Conceptuality of Meaning-Formation in the Normative Theory of Law in the Context of Building a Legal Thinking Culture

Introduction. In the present-day scientific discourse, there is a great number of theoretical research focusing on the problem of objectifying the semiotic nature of law and analysing the functional construct of legal semantics. Whereas, many practical legal issues, such as: interpretative ambiguity in the meaning-formation and meaning-application of normative acts, lexical vagueness and contextual dependence of legal notions and the incoherence of legal terminology across different legal systems, remain neglected, which leads to contradictions and inaccuracies in legal practice. The aim of the study is to define the methodological principles fostering establishment of the acceptable scope of semantic interpretation of legal notions in the context of building a legal thinking culture. 

Materials and Methods. The research methodology was based on the principle of jurisprudential definition of legal norm meaning-formation in socio-legal discourse. Analytical, systematizing and pragmatic methods were used to reveal a complex nature of the semantics of law in the context of legal thinking development. The semiotic analysis of the objectivity and normativity of legal notions taking into account the contextual differences of legal definitions, was used as a specialised research method. 

Results. It was established that normative notions are the complex semantic constructs encompassing a conceptual sphere (normativity) and social reality. For building sustainable models of legal behaviour and legal culture, it is necessary to overcome external and internal conflicts in interpretation of law. In this regard, a number of advisory measures were proposed aimed at establishing acceptable scope of semantic interpretation: differentiation between the informational nature of prescriptive and descriptive notions, semantic monitoring of legal phenomena, and implementation of the principle of discourse contextualism, which makes it possible to formulate the normativity of law requirements based on the specific contextual interpretations. 

Discussion and Conclusion. A justified conclusion about possibility of a properly selected semantic toolkit to determine the objectivity of perception of the legal norms and, consequently, to improve the process of building a legal culture was drawn. The main advantage of the principle of discourse contextualism such as conjunction of the semantics and pragmatics of legal notions was identified, which provides a fruitful foundation for further theorizing on the nature and metaphysics of law. 

1. Didikin AB. Semantics of Legal Concepts and Natural Kind Terms: D. Patterson’s Arguments. Omsk Scientific Bulletin. Series Society. History. Modernity. 2021;6(2):94–98. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25206/2542-0488-2021-6-294-98

2. Csaba V. The Paradigms of Legal Thinking. Philosophiae Iuris. Budapest: Szent Istvan Tarsulat Publ; 2012. P. 237–300. URL: http://real.mtak.hu/id/eprint/164114 (accessed: 01.11.2025).

3. Zabelov AY. Problems of Semantic Analysis of Legal Terms. Modern Scientific Thought. 2015;(5):121–126. (In Russ.)

4. Patterson DM. Dworkin on the Semantics of Legal and Political Concepts. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 2006;26(3):545–557.

5. Kasatkin SN. H.L.A. Hart’s Methodology of Defining Legal Concepts: Problems of Connection between Semantics and Pragmatics in Legal Language Hart’s Methodology of Defining Legal Concepts: Problems of Connection Between Semantics and Pragmatics in Legal Language. Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences. 2022;15(3):423–428. https://doi.org/10.17516/1997-1370-0225

6. Hart HLA. Definition and Theory in Jurisprudence. Essays on Jurisprudence and Philosophy. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1953. 28 p.

7. Velezhev SI. Sociological Normativism and Deontological Logic: Theoretical and Methodological Aspects of Their Use in the Process of Studying State-Legal Phenomena. Theory and History of Economics, State and Law. 2012;(45):7–11. (In Russ.)

8. Hart HLA. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals. Harvard Law Review. 1958;71(4):593–629.

9. Demyanenko AP. Friedrich Schleiermacher on Language and Understanding. MCU Journal of Philology. Theory of Linguistics. Linguistic Education. 2008;(2(2)):47–51. (In Russ.)

10. Kozhevnikov VV. About the Hermeneutic Method in Law. Herald of Omsk University. Series “Law”. 2020;17(1):15–26. (In Russ.)

11. Silk A. Normativity in Language and Law. In: Plunkett D, Shapiro S, Toh K (Eds.). Dimensions of Normativity: New Essays on Metaethics and Jurisprudence. New York: Oxford University Press; 2019. P. 287–313. URL: https://philpapers.org/archive/SILNIL.pdf (accessed: 08.11.2025).

12. Popov VV, Minges IA. Two Aspects of the Normality of Law: A Solution in the Semantic Aspect. Journal of the Volgograd Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia. 2018;3(46):25–30. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.25724/vamvd.cjk

13. Popov VV. Human Rights and Freedom: Some Logical Problems. Journal of the Volgograd Academy of the Ministry of the Interior of Russia. 2014;2(29):9–16. (In Russ.)

14. Dudko GN. Types of Casual Interpretation in Law. Prologue: Journal on Law. 2024;(1):16–25. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21639/23136715.2024.1.2

15. Kasimov DR. Semantic and Functional Optionality in the Interpretation of Evaluative Concepts of Criminal Law. Ius Publicum et Privatum. 2021;(4(14)):52–58. (In Russ). https://doi.org/10.46741/2713-2811-2021-4-52-58

16. Kravchuk NV. Legal Conflicts and Ways to Overcome Them: Scientific and Theoretical Approaches. Social and Humanitarian Sciences: Domestic and Foreign Literature. Series 4: State and Law. 2023;(3):7–17. (In Russ.)

17. Klatt M. Semantic Normativity and the Objectivity of Legal Argumentation. Archives for Philosophy of Law and Social Philosophy. 2004;90(1):51–65.