DISCOURSE STATUS OF TEXTS OF FORENSIC MEDICAL EXAMINATION
DOI: 10.23951/1609-624X-2019-7-7-16
Introduction. The article deals with a question of the discursive status of forensic medical examination texts, the existence of a separate sub-discourse of the forensic medical examination, which is at the intersection of medical and legal discourses, and its place in the typology of institutional discourses. The need to distinguish the discourse of forensic medical examination as a separate subtype of discourse, the description of its model and the study of it as a multidiscourse phenomenon is due to the peculiarities of the interaction of the two institutional discourses with a high level of formalization and ritualization. The aim of the article is to determine the status of the forensic medical examination (SME) as an area of social, professional and textual activity, its place in the typology of institutional discourses. Material and methods. The model of describing the institutional discourse of V. I. Karasik was chosen as the main methodological dominant. This is due to the fact that the studied area belongs to the sphere of institutional interaction, and the fact that this model allows one to identify own discursive parameters at the stage of initial analysis. This theory of discourse analysis makes it possible to define categories such as “participants of communication”, “conditions of communication”, “organization” and “methods of communication”. The material for the study was the full texts of 10 opinions of forensic doctors with a total volume of more than 100 pages, taken at a professional forum of forensic doctors of Russia in the section “Consultation Center”. Results and discussion. Communicators in the field of forensic medicine have a different status than participants in medical or legal discourse. The main type of communication is the type “doctor-forensic scientist – the examined”. Communication places are medical and legal organizations, as well as scientific organizations and events. The goals of the forensic doctor as a participant in the communication “forensic doctor – the examined” go back to legal discourse, while the strategy used is medical. The nuclear genre of discourse is the opinion of the medical examiner, which applies to both legal and medical discourse, and also contains a large number of discursive formulas, stable and specific. Conclusion. The main parameters of communications in the field of forensic examination correspond to the models proposed by V.I. Karasik, however, is not reduced to either legal or medical discourse. Based on the results of this study, a forensic medical examination may qualify for the status of a specific interdiscourse area.
Keywords: discursive status, medical discourse, legal discourse, forensic-medical examination
References:
1. Diskurs kak sotsial’naya deyatel’nost’: problemy institutsional’noy kommunikatsii [Discourse as a social activity: problems of institutional communication]. Moscow, Rema Publ., 2010. 200 p. (in Russian).
2. Karasik V. I. Yazykovoy krug: lichnost’, kontsepty, diskurs [Language circle: personality, concepts, discourse]. Volgograd, Peremena Publ., 2002. 477 p. (in Russian).
3. Karasik V. I. O tipakh diskursa [On the types of discourse]. Yazykovaya lichnost’: institutsional’nyy i personal’nyy discurs: sb. nauch. tr. [Linguistic personality: institutional and personal discourse: collection of scientific articles]. Volgograd, Peremena Publ., 2000. Pp. 5–20 (in Russian).
4. Viter V. I., Khalikov A. A. Sudebnaya meditsina v lektsiyakh [Forensic medicine in lectures]. Izhevsk, Ufa, 2007. 343 p. (in Russian).
5. Popov N. V. Sudebnaya meditsina [Forensic medicine]. Moscow, Legal publishing Ministry of Justice of the USSR Publ., 1944. 379 p. (in Russian).
6. Kostyashina E. A. Diskursivnoye vzaimodeystviye v tekstovom prostranstve nauchno-populyarnogo meditsinskogo zhurnala. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Discursive interaction in the text area of the popular scientific medical journal. Diss. cand. of philol. sci.]. Tomsk, 2009. 232 p. (in Russian).
7. Silanova M. А. Mediatizatsiya yuridicheskikh terminov v diskurse sovremennykh SMI. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Mediatization of legal terms in the discourse of modern media. Diss. cand. of philol. sci.]. Moscow, 2017. 260 p. (in Russian).
8. Golev N. D. Yuridicheskaya terminologiya v kontekste doktrinal’nogo tolkovaniya [Legal terminology in the context of doctrinal interpretation]. Sibirskiy filologicheskiy zhurnal –- Siberian Journal of Philology, 2015, no. 4, pp. 138–148 (in Russian).
