8. The indicated transforming function of normative reality is effectively used in legal
reasoning. In terms of a lawyer's professional everyday work legal reasoning is that which is
concerned with the norms and other phenomena of law and with the facts of legal significance.
According to that definition, the subject "law" is expressed in the form of significance
of the fact, significance of the norm; generally speaking, of significance of the
phenomenon. Therefore, we can at once refer to the characteristics of legal reasoning as
interpretative reasoning. The explanation of such interpretative activity as is the lawyer's
reasoning is to be sought in coming to know the notions in his mind, their possible specificity
and mechanism of realization, stemming directly from, or to some degree conditioned by, the
objects whose images they are. These are the legal forms as variants of transformation structures.
Consequently, their representation in the lawyer's consciousness is also specific and must
adequately be recognized and explained. The objects of these notions are precisely the concrete
objects which "occasion" the lawyer's reasoning.
Legal reasoning is one of understanding; it interprets, explains and synthesizes, i.e. it gives
rise to meaning. It interprets and makes meaningful signs (texts and other symbols) which fact
determines its sign nature. It reasons and explicates which fact determines its
logical character. There exists a functional link between its sign character and its logical
one. Legal reasoning uses the logical principle of proportion __ as equality,
or as similarity __ whenever it draws comparisons between individually
manifested significances. It interprets propositions and their sequence through the semantics of
legal concepts, technical terms and the words of the natural language. It draws parallels between
the achieved interpretations and juxtaposes them. This characteristic of it determines
interpretation as an invariable in its structure and semiosis.
In its structure legal reasoning is a complex system. Its elements are the logical, linguistic
and legal interpretations which for their part interpret the elements of their own substructures,
insofar as the latter are represented (objectivized). The system of legal reasoning functions
through making meaningful the connections between the logical, linguistic and legal
interpretations. As interpretation is always an invariable elementary structure, functional links are
also interpreted. From the point of view of logic legal reasoning is the use of propositions in their
interrelations in accordance with rules of validity, and from the point of view of semantics it is
the defining of significances according to their relations with other significances in order to
acquire importance. With the help of the conception of the thought-sign put forward by
Peirce we can establish that the semantic substructures of legal reasoning are chains
of significances which are connected functionally through their positional determination
by certain interpretants while the logical ones are sequences of
propositions whose formal validity is contained in some interpretant.
Legal reasoning functions as a mechanism for comparing (a correlation of difference and
similarity) and reference between the formally logical validity and semantic value of the thoughts
as objects which are signs (which are represented), on the one hand, and
__ on the other __ their interpretations: So that the
connection (the bridge) of interpreting thought __ with
__ interpreting thought is understood as a meaning by the succeeding
interpretation. That is why, first, legal reasoning can realize the transformations of law as a
phenomenon of re-signifying which includes the fact that it gives rise to them as legal
transformations, and, second, to grasp them regardless of the crises or progress of traditional
generalizations inherent in theoretical legal thought.
9. The objects of legal reasoning, viz., the legal phenomena, indicate themselves through the
position they take in the phenomenal chain as representamina ["representamen"
as sign according to Peirce] of these objects. The understanding of the signs is a process of
interpreting their semiosis: the phenomenon-sign is interpreted by a thought which is an
inalienable aspect of it. That thought is presented to consciousness as a sign; and that sign is
interpreted by another thought. The achieved meaning is in the sequence itself and the
understanding __ formally __ boils down to a transforming
of the significance of one element in the sequence into a significance of the other element.
Re-signifying is an effect of the phenomenological method: two elements are
linked in a sequence, their position in it is interpreted, and the result is something of a third kind
__ an intermediary, making meaningful the legal transformation,
__ through which one element "passes" into the position of the other element,
i.e. the significance of one element is transformed into a significance of the other