Twis om woorde: ʼn forensiese ondersoek na semantiese kwessies in hofsake
| dc.contributor.advisor | Bergh, Luna | |
| dc.contributor.author | Carney, Terrence Robert | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2016-02-22T06:53:26Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2016-02-22T06:53:26Z | |
| dc.date.copyright | 2015-06 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015-06 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2016-02-09 | |
| dc.description.abstract | English: Law is dependent on language. This is seen, amongst others, in a court of law’s responsibility to interpret the meaning of words. Cases regularly revolve around words; as a result courts have to deal with lexical semantic issues. They do this by referring to a word’s definition in the relevant act, or they cite previous (mostly reported) cases that have dealt with the same words or situations. Sometimes a court will call on a linguist to give his/her expert opinion regarding tricky linguistic issues or terminology or a presiding officer will refer to a scholarly publication. However, when neither of these approaches shed any light nor seem necessary, a court has to interpret words according to their ordinary meaning. For this they often use dictionaries. Apparently a presiding officer never makes use of any other linguistic means to determine the contextual meaning of a so-called ordinary word. Dictionaries tend to be unreliable. By no means do they contain all the words in a language, their definitions are not always clear and they seldom define words in context. Apart from this, dictionaries get outdated quickly and they are dissimilar in their definitions. This study has found that presiding officers in South Africa make use of outdated dictionaries, they sometimes use bilingual dictionaries to define words and the majority of dictionaries used by them are compiled and published outside of South Africa. Using foreign dictionaries to give meaning to words used in South African contexts leads to obvious misinterpretation. It was also found that some South African presiding officers use dictionaries with limited scope, such as pocket and compact dictionaries. All of this creates the impression that law practitioners generally do not know that dictionaries have different goals and target audiences. Because dictionaries should rather be used as a starting point when dealing with the meaning of words in court cases, I suggest law practitioners approach meaning conceptually. Drawing on the work of Rosch, Fillmore and Barsalou, this study advocates the solving of lexical semantic problems by using frames, more specifically Barsalou’s frame model (1992). Due to the fact that speakers understand and process meaning by connecting language to experience and general knowledge, and by categorising information into groups that contain exemplars considered to be the best example of that category; it makes sense for a court of law to give meaning to words in the same way. Speakers deal with information in the form of concepts and those concepts are interconnected and form vast networks of meaning. Words are the lexical representations of those interconnected networks of meaning. Defining a word outside of its conceptual web implies that an interpreter thinks words mean the same in every context, and this is not true. If courts follow a conceptual approach, they will come much closer to a word’s actual, contextual meaning than what they find in a dictionary. The study comprises the following: Chapter 2 provides an overview of both international and local activities of forensic linguistics and positions the study within this field of research. Chapter 3 discusses the different means by which South African courts deal with meaning and the interpretation of words. This includes the theories of interpretation, the Interpretation Act and the use of dictionaries. Chapter 4 focuses on the field of semantics. The different aspects of semantics are discussed, leading to the cognitive linguistic view of prototypes and frames. The chapter ends with an introduction and explanation of Barsalou’s model and the six steps needed to interpret ordinary words found in cases. In Chapter 5 the model is illustrated and tested on words found in 20 South African court cases. In Chapter 6 the conclusion is drawn that the model shows the necessary potential to interpret ordinary words alongside dictionaries. | en_ZA |