9. Ozhegov S. I., Shvedova N. Yu. Tolkovyy slovar’ russkogo yazyka: 80 000 slov i frazeologicheskikh vyrazheniy [Dictionary of the Russian language: 80 000 words and phraseological expressions]. Russian Academy of Sciences. The Russian language Institute. V. V. Vinogradov 4th ed., supplemented. Moscow, Azbukovnik Publ., 1999. 944 p. (in Russian).
10. Kolkutin V. V., Sosedko Yu. I., Fastovtsov G. А. Sudebno-meditsinskiye ekspertizy zhivykh lits [Forensic medical examination of living persons]. Moscow, Yurlitinform Publ., 2004. 248 p. (in Russian).
11. Ustinova K. А. Sudebnyy diskurs kak raznovidnost’ yuridicheskogo diskursa [Judicial discourse as a kind of legal discourse]. Al’manakh sovremennoy nauki i obrazovaniya – Almanac of Modern Science and Education, 2011, no. 3 (46), pp. 238–239 (in Russian).
12. Nefedova L. А., Nikiforova E. Sh. Strategii kommunikativnogo vozdeystviya kak element rechevogo povedeniya uchastnikov russkoyazychnogo sudebnogo diskursa [Strategy of communicative impact as an element of the verbal behavior of the participants of the Russian judicial discourse]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gos. un-ta – Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 2013, no. 1 (292), pp. 229–234 (in Russian).
13. Borisova L. A. Yuridicheskiy diskurs: osnovnyye kharakteristiki [Legal discourse: main characteristics]. Yazyk, kommunikatsiya i sotsial’naya sreda – Language, Communication and Social Environment, 2016, no. 14, pp. 133–151 (in Russian).
14. Ovchinnikova N. V. Kommunikativno-pragmaticheskaya spetsifika sudebnogo diskursa. Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Communicative and pragmatic specifics of judicial discourse. Diss. cand. philol. sci.]. Tula, 2006. 154 p. (in Russian).
15. Shuravina L. S. Meditsinskiy diskurs kak tip institutsional’nogo diskursa [Medical discourse as a type of institutional discourse]. Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gos. un-ta – Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University, 2013, no. 37 (328), pp. 65–67 (in Russian).
16. Dzarayeva N. А., Rogozhnikova R. А. Strategii i taktiki rechevogo povedeniya vracha [Strategy and tactics of verbal behavior of the doctor]. Vestnik PGGPU. Seriya № 1. Psikhologicheskiye i pedagogicheskiye nauki – Vestnik PSPHU. Series no. 1. Psychological and pedagogical sciences, 2014, no. 2-1, pp. 47–53 (in Russian).
17. Avdeyev M. I. Sudebno-meditsinskaya ekspertiza zhivykh lits [Forensic examination of living persons]. Moscow, Meditsina Publ., 1968. 376 p. (in Russian).
18. Shishkina E. V. Kommunikativnyye strategii i taktiki sudebnogo doprosa (na materiale russkogo i nemetskogo yazykov) [Communicative strategies and tactics of judicial examination (on the material of Russian and German languages)]. Vestnik LGU im. A. S. Pushkina – Vestnik of Pushkin Leningrad State University, 2012, no. 1, pp. 155–162 (in Russian).
19. Beilinson L. S. Kharakteristiki mediko-pedagogicheskogo diskursa (na materiale logopedicheskikh rekomendatsiy). Dis. kand. filol. nauk [Features of medico-pedagogical discourse (on the material of speech therapy recommendations). Diss. cand. of philol. sci.]. Volgograd, 2001. 184 p. (in Russian).
20. Kosonogova O. V. Kharakteristiki yuridicheskogo diskursa: granitsy, soderzhaniye, parametry [Features of legal discourse: boundaries, content, options]. Istoricheskaya i sotsial’no-obrazovatel’naya mysl’ – Historical and Social-Educational Idea, 2015, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 61–68 (in Russian).
21. Buromsky I. V., Klevno V. A., Pashinyan G. A. Sudebno-meditsinskaya ekspertiza: terminy i ponyatiya: slovar’ dlya yuristov i sudebnomeditsinskikh ekspertov [Forensic medical examination. Terms and concepts]. Moscow, Norma Publ., 2006. 256 p. (in Russian).
( 462.57 kB ) 
( 451.9 kB )
Issue: 7, 2019
Series of issue: Issue 7
Rubric: TOPICAL ISSUES OF DISCOURSIVE LINGUISTICS
Pages: 7 — 16
Downloads: 738