Pragmatic Aspects of Judicial Discourse: Zooming in on a Nuanced Language Use (original) (raw)
Related papers
Communicative Specificity of Anglophone Courtroom Polemics (Linguistic Aspect)
"Scientific notes of V. I. Vernadsky Taurida National University", Series: "Philology. Journalism", 2021
This article aims to establish the communicative specificity of Anglophone courtroom polemics. In order to achieve this goal, the following objectives are to be solved: to clarify the terminological apparatus involved in the article; to describe the communicative specificity of polemics in Anglophone court discourse; to establish the language means expressing polemics in Anglophone court discourse. The aim, objectives and specificity of the material determined the choice of methods of analysis. At the stage of terminological grounding the main method is comparison, that is comparing the views of different scholars, directions of problem analysis, etc. Whereas at the second and third stages the following methods as classification (identifying linguistic means), generalisation (summarising information), argumentation (in support of its position) were used. In our choice of approaches to the analysis we were guided by the contemporary scientific paradigms: cognitive linguistics, pragmatic linguistics, speech communication theory, lexicosemantic analysis methods. Elements of cognitive analysis helped to identify the dependence of court discourse on social conditions. To carry out our research, we selected and described the authentic language material. Based on the analysis of the linguistic material, it was established that each type of discursive personality in Anglophone court discourse is "assigned" a particular communicative mode. The judge as the dominant discursive personality in Anglophone court discourse uses a mentative communicative mode. The discursive personalities of an advocate and a prosecutor, unequal in status to the judge, argue within a narrative mode represented by diegesis and mimesis. In a debate, the judge realises his or her dominant position by using certain linguistic resources. The speech behaviour of the lawyer and the prosecutor during the debate demonstrates their unequal status in relation to the judge, which can be seen in the use of language that emphasises their dependent position.
Discourse at the Crossroads of Language and Law
Armenian folia anglistika, 2023
The present article is part of a larger project that is aimed at exploring the peculiar features of language use in the legal domain against the background of the interaction of language and law. The investigation of the intersection of linguistics and legal studies is of paramount importance. Legal regulations, qualified legal assistance, knowledge of linguistic requirements for legal formulations, etc. have nowadays become an indispensable part of human life. Focusing on the results achieved by our predecessors that will help understand the nature and the complexity of the legal system and law, and divulging the specificities of legal discourse at large and the one exercised in the courtroom in particular are of paramount importance. The desire to engross this field has stimulated the study of a wide range of books, articles and works of prominent scholars which, in one way or another, refer to the mentioned questions. Applying the methodology of discourse analysis and description of the relevant literature, we come to the conclusion that an integrated and coherent analysis from a linguistic standpoint proves to be an inevitable step in the process of revealing the concept of legal discourse.
METAPRAGMATICS OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE IN RUSSIAN AND ENGLISH JUDICIAL DISCOURSE
This paper is intended as a contribution to a body of research on metapragmatics in courtroom settings, particularly in Russian and English judicial discourse, and presents the results of functional analysis of metapragmatic elements. In the article, I claim that meta-utterances are inherent in judicial discourse and perform specific functions that are essential for practising judicial power and discretion in court as well as administering justice. The paper discusses functions of meta-utterances as they are presented in recent scholarship and offers a three-group classification of metapragmatic elements in judicial discourse, according to the types of reality distinguished in (Gibbons 2003). The first group contributes to constructing the primary reality, i.e. the reality of the courtroom; the second group assists in framing the secondary reality, i.e. the reality of the crime or misdemeanor; the third group deals with framing the legal reality. Altogether, these groups of metapragmatic elements construct an organizational frame for the trial. Data for the analysis are drawn from a few trial transcripts of modern Russian and English cases (1998—2008). By using Russian and English data for the analysis, it is demonstrated that the principal functions of judicial meta-utterances are marked by parallelism in Russian and English, while minor differences discovered are related to some other pragmatic categories, e.g. politeness, that are more nationally and culturally specific.
The Pragmatics of Legal Language
Ratio Juris, 2008
The purpose of this essay is to explore some of the main pragmatic aspects of communication within the legal context. It will be argued that in some crucial respects, the pragmatics of legal language is unique, involving considerations that are not typically present in ordinary conversational contexts. In particular, certain normative considerations that are typically settled in a regular conversational context are unresolved and potentially contentious in the legal case. On the other hand, the essay also argues that a careful distinction between various pragmatic aspects of language use enables us to offer some generalizations about types of pragmatic enrichment that could be taken to form, or not to form, part of what is actually determined by legal expressions.
Pragmatic relevance/strength of lexico–grammar choices in EU legal documents
Pragmatic relevance/strength of lexico–grammar choices in EU legal documents, 2010
The present study focuses on the communicative relevance of lexical choices in the documents of the European Union Committee of the Regions (CoR) and of other related bodies within a pragmalinguistic perspective. The function of the Committee of the Regions is to issue opinions on proposals for Community legislation which are closest to the citizen interests – education, youth, culture, health. It is thus a voice at the heart of the EU which aims at increasing the participation of European regions in community life. Our corpus consists in 100 documents (Proposals and Opinions) whose lexico-grammatical aspects and communicative/ rhetorical strategies are here investigated. Our hypothesis is that such texts aim at creating a holistic we to construe a common ground of interests, within the constraints of legal intercourses, shared by both the sender and the receiver of the messages. Frequently occurring lexical items are: welcome, ensure, strengthen, aid. To stress urgency, generate empathy, emphasize needs and endorse value-positions are the recognizable perlocutionary effects of such semantic/pragmatic choices. Tools for analysis were taken from the domain of pragmalinguistics, from Evaluative/Appraisal Frameworks and, also, from social sciences. Particularly relevant appeared the notion of ‘advocacy’ (i.e., when researchers are asked to use their expertise to defend the subjects’ interests in healthcare, education, political rights, and cultural autonomy). This study will provide both qualitative and quantitative data to support our hypothesis, and will offer suggestions for further research.
2018
It is intuitive that a persuasive judgment has more chances to achieve compliance, to set a precedent and to generally influence the authority of a court. It is more difficult to identify the writing tools that create its rhetorical structure. This paper defines and describes ‘courtspeak’ relying on the elements of the text that have been first identified by a group of literary theorists commonly known as “Russian Formalists”. First, the element called ‘Motivation’ explains how every argument must find its justification in the unity the judgment. Second, the distinction between the Fabula and the Syuzhet describes the role of the plot in the construction of the judgment. Third, the Heroes refer to the development of legal arguments as characters of the judgment. Fourth, the Voice is the element of the text that represents the point of view from which a judgment is narrated. Finally, the Theme of the judgment represents the sum of all the formal elements of the work and describes the...
Subjectivity and argumentation in legal discourse: use of intercalations in civil procedure
Romanica Olomucensia, 2014
This study aims at analyzing the use of intercalations in civil procedure texts, by observing its argumentative role as well as its subjective and inter-subjective character. The theoretical framework that supports such analysis is based upon the Argumentative Semantics as well as studies associated with the Linguistic Enunciation theory, on an enunciative and discursive view of the grammar issues. The corpus is made up of three civil procedure texts. The enunciative framework is described as the starting point for the analysis methodology, taking into account the parties involved in the civil procedure, ruled by the adversarial principle. The second step is to analyze the linguistic features used in the texts in order to identify the intention that has determined such choices; intercalations in particular. The analysis results indicate the importance of conducting linguistic studies focused on the language strategy use for the legal practice.