Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Journal home page:
https://inscience.uz/index.php/socinov/index
Teaching legal terms in English and learning their functions
and placements in a sentence, compared with Uzbek
Shahribonu SIROJIDDINOVNA
1
Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages
ARTICLE INFO
ABSTRACT
Article history:
Received December 2021
Received in revised form
15 December 2022
Accepted 20 January 2022
Available online
15 Fabray 2022
The article examines the similar and distinguishable features
of legal terms in different English speaking countries, together
with Uzbek, and gives a rather useful data concerning the
difficulties that may occur while translating and instructing
legal English to the students of the faculties of law.
2181-
1415/©
2022 in Science LLC.
https://doi.org/10.47689/2181-1415-vol3-iss1/S-pp
This is an open access article under the Attribution 4.0 International
(CC BY 4.0) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.ru)
Keywords:
legal terminology,
linguistic communication,
correlation between
linguistic and jurisprudence.
Ingliz tilida yuridik atamalarni o
‘
qitish hamda ularning vazifasi
va gapdagi joylashuvini o‘zbek tili bilan solishtirgan holda
o‘rganish
ANNOTATSIYA
Kalit so
‘
zlar:
huquqiy terminologiya,
lingvistik aloqa,
lingvistika va
huquqshunoslik o‘rtasidagi
o
‘zaro bog‘liqlik.
Maqolada o‘zbek tili bilan birgalikda ingliz tilida so‘zla
-
shuvchi turli mamlakatlardagi yuridik atamalarning o‘xshash va
farqli xususiyatlari ko‘rib chiqilib, yuridik fakultet talabalariga
yuridik ingliz tili
ni tarjima qilish va o‘rgatishda yuzaga kelishi
mumkin bo‘lgan qiyinchiliklar haqida juda foydali ma’lumotlar
keltirilgan.
1
Teacher at the Samarkand State Institute of Foreign Languages. Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
01 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
105
Преподавание юридических терминов на английском
языке и изучение их функций и места в предложении по
сравнению с узбекским
АННОТАЦИЯ
Ключевые слова:
юридическая
терминология,
языковая коммуникация,
соотношение лингвистики
и юриспруденции.
В статье рассматриваются сходные и отличительные
черты юридических терминов в разных англоязычных
странах, в том числе узбекских, и приводятся весьма
полезные данные о трудностях, которые могут возникнуть
при переводе и обучении юридическому английскому
языку студентов юридических факультетов.
Legal terminology is widely used not only in the professional environment, but
also in other areas of linguistic communication, therefore there is a great demand for the
study of the language of law for special purposes.
Legal terminology is a unique object of research, as it is characterized by a wide
variety of fields of application in comparison with other terminological systems.
According to the UK Legal Genres Commission, there are about seventy types of text used
in the professional field. This genre diversity is due to the multiplicity of sources of law
and the development of the Anglo-Saxon legal family, which includes, first of all, the legal
systems of the United States and Great Britain.
It is rather difficult to carry out a comparative study of the systems of legal terms
and concepts in English and Uzbek, since it is not so much when the terms themselves are
compared, but different legal systems (as you know, there are deep differences between
Uzbek codified and Anglo-American case law, which are manifested, among other things,
and at the level of terminology). Dictionary correspondence often does not give a correct
idea of the lexical unit, since behind similar terms in two languages there are different
concepts or a different amount of meaning of concepts that are close in meaning. For
example,
“
prosecutor
”
is translated
“
prosecutor
”
, but the functions of these figures in the
systems of American and Uzbek law do not coincide, and an American, hearing the word
“
prosecutor
”
, imagines something different from what a Uzbek-speaking carrier means in
the word
“
prosecutor
”
.
In this regard, in our opinion, there is an urgent need to conduct not just a
comparative analysis of individual terms and describe the ways of their translation from
English into Uzbek or from Uzbek into English, but to conduct a comprehensive
contrastive study of terminological systems in individual branches of law.
