ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
135
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF LEGAL TERMS IN ENGLISH AND
UZBEK LANGUAGE
Umarova Mashxura Olimbay qizi
Karakalpak state university named after Berdakh
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14844279
In the article English and Uzbek in their languages legal of terms linguist
scientists by offer done features analysis done Also legal of terms lawyers and
linguists in the concept similar See also the criteria developed
В статье анализируется специфика правовых терминов в английском
и узбекском языках, предложенных лингвистами. Также рассматриваются
подобные критерии юридических терминов в понятии юристов и
лингвистов.
Annotation:
English language legal terminology, terms classification,
regulatory and legal documents language, legal term, terminology,
terminological system, comparative-scientific analysis.
Key words:
English legal terminology, classification of terms, plain
normativno-pravovykh documents, right the term terminology, terminological
system, comparative analysis.
Аннотация:
англоязычная
юридическая
терминология,
классификация терминов, язык нормативно-правовых документов,
юридический термин, терминология, терминологическая система,
сравнительно-научный анализ.
Ключевые
слова:
английская
юридическая
терминология,
классификация терминов, простые нормативно-правовые документы,
правильная терминология, терминологическая система, сравнительный
анализ.
Legal terminology not only professional environment, perhaps speech of
communication another also wide in fields is used, therefore the right for
language special purposes learning necessity was born
Legal terminology to himself special unrepeatable research object is
because it is different terms to the system than application of the fields
extremely diversity with separate stands.
Law acceptance to do very big that required strength and complicated
process that it was such as terms comparative research there is a lot to do
complicated task
is considered Because in this of terms alone not but different legal systems
compared (as it is known, of Uzbekistan codified the right and Anglo-American
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
136
precedent the right in the middle big difference there is being, this terms level
is also evident to the eye thrown away). Dictionary alternative most of the time
lexicon unity about right imagination because it does not wake up two in the
language mutually alternative terms different concepts or one -, to one near
was, but meaning of the scope differently the fact that with distinguishable
concepts represents For example, the word " prosecutor" is translated as "
procurator ". will be done, however this occupation of owners America and
Uzbekistan the right in the system duties mutually suitable does not come, the
word "prosecutor". heard of the American imagination Uzbek in the language
talkative the word " prosecutor " in person wake up from imagination
difference does.
This attitude with, our in our opinion, separate of terms comparative
analysis done increase and them English from the language Uzbek to the
language or Uzbek from the language English to the language translation to do
ways just statement by doing to give not but of law separately to the fields
about terminological of systems complex contrastive research done increase
necessary.
For this, first of all, the term of the tongue dictionary in the system status
and him the term didn't happen from lexemes distinguishing signs identify get
necessary F. de Saussure of terms in general consumption from words separate
standing main feature as follows explains: «As a symbol word unfounded, free
to nature have, term while special semiotic to the system about is a symbol
(symbol), nominative-definitive (nominative and descriptor) to the task
possessive: nominative of being because is that it is of meanings common from
the system separate received whole and complicated the part means» [1, 285].
1.
F. de Saussure word and the term in comparison of the term the
following features separate shows:
2.
Meaning separately subject or to the event not, objects or events class
or type relatedness;
3.
Household concepts or common to imaginations it's not rather,
scientific or technical to concepts relatedness;
4.
Terminology strictly defined terms system within in practice to be ie
of the term always terms system one piece to be
5.
From existence very abstraction, even from him the whole until the
break to go
6.
Terminology certain knowledge and requiring education known
professional activity with dependence.
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
137
Listed differences linguists by determined. Now it 's legal of terms to
himself special features about issue solution reach for how criteria before their
push analysis by doing we will see. SP Khijnyak's " Yuridicheskaya terminology:
formation i in the fundamental research " sostav ". lawyers by to term found
relevant characters classification given Author's to his opinion according to,
terms the following properties have to be should:
1.
The only one, that is certain the law or another normative in the
document one different in a sense application, one system single meaning within
express necessary;
2.
Law creator by only certain condition without being discovered, on the
contrary generally accepted done to be must, the term some kind of separately
in a sense apply possible it's not;
3.
Stable to be, that is of the term content and meaning to the context
depends respectively immutability necessary;
4.
