INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL FOR
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
SJIF 2019: 5.222 2020: 5.552 2021: 5.637 2022:5.479 2023:6.563 2024: 7,805
eISSN :2394-6334 https://www.ijmrd.in/index.php/imjrd Volume 12, issue 06 (2025)
534
LEGAL DISCOURSE — A TYPE OF SPECIALIZED DISCOURSE
Ubaydullayeva Kholida Manopovna
2nd- year doctoral researcher, Navoi State University
Tel: +998 90 636 5603
Email:
xolidaubaydullayeva066@gmail.com
Abstract:
This article examines types of discourse—both general and specialized—along with
key features and forms of specialized discourse. It discusses political and legal discourse, the
notions of personhood and impersonality in legal discourse, and anthropocentric concepts and
their realization in the modern linguistic paradigm.
Keywords:
Paradigm, discourse, specialized discourse, theory, normative legal documents,
cultural-ideological environment, stylistic, semantic, and pragmatic features.
In contemporary linguistics, the term “discourse” is broadly understood to include social
and communicative processes that occur between people through language. Both discourse and
text represent spaces where the conscious activity of participants in communication intersects.
Conscious activity always rests on moral and cultural foundations. [8:252]
Discourses are divided into general (universal) and specialized (specific) types. Specialized
discourse refers to the communicative forms that emerge within particular domains—such as
law, politics, medicine, education, science, and mass media.
Specialized discourse is the language use that takes place within a specific social institution or
sphere of activity; it is distinguished by a clear communicative purpose, selection of linguistic
means, conventional genres, and stylistic features . For example, legal discourse demands legal
phrasing, formality, and precision, whereas political discourse makes use of persuasion and rich
rhetorical devices.
Key features of specialized discourse:
a)
Terminological richness
Specialized discourse is characterized by domain- specific terms, phrases, and technical
vocabulary. These linguistic means differ from everyday speech and require specialized
knowledge to comprehend.
b)
Genre and compositional clarity or rigidity
In specialized discourse, genres are clearly defined (e.g., legal statement, medical diagnosis,
academic article) and follow strict compositional structures.
c)
Stylistic formality or neutrality
Specialized discourse typically employs a formal or neutral style, especially noticeable in
scientific, legal, and medical texts.
d)
Pragmatic orientation
Specialized discourse is always directed toward specific communicative goals such as
conveying information, giving instructions, persuading, or exerting legal influence.
Main types of specialized discourse:
Legal discourse
– the language of laws, judicial decisions, contracts, and other
normative documents.
Political discourse
– speeches by politicians, official statements, electoral campaign
language.
Scientific discourse
– academic articles, monographs, conference presentations.
Medical discourse
– patient records, diagnoses, medical advice.
Pedagogical discourse
– textbooks and teacher–student classroom interaction.
INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL FOR
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
SJIF 2019: 5.222 2020: 5.552 2021: 5.637 2022:5.479 2023:6.563 2024: 7,805
eISSN :2394-6334 https://www.ijmrd.in/index.php/imjrd Volume 12, issue 06 (2025)
535
Following Foucault, discourse is a broad concept where linguistic factors play a secondary role;
the primary role lies in the non-textual cultural–ideological environment. This environment
consists of the ideological and cultural conditions in which communication takes place.
Example from Russian linguistics:
Judge A.L. Kononov states:
«Конституционный суд, отказавшись рассмотреть жалобу Н.Г. Мораря, обосновывает
предоставление государству абсолютного и неконтролируемого права вводить
специальные ограничения на въезд для лиц без гражданства. Это противоречит как
конституционным гарантиям правового статуса личности, так и нормам международного
права.»
Although the subject presents a personal position, it is shaped by the
national episteme
—an
ideology treating law as a state-controlled product.
American judge J. Stevens states:
“This decision does not align with our constitutional history and the core demands of a
democratic society. It gives the impression that corporations dominate our democracy… this
court decision rejects the common sense of the American people.”
His statement appeals to democratic values and cites “common sense” as a fundamental legal
basis, a conflict between common sense and law also discussed by H. Finkel in
Commonsense
Justice
.
These examples show that legal discourse statements depend not only on the context but
also on the cultural- ideological environment. According to Foucault, legal discourse can be
understood as a series of statements about legal truth. These statements are shaped by
situational texts and the subject’s cultural- ideological understanding of law.
Foucault’s theory views statements as the “atoms” of discourse—ideological units forming
social order. They differ from purely linguistic units, representing segments of human
knowledge tied to specific discursive practices .