| dc.description.abstract | Afrikaans: Die reg is van taal afhanklik. Dit word onder meer in ʼn hof se verantwoordelikheid gesien om woorde se betekenisse uit te lê. Hofsake sentreer reëlmatig om woorde, dit wil sê howe moet gereeld leksikaal-semantiese kwessies hanteer. Hulle doen dit deur na ʼn woord se definisie in die betrokke wet te verwys, of hulle haal (meestal gerapporteerde) presedenthofsake aan wat reeds met dieselfde woorde of situasies gewerk het. Somtyds roep ʼn hof ʼn taalkundige in om deskundige getuienis te lewer aangaande ʼn ingewikkelde taalkwessie of terminologie, of ʼn voorsittende beampte maak gebruik van akademiese publikasies om klarigheid te kry. Wanneer nie een van hierdie benaderings egter slaag of nodig blyk te wees nie, moet ʼn hof woorde volgens hul gewone betekenis uitlê. Daarvoor word woordeboeke gewoonlik gebruik. Oënskynlik maak ʼn voorsittende beampte nooit van ʼn taalkundige benadering gebruik om die konteksgebonde betekenis van sogenaamde gewone woorde te bepaal nie. Woordeboeke is geneig om onbetroubaar te wees. Hulle bevat geensins al die woorde van ʼn taal nie, hul definisies is nie altyd duidelik nie en hulle definieer woorde selde in konteks. Apart daarvan, verouder woordeboeke taamlik vinnig en verskillende woordeboeke omskryf woorde op verskillende maniere. Dié studie het bevind dat voorsittende beamptes in Suid-Afrika van verouderde woordeboeke gebruik maak, dat hulle tweetalige woordeboeke gebruik om woorde te definieer en dat hulle hoofsaaklik woordeboeke gebruik wat in die buiteland saamgestel en gepubliseer word. Deur buitelandse woordeboeke te gebruik om woorde in Suid-Afrikaanse kontekste te omskryf, lei voor die hand liggend tot waninterpretasie. Daar is ook bevind dat sommige Suid-Afrikaanse voorsittende beamptes uiters beknopte woordeboeke, soos kompakte en sakwoordeboeke, gebruik. Dit skep alles die indruk dat Suid-Afrikaanse regsgeleerdes oor die algemeen nie weet woordeboeke verskil ten opsigte van doel en teikenmark nie. Omdat woordeboeke eerder as ʼn wegspringplek moet funksioneer wanneer die betekenis van woorde in hofsake hanteer word, stel ek voor dat regspraktisyns betekenis konseptueel benader. Gebaseer op die werk van Rosch, Fillmore en Barsalou, argumenteer die onderhawige studie vir die gebruik van frames om leksikaal-semantiese probleme op te los, meer spesifiek Barsalou se framemodel (1992). Weens die feit dat sprekers betekenis verstaan en prosesseer deur taal aan ervaring en algemene kennis te verbind, en deur inligting in kategorieë te groepeer wat tipiese voorbeelde van elke kategorie bevat, maak dit sin dat ʼn hof gewone woorde op dieselfde wyse uitlê. Sprekers verwerk inligting in die vorm van konsepte en daardie konsepte is onderling verbind om uitgebreide netwerke te vorm. Woorde is die leksikale verteenwoordigers van hierdie verbinde betekenisnetwerke. Deur ʼn woord buite sy konseptuele web te definieer, impliseer dat die interpreteerder dink woorde beteken dieselfde in elke konteks en dit is nie waar nie. As howe ʼn konseptuele benadering volg, beweeg hulle veel nader aan die ware, konteksgebonde betekenis as dit wat in ʼn woordeboek staan. Die studie behels die volgende: Hoofstuk 2 bied ʼn oorsig van die internasionale en plaaslike bedrywighede van die forensiese taalwetenskap en plaas ook die onderhawige studie binne hierdie navorsingsterrein. Hoofstuk 3 bespreek die verskillende maniere waarop Suid-Afrikaanse howe met betekenis en die interpretasie van woorde omgaan, synde uitlegteorieë, die Interpretasiewet en die gebruik van woordeboeke. Hoofstuk 4 fokus op die semantiek. Verskillende aspekte van semantiek word bespreek en lei uiteindelik na die blik op prototipes en frames vanuit die kognitiewe linguistiek. Die hoofstuk eindig met ʼn bekendstelling en verduideliking van Barsalou se framemodel en die ses stappe wat gevolg moet word om gewone woorde se betekenis in hofsake mee uit te lê. In Hoofstuk 5 word die model geïllustreer en op die proef gestel deur woorde uit 20 Suid-Afrikaanse hofsake te ontleed. In Hoofstuk 6 word daar tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die model die nodige potensiaal toon om saam met woordeboeke ontgin te kan word. | af |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/11660/2346 | |
| dc.language.iso | af | af |
| dc.publisher | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.rights.holder | University of the Free State | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Barsalou | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Concepts | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Dictionaries in court cases | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Dictionaries | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Fillmore | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Forensic linguistics | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Forensic semantics | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Intentionalism | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Frames | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Interpretation of statutes | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Interpretation of words | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Language and law | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Lexical semantics | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Meaning | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Ordinary meaning of words | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Prototypes | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Rosch | en_ZA |
| dc.subject | Textualism | en_US |
| dc.subject | Thesis (Ph.D. (Linguistics and Language Practice))--University of the Free State, 2015 | en_ZA |
| dc.title | Twis om woorde: ʼn forensiese ondersoek na semantiese kwessies in hofsake | af |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_ZA |