G. (2010). Theory of legal discourse: basic ideas, problems, patterns. Kurgan: Kurgan State University publ. (in Russ.).
4. Karasik, V. I. (2000). The structure of institutional discourse. In: Problems of speech communication. Saratov: Saratov University publ., pp. 25–33 (in Russ.).
5. Izvekova, M. G. (2006). Pragmalinguistic characteristics of ritual discourse [dissertation]. Volgograd (in Russ.).
6. Karasik, V. I. (2002). Ritual discourse. In: Speech Genres, 3, 157–171 (in Russ.).
7. Khramtsova, N. G. (2012). Discourse and legal analysis: from theory to practical application. Kurgan: Kurgan State University publ. (in Russ.).
8. Sakharova, Ye. Ye. (2019). Rituality as a sign of performative discourse. In: Bulletin of Kurgan State University, 2019, 1 (52), 63–65 (in Russ.).
9. Ezhova, E. N. (2022). Artifacts of culture as a source of intertextuality in creolized advertising discourse. In: Media linguistics. Language in the coordinates of mass media: Proceedings of the VI international scientific conference (St. Petersburg, June 30 – July 2, 2022). St. Petersburg: Mediapapir publ., pp. 469–473 (in Russ.).
10. Nikolaev, A. I. (2011). Philosophical analysis of the role of the artifact in the culture. In: Pushkin Leningrad State University Journal, 3, 187–196 (in Russ.).
11. Dubrovskaya, T. V. (2010). Judicial discourse: speech behavior of a judge (based on the Russian and English languages). Moscow: Academy of MNEPU publ. (in Russ.)
12. Zhukova, S. Yu. (2019). Discourse formulae kak hochesh and kak znaesh in the diachronic aspect. In: Acta Linguistica Petropolitana. Transactions of the Institute for Linguistic Studies, 3 (15), 295–319. DOI: 10.30842/alp2306573715312 (in Russ.).
13. Bogomazova, V. V. (2014). Rituality as a way of actualizing the category of otherness within the judicial discourse. In: Science Journal of Volgograd State University. Linguistics, 3 (22), 100–104. DOI: 10.15688/jvolsu2.2014.3.12 (in Russ.).
14. Larionova, M. V. (2022). Semio-linguistics of Spanish political discourse in the space of Internet communication [dissertation]. Moscow (in Russ.).
15. Larionova, M. V. & Demkina, A. V. (2023). Semiotics of Emoticons and Emoji in the Discoursive Space of Spanish Political Internet Communication. In: RUDN Journal of Language Studies, Semiotics and Semantics, 14 (4), 1178–1200. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2299-2023-14-4-1178-1200 (in Russ.).
16. Budylin, S. L. (2023). ‘Thumbs up’ – acceptance or insult? Emoji, semiotics and law. In: Bulletin of Economic Justice of the Russian Federation, 8, 68–97. DOI: 10.37239/2500-2643-2023-18-8-68-97 (in Russ.).
17. Galyashina, E. I (2022). The semiotics of emoticons and animated pictures in the aspect of forensic linguistic expertise. In: Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL), 2 (90), 41–48. DOI: 10.17803/2311-5998.2022.90.2.041-048 (in Russ.).
Review
Views:
64
Email this article 
