Tetiana Korolova
Doctor of Philological Sciences, Professor, Head of the Department of Translation, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”, Odesa, Ukraine
E-mail: kortami863@gmail.com
ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3441-196X
Akkurt Vladyslava
Candidate of Philological Sciences, Senior Lecturer at the Department of Translation and Theoretical and Applied Linguistics, State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”, Odesa, Ukraine
E-mail: ladyboss2105@gmail.com
ORCID ID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3542-3428
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24195/2616-5317-2019-29-11
Key words: prosody of modality, judicial discourse, perceptual characteristics, persuasion modality, prosecutor’s speech.
In spite the fact that scientific researches reflect the interpretation of the modality problem by modern linguists, there can hardly be found the works devoted to the prosody aspects of modality in court discourse.
The aim of the experimental analysis is a complex examination of functional, semantic and pragmatic characters of convincing attitudinal semantics in prosecutor’s speech in two languages: English and Ukrainian.
The results of the research demonstrate that the attitude of convincing the listeners in court depends on extra linguistic factors (situation as well as social and status relations), structural, semantic and pragmatic peculiarities of prosecutor’s speech, on the one hand, and individual characteristics of the prosecutor’s communication, on the other. Conviction prosody in a prosecutor’s speech is the most important means that actualizes the stereotypic rules of orator’s phonetic behavior aimed at influencing the audience and combines general and creative aspects. In the speech under consideration the intellectual expressiveness is the leading character (arguments and logics).
The character of prosody components interaction when exercising the attitude of conviction is similar in both languages, but the role of either component in prosodic structure differs. Thus, the rhythmic structure of English, importance of temporal parameter in the word-stress, falling character of syllabic melody (in contrast to Ukrainian), fixed position of word-stress in English and free position in Ukrainian lead to peculiarities of English and Ukrainian prosody in communication.
Differences in linguistic systems of the two languages: a definite grammar structure, vocabulary peculiarities, phonological system, condition prosodic features characteristic to either of the two languages.
References
Batsevych, F.S. (2004). Osnovy komunikatyvnoi linhvistyky [Essentials of Communicative Linguistics]. Kyiv: Akademiya [in Ukrainian].
Brytsyn, V.M. (2006). Modalna hramatyka dyskursu iak odyn iz napriamiv semantyko-syntaksychnykh doslidzhen [Modal Grammar of a Discourse as one of Directions in Semantic and Syntactic Researches]. Movoznavstvo – Linguistics, 2/3, 101-110 [in Ukrainian].
Brovchenko, T.O. & Korolova, T.M. Fonetyka anhliiskoi movy (konrastyvnyi analiz anhliiskoi ta ukrainskoi vymovy) [Phonetics of the English Language (Contrastive Analysis of English and Ukrainian Pronunciation)]. Mykolayiv: Petra Mohyly [in Ukrainian].
Romashko, S.A. (Ed.). (2000). Diskurs, rech, rechevaia deiatelnost: funktsionalnye i strukturnye aspekty [Discourse, Speech, Speech Activity: Functional and Structural Aspects]. Moscow: INION RAN [in Russian].
Kalyta, A.A. (2001). Fonetychni zasoby aktualizatsii smyslu anhliiskoho emotsiinoho vyslovliuvannia [Phonetic Means of Actualization of a Meaning of English Emotional Expression]. Kyiv [in Ukrainian].
Koroleva, T.M. (1989). Mekhanizm vzaimodeistviia lingvisticheskikh sredstv pri peredache modalnykh znachenii [The Mechanism of Interaction of Linguistic Means in Rendering Modal Meanings]. Movoznavstvo – Linguistics, 2, 55-58 [in Russian].
Korolova, T. & Popova, O. (2019). Psykholinhvistychni aspekty vidtvorennia kytaiskomovnoho viiskovo-politychnoho dyskursu ukrainskoiu movoiu [Psycholinguistic Aspects of Reproducing the Chinese Military and Political Discourse in Ukrainian]. Psykholingvistyka – Psycholinguistics, 25, 92-116. DOI: 10.31470/2309-1797-2019-25-2-92-116
Korolova, T.M. & Shvetsova, V.Ye. (2016). Katehoriia perekonannia v iurydychnomu dyskursi [The Category of Persuasion in Judicial Discourse]. Naukovyi visnyk Pivdennoukrainskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni K. D. Ushynskoho. Linhvistychni nauky – Scientific Research Issues of South Ukrainian National University named after K. D. Ushynsky. Linguistic Sciences, 22, 85-89 [in Ukrainian].
Kocherhan, M.P. (2006). Osnovy zistavnoho movoznavstva [Fundamentals of Comparative Linguistics]. Kyiv: Akademiia [in Ukrainian].
Klimovich, O.V. (2013). Sredstva rechevogo vozdeistviia v sudebnom diskurse [Means of Persuasion in Judicial Discourse]. Slavuta – Slavuta, 7. Retrieved from http://slavutajournal.com.ua/arxiv-nomeriv/slavuta-vipusk-7-2013/sredstva-rechevogo-vozdejstviya-v-sudebnom-diskurse/ [in Russian].
Shvetsova, V.Ye. (2017). Vydy sudovykh promov ta yikh osoblyvosti [Types of Court Speeches and Their Features]. Naukovyi visnyk Pivdennoukrainskoho natsionalnoho pedahohichnoho universytetu imeni K. D. Ushynskoho. Linhvistychni nauky – Scientific Research Issues of South Ukrainian National University named after K. D. Ushynsky. Linguistic Sciences, 24, 95-100 [in Ukrainian].
Shulha, K.S. (2016). Rol prokurora v preniiakh storon [The Role of the Prosecutor in the Debate of the Parties.]. Molodoi uchenyi – Young Scientist, 10, 1074-1077 [in Russian].
Baum, L. (2006). Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. New Jersey : Princeton University Press.
Halliday, M.A.K. (2000). Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. Jonathan Webster (Ed.). Continuum International Publishing.
Harris, Z. (1952). Discourse analysis. Language, 28(1), 1-30.
Schwartz, B.A. (1997). Book of Legal Lists: The Best and Worst in American Law, with 150 Court and Judge Trivia Questions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Victor, Gold (1987). Psychological Manipulation in the Courtroom. 66 Neb. L. Rev.
Wang, J.A. (2004). Study on the Verbal Interaction in Adversarial Courtroom Trial. Applied Linguistics, 3, 75-82.