Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Semantization of Vocabulary in the Legal English Classroom

  • S.I.: Law and Language
  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research investigates methods of semantization of legal English vocabulary for teaching purposes. It includes several stages. First, the article describes methods and procedures of collecting and analyzing learners’ errors related to the use of vocabulary. The errors are classified and grouped in accordance with the lexical challenges they stem from. The findings show that the most frequent errors are caused by inter- and intralanguage interferences and related, primarily, to the use of synonyms, homonyms, paronyms, false cognates, collocations, lexis having stylistic and culture-specific connotations. Further, it characterizes ways of vocabulary semantization addressing the students’ errors and focusing on the linguistic phenomena that cause them. The most effective methods of semantization targeting the challenges are divided into translational and non-translational ones. The former include direct translation and translation–interpretation. The majority of semantization techniques are characterized as non-translational. This type of semantization involves definitions, synonyms and antonyms, enumeration, identifying semantics by means of word-formation elements, semantic ties between hyponyms and hypernyms as well as those revealing words’ etymology.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Apresyan, Y. 1974. Lexical semantics. Synonymous language means. Moscow: Yaziki Russkoy Kulturi.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Asher, N. 2011. Lexical meaning in Context: A web of words. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  3. Assel, A. 2014. The problem of terminographic semantization in education. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 116: 2976–2979.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Azimov, E. and A. N. Shchukin. 2009. New dictionary of methodology terms. Moscow: IKAR.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Badger, R. 2003. Legal and general: Towards a genre analysis of newspaper law reports. English for Specific Purposes 22: 249–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bahns, J. and M. Eldaw. 1993. Should we teach EFL students collocations? System 21(1): 101–114.

  7. Bannister, S. and V. V. Morkovkin. 1988. Semantization of lexis in a learnerʼs dictionary designed for a certain language. In Teoriya i Praktika Uchebnoj Leksikografii, ed. V. Morkovkin, 74–92. Moscow: Pushkin Russian Language Institute. In, ed

    Google Scholar 

  8. Beck, I., M. McKeown, and L. Kucan. 2013. Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York/London: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Beheydt, L. 1987. The semantization of vocabulary in foreign language learning. System 15 (1): 55–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Bhatia, V. 2003. Applied genre analysis: A multi-perspective model. Iberica 4: 2–19.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Biel, Ł. 2008. Legal terminology in translation practice: Dictionaries, googling or discussion forums? SKASE Journal of Translation and Interpretation 3(1). http://www.skase.sk/Volumes/JTI03/pdf_doc/3.pdf.

  12. Boers, F. 2011. Cognitive semantic ways of teaching figurative phrases. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 9(1): 227–261.

  13. Bolger, P. and G. Zapata. 2011. Semantic categories and context in L2 vocabulary learning. Language Learning 61(2): 614–646.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Candlin, C., V. Bhatia, C. Jensen, and N. Langton. 2002. Developing legal writing materials for english second language learners: problems and perspectives. English for Specific Purposes 21: 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Cruse, D. 1986. Lexical semantics. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  16. De Clerk, V. 2003. Language and the law. Who has the upper hand? AILA Review 16: 89–103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Deutch, Y. 2003. Needs analysis for academic legal English courses in Israel: A model of setting priorities. English for Academic Purposes 3: 123–146.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Febrero, S. and J. Luis. 2003. Legal English and translation: Theory & practice: Annotated texts and documents. Alicante: Editorial Club Universitario.

  19. Feak, C. and S. Reinhart. 2002. An ESP program for students of law. In English for Specific Purposes, ed. T. Orr., 7–24. Virginia: TESOL.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Golev, N. D. 2010. Lexicographic aspects of studying average metalanguage cognition. In Obydennoe Metayazykovoe Soznanie: Ontologicheskie i Gnoseologicheskie Aspekty, ed. N. Golev, 378–410. Kemerovo: KemGU.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Griffiths, P. 2006. Introduction to English semantics and pragmatics. London: Edinburgh University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Haigh, R. 2009. Legal English. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  23. Harvey, M. 2002. What’s so special about legal translation? Meta 47: 177–185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Henriksen, B. 1999. Three dimensions in vocabulary development. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 21(2): 303–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hippner-Page, T. 2000. Semantic clustering versus thematic clustering of english vocabulary words for second language instruction which method is more effective?. Washington, D.C.: Distributed by ERIC Clearinghouse. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED445550.

