The  Legal Language as a Semiotic System

Nicoleta Baghici

doi:10.62413/lc.2016(1).03

Authors

Nicoleta Baghici "Alecu Russo" Balti State University, Republic of Moldova https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6654-7397

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.62413/lc.2016(1).03

Keywords:

USA Constitution, Frame-Net, PaLinKa, frame, semantic frame, semantic role, semantic element, core, non-core, frame element

Abstract

The article focuses on the principles of developing an annotated corpus for processing documents of legal discourse. Studying the content of the concept in the speakers' mind should be made based on the totality of heterogeneous media, describing it in language. On the other hand, it is necessary to note that not necessarily that all conceptual information may become linguistic expression, some of it may be stored in memory in the form of other mental representations, of non-linguistic type - in the form of images, photos diagrams, etc. The concept of Constitution in American linguistic consciousness has a special meaning, it covers practically all spheres of American society. According to the language direction this article approaches in the main study, the concept of Constitution can be characterized, for example, as an axiological one, because it is linked indissolubly, from individual basic values of a society, together with concepts such as democracy, freedom, etc., that have left a mark in the history of state formation.

Cuvinte-cheie: constituţia Statelor Unite, Frame-Net, PaLinKa, frame, frame semantic, rol semantic, element semantic, nucleu, periferie, frame element

REZUMAT

În articol, prezentăm principiile de întocmire a unui corpus de adnotare a documentelor juridice care pun, în prim plan, diferite concepte. Cercetarea conţinutului unui concept poate fi făcută în baza mediumului heterogenetic, a limbajului. Totodată, nu tot conţinutul conceptului capătă exprimare glotică. O parte din acesta poate fi stocat în memorie şi întrebuinţat în alte reprezentări mentale, exteriorizate prin imagini, scheme, diagrame etc. În imaginarul glotic american, conceptul de ‘constituţie’ are o semnificaţie aparte, deoarece vine în contact cu toate sferele vieţii sociale. Conceptul dat este unul axiologic, în relaţie cu valorile sociale de bază, dar şi cu alte concepte ca ‘democraţie’, ‘libertate’ etc., care vorbesc despre faptul că statul ca formaţiune are o istorie.

LANGUAGE OF PUBLICATION

English

UDC: 811.111(73)'276.6:34

REFERENCES

Adam, J.-M. (2008). Lingvistica textuală. Introducere în analiza textuală a discursurilor. (C. Iftimia, Trad.). Institutul European.

Бабушкин, А. П. (2001). Концепты разных типов в лексике и фразеологии и методика их выявления (с. 52-57). В: Методологические проблемы когнитивной лингвистики / Babuškin A. P. (2001). Koncepty raznyh tipov v leksike i frazeologii i metodika ih vyâvleniâ (s. 52-57). V: Metodologičeskie problemy kognitivnoj lingvistiki.

Backer Collin, F., Fillmore, C., Lowe, J. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet Project. In: Proceedings of the COLING-ACL. Montreal.

Baghici, N. (2012). Conceptul de strategie şi tactică în discursul juridic. Studia Universitatis. Seria „Ştiinţe Umanistice”, 4(54), 124-127.

Болдырев, H. H., Панасенко, Ж. A. (2000). Когнитивные аспекты функциональной поликатегоризации английского глагола. В: Когнитивные аспекты языковой категоризации (с. 145-150) / Boldyrev N. N., Panasenko Ž. A. (2000). Kognitivnye aspekty funkcional’noj polikategorizacii anglijskogo glagola. V: Kognitivnye aspekty âzykovoj kategorizacii (s. 145-150).

(n. d.). Cognitive Linguistics: Basic Readings. Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 373-400. https://arkitecturadellenguaje.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/cognitive-linguistics-basics-readings-dirkgeeraerts.pdf.

Coşeriu, E. (2009). Omul şi limbajul său. Studii de filozofie a limbajului, teorie a limbii şi lingvistică generală, antologie. Editura Universităţii „Alexandru Ioan Cuza”.

Coseriu, E. (2004). Language Theory and General Linguistics. Five studies. Editura Enciclopedică.

(n. d.). Establish. An Encyclopedia Britannica Company. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/establish?show=0&t=1406728245.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (1975). An Alternative to Checklist Theories of Meaning. In: Cogen C., Thompson H., Thurgood G., Whistler K., Wright J. (Eds.) Proceedings of the First Annual Meeting o f the Berkeley Linguistics Society (pp. 123-131). Berkeley.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (1977). The Case for Case Reopened, Syntax and Semantics, Grammatical Relations (vol. 8(1)). Academic Press. Republished in Fillmore, Ch. J. (2003). Form and Meaning in Language (vol. I: Papers on Semantic Roles, pp. 175-199). CSLI Publications.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (2006). Frame Semantics. In The Linguistics Society of Korea, Linguistics in the Morning Calm (pp. 111-137). Hanshin Publishing Company.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (1985). Frames and the Semantics of Understanding. Quaderni di semantica, 6(2), 222-254.

Fillmore, Ch. J. Form and Meaning in Language. In Papers on Semantic Roles (vol. I, pp. 175-199). CSLI Publications.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (2006b). Frame Semantics. In: K. Brown (Ed.). Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics (Second edition, pp. 613-620). Elsevier.

Fillmore, Ch. J. (1976, October). Frame Semantics and the Nature of Language. In Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 280, 20-32.

FrameNet. https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal.

Guţu, A. (2006). Tipologia raporturilor structurale în arborescenţele terminologiei tehnico-ştiinţifice franceze. Lecturi filologice, 1, 43-54.

Карасик, В. И. (2004). Языковой круг: личность, концепты, дискурс. Изд-во Гнозис / Karasik, V. I. (2004). Âzykovoj krug: ličnost’, koncepty, diskurs. Izd-vo Gnozis.

Кириленко, Н. П. (1984). Функционирование научно-технических терминов в газетных текстах. Автореферат дис. канд. филол. Наук / Kirilenko, N. P. (1984). Funkcionirovanie naučno-tehničeskih terminov v gazetnyh tekstah. Avtoreferat dis. kand. filol. nauk.

Кубрякова, Е. С. (1997). Части речи в когнитивном аспекте. Москва / Kubrâkova, E. S. (1997). Časti reči v kognitivnom aspekte. Moskva.

Kubryakovan, E. S., Demyankov, V. 3., Pankratz, Y. G., Luzin, L.G. (1996). Brief Dictionary of Cognitive Terms. Moscow State University Press. http://www. twirpx.com/file/383435/.

Maingueneau, D. (2007). Analiza textelor de comunicare. (M. Şovea, Trad.). Editura Institutul European.

Levinson, St. C. (1989). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.

Matthews, Ch. (n.d.). Republicans Violate. 26^th Amendment and "Abridge" Youth Voting Rights in NC. http://datab.us/2vxf7hZVi00#Chris%20Matthews:%.

META-Share.http://metashare.infoiasi.ro/repository/search/?q=&selected_facets=languageNameFilter_exact%3Aenglish.

Meyer, I., Mackintosh K. (2000). When Terms Move into Our Everyday Lives: An Overview of De-terminologization. Terminology, 6(1), 111-138.

Minsky, M. (1997). A Framework for Representing Knowledge. In Haugeland J. (ed.). Mind Design II (2^nd edition). The MIT Press.

Moscal, D. (2011). Viziuni structurale asupra lexicului înainte de teoria câmpurilor lexicale elaborată de Jost Trier. In Philologica Jassyensia, 1 (13), 97–105.

Sama, H. A Compelling and Haunting Document that Slips through any Attempt at Categorization. http://screen.artshub.com.au/news-article/ reviews/film/sama-hugo-/the-vanquishing-of-witch-baba-yaga-245187.

Степанов, Ю.С. (1997). Константы: Словарь русской культуры. Изд-во Школа « Языки русской культуры » / Stepanov, Ù. S. (1997). Konstanty: Slovar’ russkoj kul’tury. Izd-vo Škola « Âzyki russkoj kul’tury ».

Стернин, И. А. (2002). Язык и национальное сознание. Изд-во Истоки / Sternin, I. A. (2002). Âzyk i nacional’noe soznanie. Izd-vo Istoki

Vîlcu, C.-D. (2010). Orizontul problematic al integralismului (vol. 1: Integralism şi fenomenologie). Editura Argonaut & Scriptor. http://www.romling.uni tuebingen.de/energeia/zeitschrift/2013/pdf/Rezension_Vilcu.pdf.

Received: January 21, 2016 | Reviewed: February 14, 2016 | Accepted for publication: March 10, 2016

Google Scholar cited by