Legal discourse as a subject of study and teaching in the classroom in a foreign language specialty

The current state of the problem of studying and teaching foreign language legal discourse is presented. Various points of view on discourse as an interdisciplinary phenomenon are analyzed. Legal discourse is considered as a kind of institutional discourse. Communication of participants in legal discourse is carried out on the basis of a certain number of rules that govern their role and normative behavior. In their actions, there is coordination inherent in this form of communication and allowing the participants in legal discourse to be perceived as components of a single whole – a larger institutional system. A brief description of the functions of legal discourse is given – prescriptive, informative, argumental, declarative, regulatory, interpretive, cumulative, presentation, strategic and code. Such properties of legal discourse as performativity and intertextuality are discussed, and its components are described. The difference between legal texts, in which the discourse of law is implemented, from texts of other specialties is shown. They are created in the legal language as a type of language for special purposes and have intra- and external-text specificity. Legal texts, in spite of their genre variety, have a predominantly standard format. Such types of legal text as court decisions and regulations, powers of attorney and contracts, wills, etc., have a specific construction plan, are divided into parts in a certain way and are drawn up graphically. Discursive analysis is considered as the most acceptable method of studying and teaching a foreign language of law.

1. Palashevskaya I.V. Funktsii yuridicheskogo diskursa i deystviya ego uchastnikov [Functions of legal discourse and actions of its participants]. Izvestiya Samarskogo nauchnogo tsentra Rossiyskoy akademii nauk [Izvestia of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences], 2010, vol. 12, no. 5 (2), pp. 535-540. (In Russian).

2. Kosonogova O.V. Kharakteristiki yuridicheskogo diskursa: granitsy, soderzhaniye, parametry [Characteris-tics of legal discourse: boundaries, content, parameters]. Istoricheskaya i sotsial’no-obrazovatel’naya mysl’ [Historical and Social and Educational Thought], 2015, no. 7 (1), pp. 61-68. (In Russian).

3. Fedulova M.N. Pragma-semanticheskiye aspekty kontseptualizatsii leksicheskikh edinits v yuridicheskom diskurse: avtoref. dis. … kand. filol. nauk [Pragma-Semantic Aspects of Conceptualizing Lexical Units in Legal Discourse. Cand. philol. sci. diss. abstr.]. Moscow, 2010, 21 p. (In Russian).

4. Van Dijk T.A. Introduction: Discourse analysis as a new cross-discipline. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 1. Disciplines of Discourse. New York, Academic Press, 1985, pp. 1-10.

5. Fuko M. Arkheologiya znaniya [Archeology of Knowledge]. Kiev, Nika-Tsentr Publ., 1996, 208 p. (In Rus-sian).

6. Rusakova O.F., Rusakov V.M. PR-diskurs: teoretiko-metodologicheskiy analiz [PR Discourse: Theoretical and Methodological Analysis]. Yekaterinburg, Diskurs-Pi Publ., 2011, 333 p. (In Russian).

7. Mattila H.E.S. Comparative Legal Linguistics. Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006, 347 p.

8. Bogatyrev A.V. Funktsionirovaniye figur interteksta v sovremennom yuridicheskom diskurse: dis. … kand. filol. nauk [The Functioning of Intertext Figures in Contemporary Legal Discourse. Cand. philol. sci. diss. abstr.]. Volgograd, 2016, 168 p. (In Russian).

9. Tiersma P.M. What is language and law? And does anyone care? In: Olsen F., Lorz A., Stein D. (eds.). Law and Language: Theory and Society. Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf University Press, 2008, pp. 9-38.

10. Gibbons J. Language and the law. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 1999, vol. 19, pp. 156-173.

11. Mertz E. Language, law and social meanings: linguistic-anthropological contributions to the study of law. Law and Society Review, 1992, vol. 26 (2), pp. 413-445.

12. Goodrich P. The role of linguistics in legal analysis. The Modern Law Review, 1984, vol. 47, pp. 523-534.

13. Karasik V.I. O tipakh diskursa [On the types of discourse]. Yazykovaya lichnost’: institutsional’nyy i per-sonal’nyy diskurs [Language Personality: Institutional and Personal Discourse]. Volgograd, Peremena Publ., 2000, pp. 5-20. (In Russian).

14. Popova L.E. Yuridicheskiy diskurs kak ob”yekt interpretatsiy: semanticheskiy i pragmaticheskiy aspekt: dis. … kand. filol. nauk [Legal Discourse as an Object of Interpretations: Semantic and Pragmatic Aspects. Cand. philol. sci. diss. abstr.]. Krasnodar, 2005, 167 p. (In Russian).

15. Karaulov Y.N. Russkiy yazyk i yazykovaya lichnost’ [Russian Language and Linguistic Personality]. Mos-cow, Nauka Publ., 1987, 264 p. (In Russian).

16. Beylinson L.S. Diskursivnyye formuly professional’noy rechi [Discursive formulas of professional speech]. Izvestiya Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta – Ivzestia of the Volgograd State Pedagogical University, 2008, no. 5, pp. 42-46. (In Russian).

17. Lehrberger J. Sublanguage analysis. In: Grishman R., Kittredge R. (eds.). Analyzing Language in Restricted Domains: Sublanguage Description and Processing, Hillsdale, New Jersey, L. Erlbaum Publ., 1986, pp. 19-38.

18. Cao D. Translating Law. Clevedon, Multilingual Matters Publ., 2007, 208 p.

19. Tabrizi A.R.N., Gupta D., Saxena M. Discourse analysis in the ESL classroom. Beyond Words, 2014, vol. 2 (1), pp. 73-89.