Certain in the system another terms with makes sense connected to be
5.
Professional field within application [2, 137].
Above given characters groups in comparison lawyers and linguists in the
concept the term similar also has criteria to be although different things
represents Lawyers concept wider because they are the law in the texts his own
main panlinguistic in the sense of applicable also term the words category they
enter Such lexemes more strictly linguistic approach point of view in terms of
terms category input possible not because this concepts terminization (to term
to convert). basics enough it's not. Lawyers such as linguists also use the term
to the context depends that it is not confession they reach and in this of the
term meaning general consumption in the lexicon that it was such as in context
not his in the definition open is given So do, word general literature from
language to professional language will move and terms system to the element
becomes.
Legal terminological systems more precisely description for in this field of
science terms classification work exit it is necessary This attitude with
classification the basics choose get necessity is born So from the basics one as of
the word known one activity to the field relevance factor service to do can
Earlier work developed legal terminology classifications on in more detail
stopping let's go by work developed classification vertical and horizontal
principles according to done increased Vertical classification at the peak Main
the law and another legislation in the documents reflection reached.
Terminology, that is of law all in the fields applicable and the most wide
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
138
concepts expressive terms unifying common law terminology stands
Horizontal terminology interdisciplinary and separately to areas about
different different terms systems own into takes Interdisciplinary terminology
is of law one how many in the fields applicable terms. Legal of terms main part
interdisciplinary to terminology right comes, industry of terms quantity while,
relatively less [3, 85].
of DIMiloslavskaya classification a little different being, then terms the
following to groups allocated:
1.
in general consumption terms;
2.
normative in the documents narrower and special meanings expressive
in general consumption terms;
3.
technical [4, 272].
Legal of terminology another classifications too available, however this of
the article purpose for above given classification of the foundations himself
enough
Analysis for convenience give birth in order to legal lexicon concepts to the
(nomination) method according to to classes to be possible that we count
(terms, termonyms, professionalisms). Other parameter the term his of law
known one to the network relevance being, this lexeme common law or
industry lexicon to the class input for basis will be (field of terms meanings of
law belongs to to the field belongs to only in the system right understood).
Special lexicon classification of doing the third parameter toponyms,
anthroponyms, appellatives and in phraseology manifestation to be the real
ones from separation consists of: Old Baily – Old- Bayly, Central crime court,
court is located in London the street name expressive from my toponym
received; Miranda warning - suspicion to the done his rights officially
announcement do, «Miranda Arizona to the state against» famous court
representing the work (1966). from the anthroponym come came out; " pocket
veto” – «pocket veto» that is, in Congress session meeting until it closes until
the law to the project the president by hand of being placed the delay of the US
president indirectly veto, appellative (similar noun) [5, 242].
Terminology certain to class affiliation, fire method and the reals type
separate according to classification basics, too one of the tongue terminological
systems description for, too contrastive studies for is relevant. English and
Uzbek languages legal terminology in comparison another classification
characters appear will be.
From this besides, legal of terminology English American language and
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
139
Britain in options application differences between there is. For example:
Foreign affairs State Department (USA), Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(UK)
Internal affairs ministry – Home office (UK), Ministry of the Interior (USA)
Finance Ministry - Treasury Department (USA), Treasury (UK)
Justice Ministry - Department of Justice (USA), Department of
Constitutional Affairs
Public (higher) education Department of Education (USA), Department of
Educational Skills (UK)
Justice Minister (USA) and Attorney General (Great Britain) - Attorney
General.
Shown differences translation for serious difficulties gives birth because
their most of them in practice two tongue in dictionaries note not done.
America and Britain terminological systems again one to himself special
feature crimes in classification it seems This is the topic Ye.S. Maksimenko in
his research in detail light up given.