  26. Hurford, J., B. Heasley, and M. Smith. 2013. Semantics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Kember, D. 1996. The intention to both memorise and understand: Another approach to learning? Higher Education 31: 341–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kjœr, A. 2000. On the structure of legal knowledge: The importance of knowing legal rules for understanding legal texts. In Language, text, and knowledge. Mental Models of Expert Communication, eds. L. Lundquist, and R. Jarvella, 127–161. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Kossakowska-Pisarek, S., and B. Niepytalska. 2004. Key legal words. Warsaw: Leon Koźmiński Academy of Entrepreneurship and Management.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Kroeger, P. 2019. Analyzing meaning. Berlin: Language Science Press.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Krois-Lindner, A. 2006. International legal English certificate. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  32. Levental’, I. 2014. Semantization of lexis in foreign learnerʼs dictionaries: In search of a new approach. Filologicheskie nauki Voprosy teorii i praktiki 6(1): 120–124.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Mamulyan, A. and S. Kashkin. 1993. English-Russian law dictionary. https://envoc.ru/edictionary/anglo-russkij-polnyj-yuridicheskij-slovar.

  34. Markovits, R. and Y. Weinstein. 2018. Can cognitive processes help explain the success of instructional techniques recommended by behavior analysts? Science of Learning. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41539-017-0018-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McKay, W. and H. Charlton. 2005. Legal English. How to Understand and Master the Language of the Law. Harlow: Pearson Education.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Mukoroli, J. 2011. Effective vocabulary teaching strategies for the English for academic purposes esl classroom. MA TESOL Collection. https://digitalcollections.sit.edu/ipp_collection/501.

  37. Müller, B. 1994. Wortschatzarbeit und Bedeutungsvermittlung. Berlin: Langenscheidt.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Nation, I. 2001. Learning vocabulary in another language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Northcott, J., and G. Brown. 2006. Legal translator training: Partnership between teachers of English for legal purposes and legal specialists. English for Specific Purposes 25: 358–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Poole, R. 2013. Concordance-based glosses for academic Vocabulary Acquisition. CALICO Journal https://doi.org/10.11139/cj.29.4.679-693.

  41. Rayar, W. 1988. Problems of legal translation from the point of View of the translator. In Translation our future, ed. P. Nekeman, 451–462. Maastricht: Euroterm.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Reinhart, S. 2007. Strategies for legal case reading and Vocabulary Development. Michigan: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  43. Rostova, A. 2000. Metatext as a form of explication of metalinguistic consciousness. Tomsk: Tomskiy Universitet.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Schmitt, N. 1998. Tracking the incremental acquisition of second language vocabulary: A longitudinal study. Language Learning 48(2): 281–317.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Schmitt, N. 2007. Current perspectives on vocabulary teaching and learning. In International handbook of English language teaching, ed. J. Cummins, C. Davison, 827–841. Springer International Handbooks of Education. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-46301-8_55.

  46. Schmitt, N. and D. Schmitt. 2020. Vocabulary in language teaching. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  47. Schmitt, N., and C. Zimmerman. 2002. Derivative word forms: What do learners know? TESOL Quarterly 36(2): 145–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Smyth, S. 1999. Communicating in legal English or taking the law into our own hands?. ESP SIG Newsletter 15: 6–15.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Strong, S. 2003. How to write law essays and exams. London: LexisNexis.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Tiersma, P. 1999. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Verspoor, M., and W. Lowie. 2003. Making sense of polysemous words. Language Learning 53: 547–586.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Zahedi, Y. and Abdi, M. 2012. The effect of semantic mapping strategy on EFL learners’ vocabulary learning. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences 69: 2273–2280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Zimmerman, C. 1997. Historical trends in second language vocabulary instruction. Second language vocabulary acquisition 6(1): 5–19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of the English language, MGIMO University (Odintsovo), Moscow, Russia

    Karine G. Chiknaverova

Authors
  1. Karine G. Chiknaverova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karine G. Chiknaverova.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chiknaverova, K.G. Semantization of Vocabulary in the Legal English Classroom. Int J Semiot Law 36, 1897–1913 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09982-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-09982-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation