INTERDISCURSIVE ACTUALISATIONS OF THE TERM “LAWYER”

Keywords: legal professional, counterpart, interdiscursivity, intertextuality, discourse

Abstract

The paper addresses the issue of functioning of the terms originating from sphere of law. T o the basic focus of the article belong the issue of mixing the different types of discourses and its implicit potential. The research offers the historical background of interdiscursivity with its modern interpretation where it is strictly differentiated from intertextuality. Furthermore, the notion is approached from the standpoint of its ability to influence the spread of the legal terms and their new meanings’ crystallisations. The legal term “lawyer” is given an expended potential through it being realised via its closest counterparts or synonyms. The criterion for such realisation is prime stemming from legal discourse which points at these counterparts to be able to designate a legal professional in the situations concerned with law. It is suggested in the paper that the language factor in legal profession gets considerably influenced through the applicability of legal terms in different environments, which postulates that behind borders framed by occupation, the terms tend to mix or actualise in other spheres and institutional contexts. Thus the research aims at investigating whether the tendency is relevant to legal term “lawyer” actualised through its counterparts or synonyms. As the result, the mass media has been opted due to its possibility to preserve the potential source for establishing the interdiscursive connections. The list of the synonymous terms or counterparts of “lawyer” is outlined and the number of the discourses serving potentially as the locus for interdiscursive actualisations is identified. The article offers the description of the peculiarities the terms establishing interdiscursive ties acquire with respect to their meanings. It has been outlined that language of law is prone to being extensively utilised out of court which points at the opposite to the rigid character normally associated with legal discourse. The tendencies of changing meaning while entering other dimension different from the legal type of discourse are spotted and calculated in percentage ratio.

References

1. Bakhtin M. The Dialogic Imagination. Austin : University of Texas Press, 1981. P. 280–294.
2. Bakhtin M. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin : University of Texas Press, 1986. P. 20–35.
3. Dunaievska O. Function of a Lawyer: Frame Approach. Science and Education a New Dimension, Humanities and Social Sciences. 2020. Vol. VIII (37). P. 35–37. DOI: 10.31174/SEND-HS2020-223VIII37-08.
4. Fairclough N. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge : Polity Press, 1992.
5. Jianguo Wu. Understanding Interdiscursivity: A pragmatic Model. Journal of Cambridge Studies. Cambridge, 2011. №№ 2–3. P. 95–115.
Published
2021-06-23
How to Cite
Stupenko, M. Y., & Dunaievska, O. V. (2021). INTERDISCURSIVE ACTUALISATIONS OF THE TERM “LAWYER”. New Philology, 2(81), 136-142. https://doi.org/10.26661/2414-1135-2021-81-2-20