At first England and American legal in terminologies classification system
mutually suitable came All felonies, misdemeanors, and treasons under the
general term "crime. "to species divided Old classification the concept of
"felony" as "felony at common law ", "capital felony", "statutory felony" to
classes divided " Misdemeanour " two class own into obtained: "misdemeanor
at common law", "high misdemeanor".
the old classification under the corresponding "felony" heading given
nominees of "treason" and "sedition" to the microfield entered Crimes such
classification to be done English and America in law of the XIX century from the
ends started But in 1967 English legal in terminology directly crime object
attention to get based on new classification appear it has been. English legal in
terminology seeing outgoing classification structure the main term for as
"offense" was taken. The term "Crime" is preceded by the terms "felony" and "
misdemeanor ". expressed concepts tell started The terms "Felony", "
misdemeanor " and "treason". instead of different limited prepositional
constructions with the term "crime". made structural terms used: crime – crime
against the state, crime against justice, crime against religion, crime against
reputation, crime against security, crime against morality.
Legal of culture again to the div came to the model according to later on
of terms microfields according to again distribution happen it has been. For
example, the following "crime against reputation". own into takes: "libel" (a
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
140
method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, or sign),
"defamation" (an intentional false communication, either published or publicly
spoken, that injures another's reputation or good name), "slander" (speaking of
defamatory words tending to prejudice another in his reputation, community
standing, office, trade, business or means of livelihood).
Modern American legal in terminology English from the right derived
terms "felony" and " misdemeanor ". expressed concepts unifying old
classification preserved the rest
Head term in American classification as English from the classification
different The term "crime" was taken instead of "offense". The term "Criminal
offenses" means the following own into includes: offenses against persons (for
example, murder, manslaughter), offenses against habitation and occupation
(for example, burglary, arson), offenses against property (for example, larceny),
offenses against morality and decency (for example, adultery), offenses against
public order and government (for example, treason).
From this except, American law in the system of crimes weight level
according to the classification there is to him according to the term "crime" type
nominees (types horsemen) have and this nominees from the letters A, B, C
consists of indexes using are distinguished, for example, A felony, V felony, S
felony and A misdemeanor, V misdemeanor, S misdemeanor. English crime in
the right such classification there is didn't happen and is still available it's not.
Listed English and in American terminology differences belongs to terms
Uzbek to the language translation in doing difficulties gives birth because
Uzbekistan the right system from both its British and American variants
difference who does crimes classification have Terminology comparative
analysis in doing terminological of systems different legal teachings to the basis
that it was built account get required: Uzbekistan the right system for Romano-
Germanic, English and American law for Anglo-Saxon legal teachings basis by
doing received Continental legal system Anglo-American from the system one
series aspects with differs. For example, English-American to the system special
feature statute law (statute law) and common division into common law special
Status of the right source is legislation. General right a lot in quantity court
precedents, ie similar the work seeing when exiting application a must has been
certain legal determining the principle (ratio juris). giver from decisions
organize found. In this way of precedent the right determiner role is
recognized.Legal of doctrine to himself special features of terms in use
manifestation will be, therefore for each one terminological system inside
ACADEMIC RESEARCH IN MODERN SCIENCE
International scientific-online conference
141
mutually connections and of terms intersystem relations by learning from the
outset only later of terms sure translation for alternative equivalents choose
possible will be Another one times to emphasize OK, that's it without research
object as separately terms not, relevant terminological fields is taken.
Summary as that's it to say probably Uzbek and English languages legal
terminology comparative research reach not only theoretical in terms of maybe
practical is also big important have Today's in the day different in genres legal
texts written and oral in forms sure translation to do able has been experts
preparation necessity there is. Special textbooks and without dictionaries this
task done increase possible not because present in the day legal translation
according to to the students whole terms systems with not connected separately
terms and of term-combinations translation equivalents given manuals offer is
being done. Two in this legal system between differences with get to know task
is not allowed, because English -American legal of terms Uzbek equivalents with
mutually attitude without learning good quality specialized to translation reach
possible it's not.
References:
1.
Saussure F.De. Trudy po yazykoznaniyu. – M.: progress, 1977. – 285 p.
2.
Khizhnyak SP. Legal terminology: formirovanie i sostav. - Saratov, 1997. -
137s.
3.
Pigolkin A.S. Yazyk the law – M. 1990. – 85 s.
4.
Miloslavskaya D. I. Typical difficulties semantic interpretatsii
juridicheskogo text // Uzbek language and ego estestvennom i juridicheskom
bytii. – Barnaul: Izd-vo AGU, 2000. 272 s.
5.
Longman dictionary. 242 b.