For this, first of all, it is necessary to determine the status of the term in the lexical
system of the language and the signs that distinguish it from non-terminological tokens.
F. de Saussure sees the main difference between terms and common words in the
following: “The word as a sign has an unmotivated, arbitrary nature, and the term is a
sign of a special semiotic system that has a nominative-definitive function: nominative
because the term (as a word) denotes a whole complex a fragment from the general
system of meanings
”
[1. PP. 126
–
127].
When comparing a word and a term, the following features of the latter can be
distinguished:
1. the correlation of meaning not with a separate object or phenomenon, but with a
class or kind of objects or phenomena;
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
01 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
106
2. correlation not with an everyday concept or a general idea, but with a scientific
or technical concept;
3. the need for a term to function within a strictly defined terminology system; a
term is always a member of a terminology system;
4. a higher degree of abstraction from reality, up to a break with it;
5. connection of a term with a certain professional activity, which requires certain
knowledge and training for the use of terminological vocabulary. [see details 2].
The above mentioned differences between the terminology and common
vocabulary have been identified by linguists. It is interesting to analyze what sorts of
criteria are put forward by lawyers when considering the issue of the distinguishing
features of a legal term. Let us turn to the fundamental research
“
Legal terminology:
formation and composition
”
by S.P. Khizhnyak, in which the classification of signs
presented to the term by lawyers is given. According to the author, the term should be:
1. uniform, that is, used in a given law or other normative act in the same sense, to
be unambiguous within one system;
2. generally recognized, and not invented by the legislator only for this case, it is
unacceptable to use the term in any special sense;
3. stable, that is, the meaning and meaning of the term should not change
depending on the context;
4. logically related to other terms of this system;
5. correlated with the professional field of use [see 3].
If we compare the groups of features discussed above, it becomes obvious that
lawyers and linguists understand somewhat different things by the term, although there
are similar criteria. The understanding of lawyers is much broader, since they classify
even words that are used in the texts of laws in their basic general linguistic meaning to
the category of terms. From the point of view of a more rigorous linguistic approach, such
lexemes cannot be classified as terms, since there is no sufficient basis for the
termination of these concepts.
Both lawyers and linguists celebrate independence as the bridging of the term
from the context, while the meaning of the term is revealed in its definition, and not in
the context, as is the case with common vocabulary. Thus, the word passes from the
general literary language to the professional language and becomes an element of the
terminology system.
Unfortunately, a more detailed analysis of the differences in approaches to the
problem of vocabulary termination from the point of view of legal or linguistic analysis is
beyond the scope of this article and requires further development. The purpose of our
brief review was to demonstrate that the development of a holistic concept of legal
terminology requires a combination of the approaches of representatives of different
sciences and is currently at the stage of formation.
For a clearer description of legal terminological systems, it is necessary to develop
a classification of terms in a given subject area, in connection with which there is a need
to choose a classification basis. One of such grounds may be the factor of a word
belonging to a sublanguage of a certain field of activity. Let us dwell in more detail on the
previously developed classifications of legal terminology.
The classification developed by A.S. Pigolkin is carried out according to vertical
and horizontal principles. At the top of the vertical classification will be the terminology
enshrined in the Basic Law and other legislative acts, that is, general legal terminology
that unites terms used in all branches of law and denoting the broadest concepts.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
01 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
107
Horizontal terminology encompasses various types of cross-industry and industry-
specific terminology. Interdisciplinary terminology is terms used in several branches of
law. The main volume of legal terms falls on cross-sectoral terminology, while the
number of sectoral terms is relatively small [4].
We find a slightly different classification in D.I. Miloslavskaya [5], which
distinguishes the following groups of terms:
1. common use;
2. commonly used, having a narrower, special meaning in a normative act
3. purely legal;
4. technical.
There are other classifications of legal terminology, however, for the purposes of
this article, the above classification grounds are sufficient.
