Specificity of Defence Attorney’s and Prosecutor’s Direct Verbal Influence on Jurors during Trial (by the Material of the English-Language Feature Films)
Ilyukhin Nikita Igorevich
Saratov State Law Academy
Submitted: 20.07.2020
Abstract. The paper aims to prove that during a trial, a defence attorney and a prosecutor use the same communicative techniques to influence the jurors. The author describes the basic characteristics of the court discourse and identifies specificity of a lawyer’s communicative behaviour during proceedings. Scientific originality of the study lies in the fact that the researcher for the first time analyses opening and concluding speeches of a defence attorney and a prosecutor by the material of the English-language feature films. The research findings are as follows: the author proves that at different levels of communication, a lawyer, exerting verbal influence on the jurors, uses different speech techniques that perform the suggestive function and allow bypassing the restrictions conditioned by specificity of the court discourse.
Key words and phrases: судебный дискурс, прямое коммуникативное воздействие, суггестивная функция, речь адвоката, речь прокурора, court discourse, immediate communicative influence, suggestive function, defence attorney’s speech, prosecutor’s speech
Open the whole article in PDF format. Free PDF-files viewer can be downloaded .
References:
Arkhipova M. V., Makarevich M. V. O roli povtora kak sintaksicheskogo sredstva peredachi emotsii // Teoriya i praktika lingvisticheskogo opisaniya razgovornoi rechi. 2018. № 2 (31). S. 20-24.
Gremitskaya M. V. Eksplikatsiya kontsepta PREDPOLOZhENIE posredstvom ritoricheskogo i refleksivnogo voprosov v nemetskoi yazykovoi kartine mira // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2016. № 1 (55). Ch. 2. C. 116-119.
Dubrovskaya T. V. Sudebnyi diskurs: rechevoe povedenie sud'i: avtoref. diss. … d. filol. n. Saratov, 2010. 40 s.
Dubrovskaya T. V. Sudebnyi diskurs: rechevoe povedenie sud'i: diss.. d. filol. n. Saratov, 2010. 510 s.
Zemskaya E. A. Russkaya razgovornaya rech': lingvisticheskii analiz i problemy obucheniya. M.: Russkii yazyk, 1979. 240 s.
Ilyukhin N. I., Maksimova S. Yu., Matsyupa K. V. Identifikatory kak sredstvo formirovaniya obraza odarennoi rechevoi lichnosti // Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie. 2019. T. 18. № 4. S. 186-199.
Karasik V. I. O tipakh diskursa // Yazykovaya lichnost': institutsional'nyi i personal'nyi diskurs: sb. nauch. tr. Volgograd: Peremena, 2000. S. 5-20.
Karasik V. I. Yazykovoi krug: lichnost', kontsepty, diskurs. Volgograd: Peremena, 2002. 480 s.
Katermina V. V., Safronova T. S. Mekhanizmy suggestivnogo vozdeistviya v yuridicheskom diskurse // Vestnik Volgogradskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 2. Yazykoznanie. 2017. T. 16. № 3. S. 142-152.
Katermina V. V., Safronova T. S. Sposoby reprezentatsii osnovnykh suggestivnykh strategii i taktik v sudebnom diskurse // Yurislingvistika. 2016. № 5. S. 211-223.
Katyshev P. A. Ortologiya sudebnoi rechi // Ritorika / pod red. P. A. Katysheva. Kemerovo: KemGU, 2002. S. 123-137.
Klimovich O. V. Sredstva rechevogo vozdeistviya v sudebnom diskurse // Slavuta. Serіya "Fіlologіya". 2013. Vip. 7. S. 34-42.
Matveeva G. G. K voprosu o rechevykh strategiyakh skrytogo vozdeistviya otpravitelya teksta na ego poluchatelya // Lichnost', rech' i yuridicheskaya praktika. Rostov-na-Donu: Donskoi yuridicheskii institut, 2003. Vyp. 6. S. 123-128.
Nefedova L. A., Nikiforova E. Sh. Strategii kommunikativnogo vozdeistviya kak element rechevogo povedeniya uchastnikov russkoyazychnogo sudebnogo diskursa // Vestnik Chelyabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2013. № 1 (292). Filologiya. Iskusstvovedenie. Vyp. 73. S. 229-234.
Popova E. V. Priroda sudebnogo diskursa // Vestnik Orenburgskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. 2016. № 6 (194). S. 24-28.
Safronova T. S. Osobennosti suggestivnogo vozdeistviya vo vstupitel'noi rechi prokurorov (na materiale angliiskogo yazyka) // Filologicheskie nauki. Voprosy teorii i praktiki. 2017. № 6 (72). Ch. 1. C. 136-141.
Soldatova A. A. Spetsifika rechevykh strategii v advokatskom diskurse // Prava i svobody cheloveka: problemy realizatsii, obespecheniya i zashchity: mat-ly Mezhdunar. nauch.-praktich. konf. (5-6 iyunya 2011 g.). Praga: Sotsiosfera, 2011. S. 163-166.
Sternin I. A. Vvedenie v rechevoe vozdeistvie: uchebnoe izdanie. Voronezh: Istoki, 2012. 178 s.
Khokhlova I. N. Ponyatie "Yazykovaya lichnost'": kratkaya istoriya voprosa // Istoricheskaya i sotsial'no-obrazovatel'naya mysl'. 2013. № 6 (22). S. 201-203.
A Time to Kill / directed by J. Chumacher. The USA, 1996.
American Crime Story. The Verdict. The USA, 2016.
And Justice for All / directed by N. Jewison. The USA, 1979.
Bull. Just Tell the Truth. The USA, 2016.
For the People. One Big Happy Family. The USA, 2019.
For the People. The Library Fountain. The USA, 2018.
Marshall / directed by R. Hudlin. The USA, 2017.
Philadelphia / directed by J. Demme. The USA, 1993.
Primal Fear / directed by G. Hoblit. The USA, 1996.
Rainmaker / directed by F. Ford Coppola. The USA, 1997.
The Devil’s Advocate / directed by T. Hackford. The USA, 1997.
Witt Ch. Real Leaders Don’t Do PowerPoint. N. Y.: Random House, 2012. 256 p.
Русский
