CC BY
18PHILOLOGICAL SCIENCES
ARGUMENTATION AS A COMPONENT OF THE PERSUASION PROCESS IN JUDICIAL
DISCOURSE
Matiienko-Silnytska A.
National University "Odesa Law Academy" Teacher of the Department of Foreign Languages №1
Abstract
The article is devoted to the identification of the role of argumentation in providing the influencing effect of a judicial speech. The basic laws of logic on which the argumentation is based, the levels of argumentation in judicial speech, the elements of argumentation are considered. The basic requirements for the methods of presenting evidence that contribute to the achievement of persuasion are given.
Keywords: judicial speech, argumentation, persuasion.
Judicial discourse from the viewpoint of linguistics is understood as a kind of legal discourse, which is a verbal-symbolic reflection of the communication process during the trial and is considered in view of the characteristics and intentions of the participants [6, 10]. The intentions of the participants are based on the idea of justice. The theory of justice "that can serve as the basis of practical reasoning must include ways of judging how to reduce injustice and advance justice, rather than aiming only at the characterization of perfectly just societies - an exercise that is such a dominant feature of many theories of justice" [3, 32]. Taking into consideration the high degree of argumentativeness and influence, judicial discourse should be classified as a special type of institutional discourse of a persuasive type. The basis for the attribution of court speech to institutional discourses is the definition of T. A. van Dijk, who states that "the institutional discourse is a stable system of status-role relations that has developed in the communicative space of a social institution, in which the power functions of symbolic coercion in the form of normative prescription and legitimation of certain ways of worldview, mentality, value orientations vectors and patterns of behaviour" [2, 16].
The aim of this article is to analyse the argumentation as one of the components of the persuasion process in the litigation.
Argumentation is the science and art of making one's opinion reasonable and convincing another person of it. In the simplest model of argumentative activity, we can distinguish two main actors: the argumenta-tor and the recipient (addressee). The term argumenta-tor refers to the person who makes an argument. Recipient (addressee) is the person to whom it is addressed [4, 56].
According to Timofeev and Ruzavin, argumentation is a way of reasoning, in the process of which some provisions are put forward as a proven thesis: arguments in favour of its truth and possible counterarguments are considered; the estimation of the bases and theses of proofs, as well as the bases, and refutation of the thesis (antithesis) is given; the antithesis is refuted; the thesis is proved; creates a belief in the truth of the thesis and the falsity of the antithesis of both the proving and opponents (including potential, possible); the expediency of acceptance of the thesis for the purpose
of development of the active relation to realization of certain programs, the actions following from the proved position is proved [10; 11]. Ivakina believes that argumentation is an operation of substantiation of any judgments, practical decisions or assessments, in which, along with logical, linguistic, emotional-psychological and other non-logical methods are also used, as well as methods of persuasive influence [7, 49].
To understand the argumentation in the court discourse, Ivin's definition is used, which defines the argumentation as giving arguments in order to change the position of the recipient. An evidence, or argument, is one or more related statements. In short, "argumentation" is often called not only the procedure of bringing arguments in support of a case, but also the very set of such arguments [8, 3].
In order to achieve a convincing effect of the court speech, the argument can be provided in the form of a process of reflection on the case directly during the speech production. Then the argument can be defined as a way of reasoning, in the process of which a certain position is put forward as a proven thesis. Arguments in favour of its truth and possible opposing arguments are considered; an assessment of the grounds and thesis of the proof is given, as well as the basis and refutation of the thesis; the belief in the truth of the thesis and the falsity of the antithesis is created both in the one who proves and in the opponents [1, 12-13].This way of reasoning enhances the influential effect of the court speech by involving the recipient in the process of reasoning about the case.
To successfully lead a discussion in a court speech, it is necessary to know the basic laws of logic. The argument is based on four basic laws of thought, the first three were formulated by Aristotle, and the last, the law of sufficient grounds, by Leibniz.
The first law is the law of identity. It requires clarity and accuracy of expression: "Every thought in the process of this reasoning must have the same definite, stable meaning, that is, to be identical with itself'. Violation of the law of identity leads to the uncertainty of the concepts that are introduced into the language, to the ambiguity of the statement, the replacement of one issue of discussion with another and, as a result, to mutual misunderstanding and mistrust.
The second law is the law of contradiction. It ensures sequence and consistency of thinking: "Two opposing views on the same subject, taken at the same time and in the same respect, cannot be true at the same time." It is important for a court speaker not only to adhere to this law in the analysis of the facts of the case and the evaluation of the evidence collected, but also to identify contradictions in the arguments of his opponent.
The third law is the law of the excluded third. It formulates the relation of formal logic to the statements which have opposites of contradiction to the same content: "From two contradictory statements at the same time and in the same relation one is necessarily true, the second is false, and the third is not given". Both the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded third are important for indirect proof and refutation.
The fourth law is the law of sufficient grounds. It requires the validity of all the proposed conditions and conclusions: "Every correct opinion must be substantiated by other opinions, the truth of which is proven." In judicial practice, this law is important, preventing unsubstantiated accusations and declarative allegations [9, 70].
Argumentation in a court speech consists of the following levels:
• informational: the level of content of the message sent to the addressee - the jury; and information (primarily about the facts of the crime), which seek to bring to his attention;
• logical: the level of organization of the message, its construction (sequence and mutual consistency of arguments, their organization into a logically acceptable conclusion, system connectivity);
• communicative-rhetorical: a set of ways of persuasion and techniques (in particular, forms and styles of language and emotional influence);
• axiological: value systems, which are adhered to by both the argumentator and the recipient and which determine the selection of arguments and methods of argumentation;
• ethical level: the application of moral attitudes of the individual in practice, the moral acceptability or unacceptability of certain arguments and techniques of debate, discussion;
• aesthetic: the level of artistic taste, aesthetics of communication, the construction of speech as an intellectual game [5, 33].
Any logical court speech includes three interdependent elements: thesis (opinion or position, the truth of which must be proved), arguments, or grounds (provisions by which the thesis is substantiated), demonstration, or form, method of proof (logical reasoning, a set of inferences used in deriving the thesis from the arguments).
It is clear that the main argument in court is incontrovertible evidence. But the method of providing evidence also plays an important role both in increasing the influence of speech and in attracting the recipient (jury) to the side of the speaker. To achieve the influential effect of speech, evidence must meet several requirements. Here are the main requirements for the formulation of evidence.
1. The thesis of evidence must be formulated clearly, distinctly and unambiguously. Contradictions, ambiguities and uncertainties allowed in the formulation of the thesis can lead to such undesirable actions as deviation from the thesis, its replacement by others, logical inconsistency.
2. Arguments used as premises must be true or proven statements. Since the truth of the thesis largely depends on the truth or proof of the arguments, the justification of their truth becomes crucial in the process of argumentation.
3.The method of proof (or demonstration) must meet all the requirements of the rules of inference. These rules are known to logically link the arguments with the thesis of the proof, and therefore their violation leads to a false thesis. In this case, there is a logical contradiction between the arguments and the thesis of the proof and the proof is incapable. Knowledge of the rules of logic is just what is needed in order not to make such mistakes, and if they occur, be able to find and eliminate them [10, 130].
Based on the above, it can be stated that persuasion is the process of verbal influence on the rational, emotional, volitional and behavioural components of the human psyche. The successful implementation of persuasion may result in the formation or change of the point of view of the recipient of the court speech. Because the process of persuasion contains logical and emotional components that act on the recipients in the trial in close connection, argumentation as a means of the logical side of persuasion is difficult to overestimate.
References
1. Brutian, G. A. "The Specifity of Dialogue in Argumentative Discourse". In: Fictions of Dialogue. Interdisciplinary Approaches. Programme and Abstracts. Heriot Watt University, 2001. P. 12-13.
2. Dijk T. A.van. Introduction: Discourse Analysis as a New Cross-Discipline. Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Vol. 1. Academic Press, 1985. 18p.
3. Sen A. The Idea of Justice. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2009. 467p.
4. Алексеев А. П., Аргументация. Познание. Общение. М.: Изд-во Московского университета, 1991. 150 с.
5. Введенская Л. А., Павлова Л. Г. Риторика и культура речи. Ростов-на-Дону: Феникс, 2012. 557 с.
6. Дубровская Т. В. Судебный дискурс: речевое поведение судьи: автореф. дис. ... д. фшол. наук: 10.02.01. Саратов, 2010. 39 с.
7. Ивакина Н. Н. Основы судебного красноречия. М.: Юристъ, 2007. 464 с.
8. Ивин А. А. Теория аргументации: учеб. пособие. М.: Гардарики, 2000. 235с.
9. Отургашева Н. В. Судебная риторика: учеб. пособие. Новосибирск: СибАГС, 2006. 151 с.
10. Рузавин Г. И. Логика и аргументация: учеб. пособие. М.: Культура и спорт, ЮНИТИ, 1997. 351 с.
11. Тимофеев А. И. Аргументация: теория и практика: учеб. пособие. Санкт-Петербург: СПбГУАП, 2005. 80 с.
