Language, Power, and Persuasion in English Judicial Discourse: A Pragmatic Analysis of Courtroom Interaction
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.69760/egjlle.2603002Ключевые слова:
forensic linguistics, judicial discourse, courtroom interaction, pragmatics, power asymmetry, persuasion, cross-examination, legal languageАннотация
The courtroom is among the most consequential and rigidly structured of all institutional settings, a domain in which language is not merely a vehicle for communicating predetermined facts but the very instrument through which power is exercised, evidence is constructed, and verdicts are produced. This article examines the pragmatic mechanisms of language, power, and persuasion in English judicial discourse, analyzing how courtroom participants — judges, barristers, witnesses, and defendants — deploy and respond to linguistic strategies within the asymmetrical power structure of the adversarial trial. Drawing on the theoretical frameworks of forensic linguistics, pragmatics, conversation analysis, and critical discourse analysis, the study investigates the role of question design and witness control in examination and cross-examination, the operation of the Gricean cooperative principle and its strategic violation in courtroom interaction, the functions of politeness, face, and coercion in the management of testimony, and the rhetorical architecture of persuasion in legal argumentation. The analysis demonstrates that courtroom discourse is governed by a profound communicative asymmetry in which institutionally sanctioned speakers control the topic, sequence, and interpretation of talk, while lay participants are constrained by procedural rules that systematically restrict their discursive agency. The article argues that an understanding of these pragmatic mechanisms is essential not only for forensic linguistics and legal theory but for the broader project of ensuring procedural justice and access to legal institutions for speakers of all linguistic and social backgrounds.
Библиографические ссылки
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Macmillan.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Bennett, W. L., & Feldman, M. S. (1981). Reconstructing reality in the courtroom: Justice and judgment in American culture. Rutgers University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Conley, J. M., & O'Barr, W. M. (2005). Just words: Law, language, and power (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Routledge.
Danet, B. (1980). Language in the legal process. Law & Society Review, 14(3), 445–564. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192
Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Multilingual Matters.
Fairclough, N. (1989). Language and power. Longman.
Hajiyeva, B. (2024). Exploring the Infinite Regress of Defining Words: A Critical Analysis of Semantic Methodologies. Global Spectrum of Research and Humanities , 1(1), 121-126. https://doi.org/10.69760/gsrh.01012024011
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Heritage, J., & Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Wiley-Blackwell.
Penman, R. (1990). Facework and politeness: Multiple goals in courtroom discourse. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 9(1–2), 15–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927X9091002
Sadiqova, S. (2023). Phraseological units in which complex and compound numbers are used in English. Akademik Tarih ve Düşünce Dergisi, 10(4), 1089-1093. https://izlik.org/JA39NN59GS
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). Sage.
Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica, 48(3–4), 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1984.48.3-4.197
Загрузки
Опубликован
Выпуск
Раздел
Лицензия
Это произведение доступно по лицензии Creative Commons «Attribution» («Атрибуция») 4.0 Всемирная.
This is an open access article published under the Creative Commons Attribution
4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is
properly cited. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
