Russian Judicial Discourse in the Light of the Modern Theory of Argumentation

Shatin, Yu. V.; Silantev, Igor V.

doi:10.25205/2307-1737-2020-2-401-412

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Courtroom discourse has been explored from a variety of perspectives over the last twenty years. Studies on discursive practices that occur in the courtroom have involved analyses of legal language (Breeze, 2013;Chaemsaithong, 2014;Gotti, 2014;Hansen, 2016;Li & Sun, 2018;Szczyrbak, 2021;Tiersma, 1999;Tracy & Hodge, 2018;Yang & Wang, 2021), legal genres (Boginskaya, 2022a(Boginskaya, , 2022b(Boginskaya, , 2002cCohen de Chervonagura, 2011;Cotterill, 2003;Finegan, 2010;Hernandez, 2017;Gozdz-Roszkowski & Pontrandolfo, 2013;Lee, 2015;Mazzi, 2010;Heffer, 2008;Rosulek, 2015;Shatin & Silantev, 2020;Tanford, 2002;Tiersma, 2008), legal translation (Boginskaya, 2021;Cao, 2013;Hu & Cheng, 2016;Sarčević, 1997;Sandrini, 1999), and legal semiotics (Cheng et al, 2009;Cheng & Sin, 2008), etc. Althoguh these studies are valuable, few works (Cavalieri, 2011;Chaemsaithong, 2017;Mortensen & Mortensen, 2017;Toska, 2012) appear to have analyzed metadiscourse resources, even though they play an important role in building relationships with an audience and producing persuasive arguments. The interactional aspect of legal discourse is of particular importance bearing in mind that trials are interpersonal events, in which how it is said is no less important than what is said (Mortensen & Mortensen, 2017), and courtroom discourse is considered to be interactional, unveiling how attorneys intervene in their texts to build solidarity with the jury …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse

Boginskaya

2024

CLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The closing argument in criminal trials allows for unique metadiscourse analysis opportunities. Yet despite these opportunities, it seems to be an understudied linguistic genre which requires more research into its interactional features. This article aims to explore the types, frequencies and functions of boosters as metadiscourse resources employed by defense attorneys to enter a plea of not guilty. In particular, the article describes how attorneys exploit boosters to produce convincing arguments and control the power relationship with an audience. The findings are based on a metadiscourse analysis of 21 closing arguments derived from the famous-trials.com website. As regards the choice of boosting resources to be searched in the corpus, the present study adopted Hyland and Zou’s (2021) taxonomy of boosters. It was revealed that defense attorneys made extensive use of boosters to exert an influence on the outcome of a criminal prosecution against their clients. The results have implications for our understanding of closing argument as a persuasive interactional legal genre and for teaching legal writing to law students. Hopefully, this study will spire lawyers to take advantage of boosters and other metadiscourse resources in their attempt to achieve persuasive goals in trials by jury.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse

Boginskaya

2024

CLR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dissenting with conviction: boosting in challenging the majority opinion

Boginskaya

2022

International Journal of Legal Discourse

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article explores the role of metadiscourse in the realization of judges’ persuasive strategies in challenging the reasoning of the majority opinion. In particular, the article describes how dissenting judges exploit the boosting features to produce convincing arguments and control the power relationship with an audience. The findings are based on a linguistic analysis of 27 judicial dissents by judges of the Russian Constitutional Court. As regards the choice of boosting devices to be searched in the corpus, the present work adopts Hyland et al.’s (2021) taxonomy of boosters. The study shows that Russian judges make extensive use of boosters to show disagreement and challenge the majority opinion. The results have implications for our understanding of judicial dissenting as a legal genre which has been understudied in the literature, and for teaching legal writing to law students. I suggest that judge’s competence in presenting arguments includes a developed knowledge of metadiscourse.

show abstract

Metadiscursive Boosting in Russian Courtroom Discourse: Enhancing Persuasiveness in Defense Speeches

Boginskaya

2024

PDC

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies are revealing new aspects of courtroom discourse, examining its generation and applying novel analytical methods. Yet, despite their significance and complexity, the use of metadiscursive tools remains scarce. These tools offer substantial promise for analyzing discursive practices, increasingly seen as not just informative but also interactive and impactful. The inherently interactive and persuasive nature of courtroom discourse underscores the need for metadiscourse as a potent analytical instrument. Such an instrument encompasses mechanisms for expressing attitudes toward the propositional content and for drawing the recipient into a dialogue with the speaker. This article addresses the metadiscursive dimension of defense speeches as a distinct genre within courtroom discourse. The study uses quantitative analysis on a corpus of Russian-language courtroom texts, innovatively applying metadiscursive analysis to identify linguistic elements that enhance the persuasiveness of defense speeches, with a focus on the technique of boosting. Throughout the study, five types of boosters were identified – markers of certainty, evidentiality, intensity, solidarity, and superiority – each serving one of five pragmatic functions: to show the speaker’s confidence in the truth of their assertions, to point to the credibility and reliability of the source, to amplify the emotional impact of the statement, to denote the upper bounds of a continuum, and to reference commonly known facts or shared experiences of events or situations. The study reveals that boosting at the lexical level is predominantly achieved through the use of evidential verbs and nouns, adverbs of measure, degree, and time, as well as superlative adjectives. Additionally, the frequent use of first-person plural pronouns was observed. The findings suggest that adept use of boosters in courtroom discourse is indicative of a lawyer’s pragmatic competence and is crucial for effective communication with the court and the jury.

show abstract

Russian Judicial Discourse in the Light of the Modern Theory of Argumentation

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse

Leaving no room for doubt and exceptions: closing arguments through the lens of metadiscourse

Dissenting with conviction: boosting in challenging the majority opinion

Metadiscursive Boosting in Russian Courtroom Discourse: Enhancing Persuasiveness in Defense Speeches

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About