Cover Page

Cite item


The problem of legal interpretation in Russian jurisprudence is characterized by an extremely wide range of opinions: from formally dogmatic to postmodern. Every scientist tries to see in the interpretation something «his own». A number of scientists believe that it is possible to discuss the terminology of the question, in particular, the distinction between «interpretation» and «explain». Others consider that the purpose of studying the interpretation is to find the best ways to understand the laws published in the state. For the third, the interpretation is interesting in that it lies at the basis of the discretion of officials in the course of practical work on resolving legal disputes, and this raises questions of the limits of interpretation. For the fourth, the interpretation has the status of an ideological toolkit for solving social problems, for example, in constitutional judicial proceedings. The current doctrinal state of the interpretation problem lags behind the needs of legislation and legal regulation practice. Therefore, the changes in the passport of a scientific specialty 12.00.01 - the theory and history of law and the state; the history of the doctrine of law and the state, which singled out the legal interpretation as an independent method of the study of law, requires due scientific attention. The purpose of the article is to give the author's a generalized idea of the place and meaning of legal interpretation in modern Russian law on the material of available scientific literature. Research methods: formal legal, analysis and synthesis, modeling, extrapolation. The results of the study. The age-old disputes over legal interpretation among scholars and practitioners lawyers, philosophers, politicians are explained by the polysemy of the term «interpretation», which allows considering it, according to the author’s article, in two fundamental meanings: narrow and broad. In a narrow linguistic sense, interpretation is a combination of linguistic methods for analyzing legal texts. In a broadly discursive sense, interpretation is perception, translation (decoding) and extracting the meaning of any legal phenomena. Separately highlighted are the methodological and activity aspects of this problem, focusing respectively on modern approaches to interpreting the phenomena of the entire legal life of society, as an integral part of legal discourse, and traditional approaches to interpretation as special activities aimed at understanding the meaning of textually fixed legal norms using special technical-legal means. It is concluded that the generalized consideration of legal interpretation in modern Russian law is necessary in the unity of the methodological and activity aspects.

About the authors

Yulia A. Gavrilova

Volgograd State University

Author for correspondence.

Candidate of Legal Science, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Theory and History of Law and the State, Law Institute

