{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022206303724928367, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.18141592920354, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Topical Issues of Synonymous Comparisons in Jurisprudence (on the example of the Word «Interest»)

The study of numerous cases of applying the method of synonymous comparison of words and terms in the legal literature revealed that these comparisons are often made not at the level of words and terms, but at the level of concepts and categories, which is unacceptable from the point of view of the doctrine of synonymy Using specific examples of comparing the word «interest» with phrases in which this word is also used, the author substantiates inadmissibility of such comparisons. The paper explains the prospects for more active use in jurisprudence of certain concepts from the terminological apparatus of linguistics, in particular the terms «quasisynonym» and «engionim». The paper analyzes the long-term use of the terms «legitimate interest» and «legally protected interest» by the domestic legislator. It is shown that this happens due to the need to more accurately designate the real phenomenon, and for this, it is precisely those meanings by which these words and phrases differ that are most suitable. The author suggests that the legal approach to determining the meanings of such words and phrases cannot end with «declaring» them synonyms, but should focus on finding those significant differences between them, which give grounds to the legislator to use these quasi-synonyms.