THE PECULIARITIES OF LINGUAL MANIPULATION IN TRIAL DISCOURSE

Abstract

The article looks into the problem of manipulative impact verbal realization in trial discourse. Trial discourse, which is formed and functions in a courtroom, is a part of legal discourse which embodies a trial. Trial discourse is a type of institutional communication and the sphere of its forming and functioning is a state agency (court) which administers justice. Social characteristics of discourse manifest themselves in those discourse types which are made and maintained by different social institutions. Speaking about important social consequences of court discourse we mean legal dispute resolution and a change of legal situation. That is the main function of trial discourse.
Trial discourse is a general notion which comprises a lot of discourse types, and prosecutor and defense lawyer discourses are among the main types of it. Besides institutionality, which is specified by status and role relationships, the above mentioned discourse types are characterized by emotiveness, logical accomplishment, termhood and persuasiveness. The main aim of advocate discourse is their client defense that is why their discourse is more emotional as they try to gain the initiative and resort to the tactic of attack which is realized via irony, sarcasm, mockery, hints, suggestion. Taking into consideration all these facts we must admit that defense lawyer discourse is more manipulative than prosecutor one. This manipulative discourse is actualized by a great number of verbal means, in other words, by linguistic manipulation. The commonest verbal ways of realizing such manipulative impact on listeners’ consciousness are reiteration, rhetorical questions, language games, stereotypes, metaphor and grammar inversion.