This article demonstrates the inventory and codification of legal terminology, highlighting inconsistencies in Ukrainian legal language.
Modern Ukrainian legal terminology and nomenclature have their own distinguishing features, noticeable among them are disorder, inconsistency, non-normativity, which in turn cause functional inequality. Such features had a historical and contemporary basis: they are based on the achievements of the Soviet period (unfortunately, not always positive) and the achievements of modern times (often generated by language and legal illiteracy). A significant number of twists and disadvantages in legal terminology make a set (system?) of dangers and leads to a number of problems in both legislative and practices which use. Ukrainian scholars in the field of linguistics and law, practitioners, legislators have many tools and means in changing this situation. The task of this article is to illustrate one of the possible practical ways to avoid these and other problems – inventory and codification of terminology & nomenclature and means (ways) of their implementation. The article is concerned with the term pryvid (bringing a person to the court), the history of the emergence and formation of which illustrates the processes and ways of Russification of Ukrainian legal terminology and language in general. Being unnatural, artificial, the word pryvid reveals a number of features that contradict the point of the term and terminology as a whole system: inconsistency of form and content, misinterpretation and lack of definition itself, lack of system-forming properties and, consequently, inability to be an element of hierarchy, inconsistency and incoherence of practical usage, polysemy, homonymy, generating adverse associativity, etc. The article presents the history of analyzed word, emerging and ‘making’ it a term in lexicograph-ic works (including terminological dictionaries), in legislative acts, in the practice of its usage. Taking into account the laws and rules of terms creation in the Ukrainian language, particularities of legal language and its functioning; the proper form pryprovadzennia and definition of the ana-lyzed concept is offered, some consequences and results of consistent use of the offered term and its definition are named.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Anatolii Neliuba (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: