INSTITUTIONAL FEATURES OF JUDICIAL DISCOURSE (ON THE MATERIAL OF THE AMERICAN DESENSE ATTORNEY’S SPEECH)

Abstract

The article is devoted to the study of the institutional features of the American defense closing argument which is one of the examples of the judicial discourse functioning. The problem of defining discourse as a linguistic concept is inextricably linked with the problem of the text, its creation and narrative features. Acquiring individual content together with background knowledge and extralinguistic factors that appear as a result of the subject’s interpretive activity, a text becomes a discourse. A defense closing argument functions within a judicial discourse characterized by a high level of organization and controlled speech events that regulate social relations within a court hearing. it must be noted that judicial communication is characterized by a clear division of communicative roles, the typical presentation of information and the property of persuasion. Participants in judicial discourse are both professionals and ordinary citizens, but the number of roles and functions of participants in judicial debate are clearly defined at the legislative level. Despite the regulation and ritualization of the judicial communicative process, judicial discourse is characterized by an interactive nature, which is manifested even in monologue segments of the court session, where to maintain cooperation with other communicators of the court discussion participants choose strategic and tactical speech means which correspond to their own communicative tasks. Judicial discourse is characterized by variability in the mental activity of court participants, which is greatly influenced by national mental characteristics. During the trial, when the communicative situation changes, the professional participants of the court session adapt their chosen strategies and tactics of speech behavior in order to accurately reflect their beliefs in a clearly structured communicative space. The functioning of a defensive attorney’s speech as a component of judicial discourse is characterized by a simultaneous combination of features of personal (as a public speech) and institutional discourse. The institutionality of the defense closing argument is manifested in its external procedural features, status orientation, addressability, clear ritualization of its formation and the place of its proclamation during the hearing.