100, Universitetsky ave., Volgograd, Russia, 400062


  1. Arutyunova, N.D. (1990), Diskurs [Discourse] In: Lingvisticheskij enciklopedicheskij slovar' [Linguistic Encyclopedic Dictionary]. Moscow, Soviet encyclopedia, рp. 136–137. (in Russian).
  2. Austin, J.L. (1962), How to do things with words. Oxford, At The Clarendon Press. pp. 100–113. (in English).
  3. Bernal, J. (1954) Science in History. London, Watts & Co. Vol. 1, pp. 7–19. (in English).
  4. Betty, E. (2011), Germenevtika kak obshchaya metodologiya nauk o duhe [Hermeneutics as a general methodology of the sciences of the spirit]. Moscow, «Canon + «ROOI «Rehabilitation», p. 26. (in Russian).
  5. Borisova, L.A. (2016), Juridicheskij diskurs: osnovnye harakteristiki [Legal Discourse: Main Characteristics]. Yаzyk, kommunikaciya i social'naya sreda [Language, Communication, and Social Environment]. (14), pp. 133–151. (in Russian).
  6. Chernobel, G.T. (2011), Tekhnika zakrepleniya normativno-pravovyh modusov [Technique of securing regulatory modes] In: Vlasenko, N.А. (ed.) Normotvorcheskaya yuridicheskaya tekhnika [Normative law technique]. Moscow, Yustitsinform, pp. 123–131. (in Russian).
  7. Chestnov, I.L. (2014), Kriticheskij diskurs-analiz kak metod postklassicheskoj teorii prava [Critical Discourse Analysis as a Method of the Post-Classical Theory of Law]. Vestnik Moskovskogo gorodskogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta. Seriya: Yuridicheskie nauki [Bulletin of the Moscow City Pedagogical University. Series: Jurisprudence]. 13 (1), рр. 67–74. (in Russian).
  8. Demo, Douglas A. (2001), Discourse Analysis for Language Teachers. Washington, Center for Applied Linguistics. Available from: [Accessed 30th April 2019].
  9. Fairclough, N. (2003), Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London and New York, Routledge, pp. 18–38. (in English).
  10. Golev, N.D. (2015) Yuridicheskaya terminologiya v kontekste doktrinal'nogo tolkovaniya [Legal terminology in the context of doctrinal interpretation]. Sibirskij filologicheskij zhurnal [Siberian Journal of Philology]. (4), pp. 138–148. Available from: doi: 10.17223/18137083/53/15. (in Russian).
  11. Gryazin, I.N. (1983), Tekst prava (opyt metodologicheskogo analiza konkuriruyushchih teorij) [Text of the law (the experience of the methodological analysis of competing theories)]. Tallinn, Eesti Raamat Publishing House, p. 156. (in Russian).
  12. Halperin, I.R. (2006), Tekst kak ob"ekt lingvisticheskogo issledovaniya [Text as an object of linguistic research]. 4nd ed., stereotypical. Moscow, KomKniga, pp. 8–26. (in Russian).
  13. Hunston, S. (2005), Conflict and consensus: Construing opposition in Applied Linguistics In: Tognini-Bonelli, E., del Lungo Caniciotti, G. (ed.) Strategies in academic Discourse. Studies in Corpus Linguistics, 19. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 1–15. (in English).
  14. Kaplan, R.B. (1966), ‘Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education’ in Language Learning. Vol. 16 (1–2), pp. 1–20. (in English).
  15. Karasik, V.I. (2000), O tipah diskursa [On types of discourse]. In: Karasik, V.I., Slyshkin, G.G. (ed.) Yazykovaya lichnost': insti‐ tucional'nyj i personal'nyj diskurs. Sbornik nauchnyh trudov [Language personality: institutional and personal discourse. Collection of scientific papers]. Volgograd, Peremena, pp. 5–20. (in Russian).
  16. Khramtsova, N.G. (2012), Diskurs-pravovoj analiz: ot teorii k praktike primenenija. Monografija [Discourse-legal analysis: from theory to practice of application. Monograph]. Kurgan, Publishing house of Kurgan State University, p. 74. (in Russian).
  17. Kolesnikova, L.V. (2006), Semioticheskie parametry juridicheskogo diskursa [The Semiotic Parameters of Legal Discourse] In: Ryadchikova, E.N. (ed.) Aktual'nye problemy sovremennogo yazykoznaniya i literaturovedeniya: Materialy 5-j mezhdunarodnoj konferencii molodyh uchenyh, Krasnodar, 28 aprelya 2006 g. [Actual Problems of Modern Linguistics and Literary Studies: Materials of the 5th International conference of young scientists, 28 April 2006, Krasnodar, Russia]. Krasnodar, KubSU, pp. 175–178. (in Russian).
  18. Krapivkina, O.A., Nepomilov, L.A. (2014), Juridicheskij diskurs: ponjatie, funkcii, svojstva. [Legal Discourse: Concept, Functions, Properties]. Gumanitarnye nauchnye issledovaniya [Humanitarian Scientific Research]. 37 (9), рр. 102–105. (in Russian).
  19. Mel’čuk, I.A. (1997), Vers une linguistique Sens-Texte. Leçon inaugurale. Paris, Collège de France. (in French).
  20. Morris, Ch. (1983), Osnovaniya teorii znakov [The Foundations of the Theory of Signs]. Translated from English by Murat, V.P. In: Stepanov, Yu. S. (ed.) Semiotika: sbornik perevodov [Semiotics: a collection of translations]. Moscow, Rainbow, pp. 37–89. (in Russian).
  21. Neustroyev, K.S. (2018), Fenomen semanticheskoj neopredelennosti v yuridicheskom tekste: kontekst, pragmatika, interpretaciya [The phenomenon of semantic uncertainty in a legal text: contexts, pragmatics, interpretation]. Baltijskij gumanitarnyj zhurnal [Baltic Journal of Humanities]. Vol. 7. 22 (1), рр. 113–116. (in Russian).
  22. Pantykina, M.I. (2017), Diskurs-analiz v issledovanii individual'nogo pravosoznaniya [Discourse analysis in the study of individual sense of justice]. Pravovedenie [Jurisprudence]. 330 (1), рр. 28–51. (in Russian)
  23. Parret, H. (1983), Semiotics and pragmatics. An evaluative comparison of conceptual frameworks. Amsterdam, John Benjamins publishing. (in English).
  24. Ricoeur, P. (2004), Sur la traduction. grandes difficulties et petits bonheurs de la traduction. Paris, Bayard. (in French).
  25. Suslov, V.А. (2014), Teoreticheskie aspekty realizacii principa edinoobraziya v sfere pravoprimeneniya [Theoretical aspects of the implementation of the principle of uniformity in the field of law enforcement]. Pravovedenie [Jurisprudence]. 312 (1), рр. 55–65. (in Russian).
  26. Syrykh, V.M. (2014), Istoriya i metodologiya yuridicheskoj nauki: uchebnik [History and methodology of legal science: a textbook]. Moscow, Norma: INFRA-M. (in Russian)
  27. Turanin, V.Yu. (2018), Fenomen yuridicheskoj terminologii [The phenomenon of legal terminology]. Moscow, Yurlitinform. (in Russian).
  28. Van Dijk Teun, A. (1977) Text and Context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London and New York, Longman. (in English).
  29. Vlasenko, N.A. (2014), Konkretizaciya v prave: metodologicheskie osnovy issledovaniya [Concretization in law: methodological basis of research]. Zhurnal rossijskogo prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 211 (7), рр. 60–75. Available from: doi: 10.12737/4825 (in Russian).
  30. Vlasenko, N.А. (2011), Tekhnika podgotovki teksta normativnogo pravovogo akta [Technique of preparation of the text of a normative legal act] In: Vlasenko, N.А. (ed.) Normotvorcheskaya yuridicheskaya tekhnika [Normative law technique]. Moscow, Yustitsinform, pp. 85–89. (in Russian).

Copyright (c) 2019 Gavrilova Y.A.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies