Methods of Investigating the Speech Behavior of the Public Prosecutor from the Perspectives of Implicit Pragmatics and Psychology
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51773/sssh.v4i2.1013Keywords:
prosecutorial discourse, speech behavior, implicit pragmatics, legal discourse, psycholinguistics, forensic linguistics, persuasion, courtroom communication, discourse analysis, public prosecutorAbstract
The present study explores methodological approaches to investigating the speech behavior of public prosecutors from the perspectives of implicit pragmatics and psychology. Prosecutorial discourse represents a unique form of institutional communication characterized by a high degree of persuasive intent, strategic argumentation, and psychological influence. While traditional studies of legal discourse have primarily focused on explicit linguistic structures, contemporary pragmalinguistic research emphasizes the significance of hidden pragmatic meanings, indirect communicative strategies, and psychological mechanisms underlying courtroom interaction. The study aims to identify and systematize methods suitable for analyzing prosecutorial speech behavior, including discourse analysis, speech act analysis, pragmatic interpretation, psycholinguistic assessment, content analysis, and contextual modeling. The research adopts an interdisciplinary framework integrating pragmatics, forensic linguistics, cognitive psychology, and legal communication studies. The findings demonstrate that implicit pragmatic strategies employed by public prosecutors contribute significantly to persuasion, authority construction, emotional influence, and audience manipulation. Psychological mechanisms such as framing, attribution, cognitive bias activation, and emotional appeal are shown to play a crucial role in shaping judicial perceptions. The study concludes that a comprehensive understanding of prosecutorial discourse requires combining linguistic and psychological methodologies capable of revealing both explicit and implicit communicative intentions. The proposed framework may contribute to future research in legal linguistics, courtroom discourse analysis, and forensic pragmatics.
References
Aristotle. (2007). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (2nd ed., G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford University Press. (Original work published ca. 4th century BCE)
Atkinson, J. M., & Drew, P. (1979). Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. Macmillan.
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Charrow, R. P., Charrow, V. R., & Erhardt, E. (2002). Clear and effective legal writing. Aspen Publishers.
Chilton, P. (2004). Analysing political discourse: Theory and practice. Routledge.
Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. M. (2005). Just words: Law, language, and power (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2020). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Crystal, D. (2010). The Cambridge encyclopedia of language (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Dijk, T. A. van. (2008). Discourse and power. Palgrave Macmillan.
Drew, P., & Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992). Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge University Press.
Fairclough, N. (1992). Discourse and social change. Polity Press.
Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman.
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31(7), 931–952.
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell Publishing.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (pp. 41–58). Academic Press.
Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action (Vol. 1). Beacon Press.
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley.
Holtgraves, T. (2002). Language as social action: Social psychology and language use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Johnstone, B. (2018). Discourse analysis (3rd ed.). Wiley Blackwell.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Lakoff, G. (2004). Don’t think of an elephant! Know your values and frame the debate. