INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 535
LINGUISTIC MEANS REFLECTING THE SUBJECT IN LEGAL DISCOURSE
Xolida Ubaydullaeva Manopovna
Navoi state university 2nd level support doctoral student
Phone:+998906365603 kholidaubaydullayeva066@gmail.com
Abstract:
This article talks about the cognitive-discursive paradigm, discursive analysis, legal
discourse, subject in legal discourse, legal discourse and its institutional and personal
characteristics, the main tasks that show personality in discourse in world and Uzbek linguistics.
Key words:
discourse, systemic-structural paradigm, declarative task, subject, institutionality ,
personality
Leader linguistic analyses in line discursive analysis last ten years during advantage as is
coming and this universal paradigm change with depends.If systemic-structural paradigm
within research text inside connections definition, description, modeling directions according to
take visited if, cognitive-discursive paradigm within researchers interest text and meaning build
to the processes It is focused on the whole of the text essence only linguistic factors with mutual
related was communicative, socio-cultural, cognitive to factors based without to be determined
started. Such understanding text and discourse concepts modern to be described is based on.
Legal of discourse main tasks between the following highlight needed : legal, evidentiary,
information and declarative tasks. Highlight this is necessary research in the text task when
critical discourse analysis school from representatives then (T.Van Dijk, I. Farklav) [1], social
mutual impact in the field text purpose understood , it is the addressee of the world socio-legal
in the landscape to the surface arrival possible was changes evaluation own inside takes .
Regularity level according to first place legal task possesses, because, legal of discourse
many genre samples acceptance to the doer shown the movement done increase or him/her
refusal to comply about directly correct or indirectly instruction ( court) decision, law, decree )
represents. Importance according to second place information task holds: legal of discourse
every one genre-this acceptance done decision, event was fact (court) decision, law, decree,
contract, complaint and others) about of the message one Legal of discourse information space
formation for this task important importance has. Evidence task mainly court discourse genres
is typical ( court decision, judge separately opinion, complaint, lawyer speech and others ) and
personal position to justify Declarative task or this at the level legal of discourse every
one in the genre done increased and known social, legal values, ideas and relationships promote
to do announcement in doing manifestation will be
Legal "institutional" in the discourse and "personality" contradiction available. Legal
discourse only institutional discourse as seeing exit world linguistics scientific in literature
wide widespread ( Karasik, 2000, Sheygal, 2000; Konovalova, 2008; Borisova, 2010;
Kojemyakin, 2010.) [5] in them institutionalism and prototypical signs subject personal the
beginning take throw away impossibility because of personnel with mutual to contact enters.
R. Vodak stating that institutional discourse pure in the form relatively less occurs [2]. The real
in dialogue, discourses mixed "mutation" occurs", personal of meanings existence level
discourse type and communication to the situation looking at differentiation possible. Discourse
purity about the issue, our in our opinion, legal communication in learning big interest wakes
up and of the research main problem In our opinion , legal of discourse one row in genres
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 536
institutionalism and personnel to each other opposite not , maybe dialectical in a relationship
will be .
This highlight It is necessary, in our article person about not, maybe personalized legal
discourse in mind we are holding: legal discursive practices every always institutional in
appearance certain institutional roller features carrier as manifestation divider subject in the
presence of done increased and it is limited communication topic with This is related to signs
the subject's personal sphere to pass obstacle does. Legal in discourse institutional and personal
relationships ratio one how many factors: subject discursive expert to the community addition;
discourse appearance to be cultural environment; subject institutionalization level defining
known one society traditions with is determined .
Legal in discourse subject linguistic status in determining personnel important importance
Personality is subject in speech participation, he /she legal position, relationship and roles
how expression with related linguistic event . Legal in texts personnel not only linguistic, maybe
legal also covers concepts takes, because this subject legal responsibility and obligations speech
on the contrary represents .
Legal in discourse personality indicator main aspects the following :
1. Grammatical forms :
Subject personality usually person and time suffixes (I,II,III) person ) through manifestation For
example , "I will sign the contract . " "I signed it, " he said. In a sentence first person subject
personal participation reflection Legal
in texts and third person shape more occurs ( "
Parties consent reported ") .
Verb person and time additions the subject determines and his/her legal status For example , the
demand I do , I demand you are doing , demand does such as .
Time forms legal behavior face gave time show for For example, the application did I was , I
claim. application entering , seeing will be released and others .
Ownership additions ownership and subject legal dependence shows : Application , your
application, inheritance, decision, execution such as .
2. Speech style:
Legal discourse texts official in style is written, this and personality often minimal
manifestation does. But certain in cases subject personal participation expression For (complaint,
appeal , testimony ) the first person is used .
3. Legal status and role:
Legal in discourse subject personality his/her to the role related. Example for: Citizenship legal:
like " respondent ", " plaintiff " concepts through is expressed .Crime right: "suspicion" "
accused ", " accused ", " witness ".
4. Objectivity and anonymity :
Often legal in speech subject linguistic expression objective in the form will be. Example for,
court in the documents personal feelings and subjective thoughts is limited.
5. Subject himself understanding level:
Legal in process subject himself other sides with compares, legal status determines and own
thoughts accuracy with This is a personalization . to the level directly impact does .
6.Modal units:
Subject purpose and legal obligations expression for used:
Must, must, must , can such as words .
Conclusion in place this to say possibly legal in discourse personnel subject linguistic
status in determining his/her grammatical forms, speech style and legal role through
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
ISSN: 2692-5206, Impact Factor: 12,23
American Academic publishers, volume 05, issue 03,2025
Journal:
https://www.academicpublishers.org/journals/index.php/ijai
page 537
manifestation to be shows.Grammar units and of style manifestation to be and legal of discourse
formality, all for clear and understandable to be provide for used.Personal participation more
legal position and to the situation related accordingly differs , this and linguistic in analysis
important tool as is applied .
LIST OF REFERENCES USED:
1. Van Dyke T.
A. (1998). Definition of discourse. [WWW-document] URL
http://www.nsu.ru/psych/internet/bits/vandijk2.html
2. Vodak, R. Yazyk. Discourse. Politics [Text]/ R. Vodak . - Volgograd: Peremena, 1997.139 p.
3. Dauletova, V. A. Verbalnye sredstva sozdaniya autoimidja [Text]: autoref.teeth ... candy.
Philol . date: 10.02.20 / V. A. Dauletova . - Volgograd, 2004. - 22 p.
4. Foucault M. Archeological knowledge. Nika-Kiev, 1996.
5. Karasik, V. I. Structure of institutional discourse [Text] /V. I. Karasik // Problemy rechevoy
kommunikatsii. - Saratov: Izd-vo SGU, 2000a. - S. 25-33.
6. Rusakova, O. F. PR-Discourse: Theoretical and methodological analysis / O. F. Rusakova ,
V. M. Rusakov. - Ekaterinburg: Izd-vo UrO RAN, In -t mejdunar. Svyazey, 2008. - 340 p
7. Safarov Sh. Cognitive linguistics. - Jizzakh: Sangzor, 2006.
8. www.wikipedia.uz