Primary functions of legal discourse
include:
Prescriptive
(issuing commands)
Argumentative
(providing justification)
Informative
(conveying information)
Declarative
(making proclamations)
Within this study, we interpret these functions in the context of critical discourse analysis (T.
van Deyk, N. Fairclough) as mechanisms that define the social- legal role of text in interaction .
The
prescriptive
function is most common in legal genres—it calls for or restrains
actions (laws, rulings).
The
informative
function is present in all legal genres, conveying information about
legal events or situations.
The
argumentative
function is especially visible in court- related genres, in which the
author justifies a position.
The
declarative
function promotes social and legal values, ideas, and principles across
genres.
The importance of specialized discourse analysis lies in its capacity to reveal the various
social roles of language, analyze the relationship between language and society, and recognize
linguistic variation by field. These studies have practical relevance in applied linguistics,
translation theory, pragmatics, and communication .
The theoretical foundations of studies on specialized discourse draw from postmodern
views on the subject (Foucault, Barthes, Baudrillard, Derrida, Lacan), discourse theories (van
Deyk, Wodak, Kaplunenko, Karasik, Plotnikova, Rusakova, Bhatia, Fairclough, Halliday,
INTERNATIONAL MULTIDISCIPLINARY JOURNAL FOR
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
SJIF 2019: 5.222 2020: 5.552 2021: 5.637 2022:5.479 2023:6.563 2024: 7,805
eISSN :2394-6334 https://www.ijmrd.in/index.php/imjrd Volume 12, issue 06 (2025)
536
Swales, Tiersma), prototype theory (Rosh, Hayder, Lakoff, Demyankov, Kubryakova), and
anthropocentric linguistics (Benvenist, Kubryakova, Stepanov, Malinovich, and others) .
Empirical analysis relies on Benvenist’s subjectivity theory and studies of pronominal
semantics by Paducheva, Seliverstova, and Serebrennikova.
Many studies recognize impersonality as the main linguistic trait of legal discourse; the
subject’s personal identity is minimized, reflecting the postmodern concept of the death of the
subject and emphasis on institutional actors rather than individuals. Hence, legal discourse pays
little attention to subjectivity.However, given the anthropocentric focus of modern linguistics,
we can argue that subjectivity persists even in legal discourse. Yet the subject’s freedom to
assert themselves as “I” depends on the acceptance by the “Other.” Many legal discourse
practices suppress or exclude unassimilated expressions of the “Other.” When the subject can
express “I,” they create a phenomenological discourse reflecting personal consciousness,
worldview, internal experiences, and evaluations.
The subject’s representation in discourse links directly to the issue of subjectivity in
linguistics and is expressed in personal forms and the category of persona. The role of personal
pronouns in naming the subject has been deeply studied. The issue of subject disappearance in
postmodern discourse has also been examined. A review of theoretical sources shows that the
markers of subjectivity in legal texts have not been specially studied in English, Russian, or
Uzbek materials, aside from superficial mentions in some English works. This gap, along with
the clearly anthropocentric direction of the modern linguistic paradigm, underscores the
relevance of the topic.
Discourse theory is essential for studying the linguistic characteristics of subjectivity, as
discourse constitutes the communicative space between the subject and the “Other.” This
research adopts Foucault’s understanding of discourse as a series of statements tied to
situational texts and cultural- ideological environments, in line with modern cultural- situational
approaches in linguistics.The hypothesis of this study is that despite the general view of
impersonality in legal discourse, the subject regularly expresses themselves through texts,
employing a wide range of tools reflecting personal traits.
Specialized discourses are manifestations of language in specific social and functional
texts. They possess unique stylistic, semantic, and pragmatic features and represent real and
practical language use. In-depth study of such discourses not only advances linguistics but also
enables interdisciplinary analysis with other social sciences.
References:
1. www.lex.uz — Database of legal documents of the Republic of Uzbekistan.
2. Fairclough, N.
Language and Power
. Longman Group, 1989.
3. Foucault, M.
Intellectuals and Power: Articles and Interviews, 1970–1984
, vol. 3. Praxis,
Moscow, 2006.
4. Finkel, N.
Commonsense Justice: Juror’s Notions of the Law
. Cambridge University Press,
1995.
5. Wodak, R. & Meyer, M.
Methods of Critical Discourse Analysis
, Sage, 2009.
6. van Deyk, T.A. “On the Definition of Discourse.” (1998).
7. Odilova, G.K. “Theory and Practice of Specialized Discourse in Linguocultural
Interpretation.” Doctoral dissertation abstract, Tashkent, 2020.
8. Safarov, Sh.
Pragmalinguistics
. Tashkent, 2008, p. 252.