The terminology of the legal sphere differs from the terminology systems of other
areas of knowledge. One can note the significant influence of Latin on the formation of
legal terminology, which led to the loss of the connection between the legal and general
literary languages. Legal terminology in the process of the formation of legal institutions
in England separated from the common language and became understandable only to the
initiated. Words borrowed from Latin have become highly specialized (researchers note
that up to 10% of direct Latin borrowings have survived). Another feature can be
considered the fact that in legal terminological systems a special unity of lexical units is
created, their special compatibility and special connections between words, there is a
differentiation of the wide and narrow meaning of the word within the framework of a
given terminological field (for example, in the legal language, words such as
“
right
”
,
“
totality
”
,
“
composition
”
, etc.).
We believe that for the convenience of analysis, legal vocabulary can be divided
into classes according to the method of concept nomination (terms, terminonyms,
professionalisms). Another parameter is belonging to a certain branch of law, which
gives grounds for classifying a lexeme as a general legal or branch vocabulary (the
meanings of branch terms can be adequately understood only in the subsystem of the
corresponding branch of law). The third parameter of the classification of special
vocabulary is the highlighting of realities, which are represented by toponyms,
anthroponyms, appellatives and phraseological units: Old Baily - Old Bailey, Central
Criminal Court, toponym by the name of the street in London where it is located; Miranda
warning
–
the official announcement to the suspect of his rights, anthroponym after the
name of the famous court case
“
Miranda v. Arizona
”
(1966); pocket veto
–
“
pocket veto
”
,
an indirect veto of the President of the United States, an appellate (common noun).
The classification grounds for the belonging of a term to a certain class, for the
method of nomination and for identifying the type of reality are relevant both for
describing the terminological systems of one language, and for contrastive studies. When
comparing the legal terminology of the English and Uzbek languages, other classification
features appear.
In addition, there are differences in the use of legal terminology in American and
British English.
Here are some typical examples:
–
Ministry of Foreign Affairs: State Department (USA)
–
Foreign and
Commonwealth Office (UK);
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
01 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
108
–
Ministry of Finance: Treasury Department (USA) - Treasury (UK);
–
Department of Justice: Department of Justice (USA)
–
Department for
Constitutional Affairs (UK);
–
Ministry of Education: Department of Education (USA)
–
Department for
Educational Skills (UK);
–
Attorney General: Minister of Justice (USA)
–
Attorney General (UK).
These differences represent significant difficulties for translation, since they are
practically not recorded in bilingual dictionaries.
Another typical example of the specificity of the British and American
terminological systems is the classification of crimes. This topic is considered in detail in
the work of E.S. Maksimenko [6].
Initially, the classification system in English and American legal terminology was
the same. All crimes were subdivided into felonies, misdemeanours and treasons with the
generic term crime. According to the old classification, felony was subdivided into: felony
at common law, capital felony, statutory felony. Misdemeanor included two classes:
misdemeanor at common law, high misdemeanor.
According to the old classification, the microfield, represented by the generic term
felony, included nominees for treason and sedition. This classification of crimes has
existed in English and American law since the late 19th century. However, in 1967, a new
classification appeared in English legal terminology, based on the selection of the object
of the crime itself. In En
glish legal terminology, the term “offense” has become the
generic term for the taxonomic structure under consideration. The term crime has come
to refer to concepts previously expressed by the terms felony and misdemenour. Instead
of the terms felony, misdemenour and treason, compound terms are used, formed on the
basis of the term crime with various distributors, limited by prepositional constructions:
crime
–
crime against the state, crime against justice, crime against religion, crime against
reputation, crime against security, crime against morality etc.
In accordance with the new established model of legal culture, there was a further
redistribution of existing terms by microfields. Thus, crime against reputation include:
libel (a 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 livehood) (see Black
’
s Law Dictionary).
In modern American legal terminology, an old classification borrowed from
English law has been preserved, combining the concepts expressed by the terms felony
and misdemeanor.
The generic term in American taxonomy, unlike English, is the term crime, not
offence. The term criminal offenses 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).
