Stylistic Homogeneity of Legal Acts in Science and Technology Field: A Scientometric Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.15407/sofs2017.01.003Keywords:
science and technology activities, legal act, legal text, structural unit of legal text, stylistic homogeneity of legal textAbstract
The linguistic and statistical method for study of stylistic homogeneity of legal acts on science and technology activities in the context of scientometric analysis of science and technology policy is proposed. The method is tested on a database built for purpose of the study, including 163 legal acts from 136 countries that represent all the contemporary legal systems. It is shown that the variation coefficient for large structural units of legal texts with complex structure can act as the statistical measure for stylistic homogeneity of a legal act, whereas the range of its peak values can act the normative range for assessment of the need to correct textual change or additions made in large structural units of any enforced legal act, to ensure its stylistic homogeneity. The samples of legal acts are used to produce the measure of impact from change or additions made in legal acts on the stylistic homogeneity of a legal act, and to find the differences in the stylistic homogeneity of primary edition and current editions of legal acts with complex structure. The found statistical tendencies in the stylistic homogeneity of a legal act are representative for all the contemporary legal systems. The results from the study confirm the appropriateness of linguistic and statistical methods for analysis of legal acts on science and technology activities as part of the scientometric methodology.
References
Вавіленкова А.І. Методологічні основи автоматичного аналізу логіко-лінгвістичних моделей текстових документів. Математичні машини і системи. 2015. № 1. С. 65—71.
Бублик С.Г. Лінгвостатистичні можливості проведення порівняльного аналізу наукового законодавства України. Проблеми науки. 2015. № 9—10. С. 10—22.
Hirsch J.E. An Index to Quantify an Individual’s Research Output. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA. 2005. № 102. P. 16569—16572. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0507655102
Mačutek J. Popescu I.-I., Altmann G. Confidence Intervals and Tests for the H-Point and Related Text Characteristics. Glottometrics. 2007. № 15. P. 45—52.
Popescu I.-I., Kelih E. Altmann G. Diversification of the Case. Glottometrics. 2009. No 18. Р. 32—39.
Бублик С.Г. Теоретико-методическое обеспечение анализа содержательности законодательных актов в сфере научно-технологической деятельности. Наука та наукознавство. 2016. № 2. С. 26—39.
Правовые системы стран мира. Энциклопедический справочник / Отв. ред. А.Я. Сухарев. 3-е изд., перераб. и доп. М.: НОРМА, 2003. 976 с.
Frascati Manual 2015: Guidelines for Collecting and Reporting Data on Research and Experimental Development. — URL: http://www.uis.unesco.org/ScienceTechnology/Documents/ oecd-frascati-manual.pdf.
The Global Innovation Index 2016. Winning with Global Innovation. — URL: http://www. wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_gii_2016.pdf
Правила оформлення проектів законів та основні вимоги законодавчої техніки: методичні рекомендації. К.: Головне юридичне управління Апарату Верховної Ради України, 2007. — 32 с.
Кашанина Т.В. Юридическая техника: учебник. 2-е изд., пересмотр. М.: Норма: ИНФРА-М, 2011. 496 с.
Ціборовський О.М. Істомін С.В., Сорока В.М. Шляхи систематизації законодавства України у сфері охорони здоров’я. К., 2011. 72 с.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Science and Science of Science
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
