- The authors:
- Pages: 393-406
- Section: CROSS-CULTURAL COMPONENT OF THE LINGUISTIC PERSONALITY IN UNDERSTANDING THE SOCIO-CULTURAL REALITY
- URL: http://conferences-ifl.rudn.ru/ru/2686-8199-2019-6-393-406/
- DOI: 10.22363/2686-8199-2019-6-393-406
Abstract.The problem of intercultural communication includes
a wide range of issues that have always attracted attention of linguists. Their line of research ismainly concentrates on remedying intercultural lacuna challenges: diversity in culture codes,
mentality and language systems. However, there is also another
significant linguistic area that calls for detailed examination,
namely legal risks that might arise during intercultural verbal
interaction. In that regard, linguistic research requires comparative analysis of the phenomenon and the key characteristics of
the applicable legal framework of expressing oneself within the
national markedness of communicative discourse.
The present study attempts to identify universal and nationally
marked features of acceptability of language (using offensive
phrases as an example) as defined by the Belarusian, British,
German and Russian legislations. This study uses various methods of research (inductive analysis and generalization) as well
methods verified by forensic linguistics (parameterization).
Examination of legal definitions of profanity in Belarus, England, Germany and Russia has revealed that they both vary within their national judicial systems and have their unique parameters. The parameter that all studied legal discourses share is the
attributiveness that defines that the analyzed speech act contains
words with negative connotation addressed at the interlocutor.
The Belarusian and German legislations have the parameter of
deliberateness, which often either fails to be defined by the
methods of forensic linguistics or is replaced by the definition of
the factual content used in the Belarusian and Russian legislations. Offensiveness of a statement can also be determined by the
presence of taboo words or phrases which include different tokens (they usually bear stylistic marks in dictionary entries).Another parameter that can be defined as nationally marked is the
parameter of situatioanality which includes such extralinguistic
features of communication as manner of interacting, voice volume, tone, emotional intensity, institutional component, etc.
Moreover, the study offers a brief overview of a number of issues dealing with the problems of description of offensive words
and phrases that a statement offensive and techniques of applying specific methods to identify intended offensive meaning.
Keywords:intercultural communication, legal linguistics, forensic linguistics, offensiveness
Vitebsk branch of International University
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9102-4440
Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz [Bundesamt für Justiz]. 2012. URL: http://www.gesetze-
270871BJNG005102307. [Accessed March 11, 2012].
Code of the Republic of Belarus on Administrative Offenses.
The Law of the Republic of Belarus dated July 17, 2019 No.
232-З (National Legal Internet Portal of the Republic of Belarus,
August 2, 2019, 2/2670). Minsk.
Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses. Law
of the Russian Federation dated July 03, 2019 No. 171-ФЗ. Moscow.
Das Strafrecht der BRD. Strafgesetzbuch (StGB). Gesetz der
Bundes Republik Deutschland vom 19.6.2019 No. 844. Berlin.
Lavitski, A. 2019. The category of intent in the aspect of modern
linguistic legal expertology. In Language categories and units:
syntagmatic aspect.Transit-X, Vladimir, pp. 238–242.
Levin, Ju.I. 1998. About obscene expressions of the Russian language. Languages of Russian culture Publ., Moscow, 278 pp.
Mal’ko, A.V. 2009. Large legal dictionary. Prospect Publ. Moskow, 656 pp.
Maslova, V.A. 2001. Linguocultural Studies. Publishing Center
«Academy», Moscow, 208 pp.
Newman Ch. 2012. Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986: The
Threshold of Extreme Protes. The Journal of Criminal Law
Novikov, A.M. 2013. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Psychology
and Pedagogy. IET Publishing Center, Moscow, 840 pp.
Osadchij, M.A. 2015. Russian language on the verge of law: the
functioning of the modern Russian language in the legal regulation of speech. Librocom Book House, Moscow, 256 pp.
The Public Order Act 1986. Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom from 01 April 1987 No. c 64. London.
Vasil’eva, N.V., Vinogradov, V.A., Shahnarovich, A.M. 1995. A
Brief Dictionary of Linguistic Terms. Russian language Publ.,
Moscow, 175 р.
Wörterbuch. Wortbedeutung.info. 2019. URL:
www.wortbedeutung.info [Accessed March 09, 2012].