LINGUISTIC REPRESENTATION OF POWER IN JUDICIAL DISCOURSE
Abstrakt
This study sheds light on the terms discourse of power and power of discourse. The two concepts are closely intertwined and interdependent as manifested in the influence of power on discourse, on the selection of the linguistic means expressing that power. Such linguistic means of conveying power relations are cratologemes. Accordingly, the approach used to study cratologemes is thought to be linguocratological. From the perspective of the linguocratological approach discourse has become a vigorous resource of power. Therefore, language of discourse is of great interest an instrument of manipulation, which gives grounds to study it as an object, a process, and as a tool. During the process of investigation, the following research methods have been used: linguistic observation and analysis as well as cognitive method, pragmatic analysis method, critical discourse analysis method. These methods have allowed us to establish some of the cratologemes that are characteristic of judicial discourse.Such cratologemes have been singled out at different language levels: at the morphological level, at the lexical-semantic level, at the syntactic level.
Wykaz bibliografii
2. Aleksandrov, A. C. (2007). Yuridicheskaya tehnika – sudebnaya lingvistika – grammatika prava [Legal Technique – Forensic Linguistics – Grammar of Law]. Moscow: Yurist. [in Russian]
3. Cherdantsev, V., Glazunov O. (2015). Prikladnaya kratologiya. Nauka o vlasti [Applied Cratology. The Science of Power]. Moscow: Probel. [in Russian]
4. Chernyavskaya, E. V. (2006). Diskurs vlasti i vlast diskursa: problemyi rechevogo vozdeystviya [Power Discourse and the Power of Discourse: Problems of Speech Effects]. Moscow: Flinta. [in Russian]
5. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: papers in the critical study of language. London and New York: Longman Group Limited.
6. Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. New York : Vintage Books Jodi Arias` Trial (2014) https://blogs.findlaw.com/courtside/2015/01/jodi-arias-secret- testimony-transcripts-released.html
1. Karlberg, M. (2005). The power of discourse and the discourse of power: pursuing peace through discourse intervention. In International Journal of Peace Studies, Volume 10, Number http://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol10_1/Karlberg_101IJPS.pdf
7. Maley, Y. (2013). The Language of the Law. In Language and the Law. London; New York: Routledge.
8. O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
9. Shi-xu (2005). A Cultural Approach to Discourse. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
10. Shi-xu (2007). Discourse as Cultural Struggle. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press Stygall, G. (1994). Trial language: Differential discourse processing and discursive formation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins
11. Sunderland J. (2004). ‘Damaging Discourses’ and Intervention in Discourse. In: Gendered Discourses. London: Palgrave Macmillan https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230505582_9
12. Thompson, G. (2014). Introducing functional grammar. London; New York: Routledge.
13. Wagner, A., Cheng, Le (2011). Language, Power and Control in Courtroom Discourse Exploring courtroom discourse: the language of power and control. – (law, language аnd communication). Ashgate publishing Company
14. DISCIPLINE AND PUNISH The Birth of the Prison 1995 353 p. https://monoskop.org/images/4/43/Foucault_Michel_Discipline_and_Punish_The_Birth_of_the_Prison_1977_1995.pdf
Abstract views: 242 PDF Downloads: 218
