SPECIFICITY OF PERSUASION IN AMERICAN СOURT DISCOURSE(BASED ON ADVOCATES` AND S PROSECUTORS` SPEECHES)

Abstract

This research is devoted to identifying the specifics of the implementation of persuasive influence in USA courts. The analysis is based on the material of feature films and authentic documents of trials that have taken place in recent years. It has been proved that the specific pragmatic context of the judicial discourse is determined by the invariability of illocutive goals: for the prosecutors – to prove the guilt of the defendant, for the lawyers –  to prove the innocence of the defendant or reduce the term of the sentence. The peculiarities of the linguistic context of the judicial discourse are shown to be determined, firstly, by of the etiquette formulas of the judicial process, and, secondly, by the way of the linguistic expression of communicative strategies: explicit or implicit. The common features in the speeches of lawyers and prosecutors have been revealed – the implicit way of presenting the purpose of the persuasion, the construction of arguments on the basis of appeal to the value priorities of the linguistic community. The prosecutors focus on the contradictions between the generally recognised values of the society and the atrocities of the defendants; the lawyers - on the commonality of their own and the jury's views with the value priorities of the society. It is proved that in the speech of the prosecutor the persuasive purpose is implicitly represented through the use of linguistic means with a negative associative halo. Lawyers unlike accusers often use the communicative strategy of distance convergence with the jury. The types of arguments in the speeches of prosecutors and defence lawyers differ significantly. Prosecutors focus on facts whereas lawyers create persuasion with the help of the circumstances of the crime that mitigate the sentence together with  implicitly presented an appeal to the principle of humanity.