PHILOLOGICAL AND LOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF LEGAL NORMS

The purpose of the article is to highlight the question of philological and logical interpretation of legal norms. The novelty of the article is to show how the philological and logical interpretation of legal norms applied in practice. Within the framework of philological (grammatical) interpretation are distinguished two main types of analysis (analysis), which significantly affect the process of assessing the content of legal norms. The first type of analysis involves a holistic assessment of the semantic load of a word, an analysis of a word as a lexical unit. Certain rules (plain meaning rule; legal definition) developed in jurisprudence and used during lexical analysis are singled out. The specified rules are very similar in orientation. The first establishes that it doesn't give the same meaning to different terms without sufficient grounds. Second, identical terms within the same legal act no give different meanings without sufficient grounds. Within the framework of linguistic-logical interpretation, recommended to pay attention to the communication context that arises when using language. Logical interpretation consists in clarifying the content of a legal norm by comparing its content with other norms in the field of law. It was established that a number of signs of a logical method of interpretation include the following: a set of logical methods of interpretation; a means of deciphering the meaning of the legal norm; purposeful mental activity. Conclusions. Linguistic (grammatical, morphological, textual) and logical methods of interpretation are the main ones, while others are a natural addition to them. However, we adhere to the view that there is no division into basic and additional ways of interpreting legal norms. Each is an independent way of interpretation. However, in order to clarify the content and meaning of a legal norm, it is not always necessary to apply all the above methods of interpretation. Sometimes it is enough to limit yourself to only a few of them. This fact does not yet give grounds to consider other methods of interpretation as additional or to ignore them. Since, most often, the very use of one of them can fundamentally change the opinion of the interpreter and help in clarifying the will of the legislator.