Referential fuzziness in legal texts
https://doi.org/10.21869/2223-151X-2025-15-2-8-16
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to examine and analyze cases of referential fuzziness that can be traced in legal texts including articles from the Civil and the Criminal Code of The Russian Federation; to classify cases of referential fuzziness and make further conclusion that can be of a particular interest to practicing lawyers.
Methods. To reach the purpose of the study the author uses the following methods of comparison and classification that work successfully within the complex approach to legal texts.
Results. Referential fuzziness is a kind of vagueness that can be basically traced on lexical level through the usage of nouns denoting time intervals, geographical objects and territories. During the research cases of referential fuzziness were examined and analyzed from the point of view of absence of individualization and incapability of separating the part and the whole. Cases of quality and quantitative classificatory fuzziness were also examined and classified.
Conclusions. It is concluded that it is generally recommended to avoid cases of referential fuzziness in legal texts for the sake of their transparency and uniformity of further interpretation.
About the Author
N. Yu. Korableva
Moscow State Linguistic University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Natalia U. Korableva Candidate of Sciences (Philological), Associate Professor, Associate Professor at the Department of the English Language, Faculty of Interpretation
38/1 Ostozhenka Str., Moscow 119034
References
1. Bradeckaya I.G., Fisina U.N. Legal linguistics. Moscow: RGUP; 2021. 100 p. (In. Russ).
2. Alekseev S.S. The theory of law. Moscow: BEK; 2005. 320 p. (In. Russ).
3. Kempson, R. Semantic Theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1997. 216 p.
4. Geeraerts D. Vagueness’s puzzles, polysemy’s vagaries. Cognitive Linguistics. 1993;4(3):223–272.
5. Poscher R. Ambiguity and Vagueness in Legal Interpretation. London: The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law; 2012. P. 128–144.
6. Pinkal M. Vagueness, Ambiguity and Underspecification. Proceedings from the Conference on Semantics and Linguistic Theory, Rutgers University; 1996. P. 185–201.
7. Lakoff, G. Hedges: A study in meaning criteria and the logic of fuzzy concepts. New York: Journal of Philosophical Logic; 1973. P. 458–508.
8. Rosch E. On the international structure of perceptual and semantic categories. Cognitive Development and the Acquisition of language. New York: Academic Press; 1973 P. 111–144.
9. Verzbitskaya A.N. Prototypes and invariants: language, culture, cognition. Moscow: Russian dictionaries; 1996. P. 201–230. (In. Russ).
10. Rahilina E.V. The semantics of lexical multiplicity in Russian language. Voprosy yazykoznaniya = The issue of linguistics. 2009;(4):13–40. (In. Russ).
Review
For citations:
Korableva N.Yu. Referential fuzziness in legal texts. Proceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: Linguistics and Pedagogy. 2025;15(2):8-16. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21869/2223-151X-2025-15-2-8-16
Views:
38
Email this article 