In addition, in the American legal system, there is a classification of crimes
according to the degree of severity, according to which the term crime has specific
nominees, which are differentiated using the letter indices A, B, C, for example, A felony,
B felony, C felony and A misdemeanor. B misdemeanor, C misdemeanor. Such a
classification did not and does not exist in English criminal law.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
01 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
109
The listed differences in English and American terminology cause difficulties in
translating the corresponding terms into Uzbek, since the Uzbek legal system has its own
classification of crimes, which differs from both the British and American versions. In a
comparative analysis of terminology, it is necessary to take into account that the
terminological systems are based on different legal doctrines: European-Turkic for the
Uzbek legal system and Anglo-Saxon for English and American law. The continental legal
system has a number of differences from the Anglo-American system. So, for example, a
characteristic feature of the latter is the division into statute law and common law. The
source of statutory law is legislation. Common law is made up of a large number of
judicial precedents, that is, decisions that establish a certain legal principle (ratio juris),
which are binding on a similar case. Thus, a legal role is recognized for the precedent.
The peculiarities of the legal doctrine affect the use of terminology, therefore, the
selection of equivalent correspondences for an adequate translation of terms is possible
only after studying the relationships within each terminological system, as well as after
studying the intersystem relationship of terms. It should be emphasized once again that
the object of research in this case is not individual terms, but the corresponding
terminological fields.
A comparative study of Uzbek and English legal terminology is of great importance
not only in theoretical but also in practical terms. This is due to the acute shortage of
textbooks and dictionaries for legal translation. There is an urgent need to train
specialists who can accurately translate legal texts of different genres in written and oral
form. Without special textbooks and dictionaries, such a task is difficult to accomplish,
since at present students are offered legal translation manuals containing translation
equivalents of individual terms and terminological phrases without any connection with
integral terminological systems. At the same time, the task is not posed to get acquainted
with the differences between the two legal systems, although without studying the
relationship of Anglo-American legal terms with their Uzbek equivalents, a high-quality
special translation is impossible.
REFERENCES:
1.
F. de Saussure. Works on linguistics.
–
M.: Progress, 1977,
2.
Kobrin B.N., Golovin R.Yu. Linguistic foundations of the doctrine of terms.
–
M.:
Higher. shk., 1987.
–
P. 104.
3.
Khizhnyak S.P. Legal terminology: Formation and composition.
–
Saratov, 1997.
–
P. 137.
4.
Pigolkin A.S. The language of the law.
–
M. 1990.
5.
Miloslavskaya D.I. Typical difficulties in the semantic interpretation of a legal
text.
–
In collection: Russian language in its natural and legal existence.
–
Barnaul: ASU
Publishing House, 2000.
–
P. 272.
6.
Maksimenko E.S. National and cultural specificity of industry terminology
systems (based on the material of English and American legal terminology).
–
Author
’
s
abstract. Ph.D. thesis ..., M., 2002.
7.
Makhmonov L.S.,
Yigitov A.U.,
Amerova D.A.,
&
Temirov N.N.
(2021).
Coordination of treatment guidelines for iron deficiency and b12 deficiency anemia
associated with helicobacter pylori. nveo-natural volatiles & essential oils Journal | NVEO,
10175
–
10182.
Жамият
ва
инновациялар
–
Общество
и
инновации
–
Society and innovations
Special Issue
–
01 (2022) / ISSN 2181-1415
110
8.
Махмонов
Л.С., Ризаев
Ж.А., & Гадаев
А.Г. (2021). Helicobacter pylori ва уни
темир ҳамда витамин в12 танқислиги камқонлиги юзага келишидаги аҳамияти.
9.
Shahram A., Umida, K., & Zarina, R. (2020). Information technology
’
s role in the
study of foreign languages. Asian Journal of Multidimensional Research (AJMR), 9(3), 96
–
98.
10.
Sherzodovich A.S. (2020). The r
о
le
о
f
о
nline teaching and inn
о
vative
meth
о
ds. Science and education, 1(3), 524
–
528.
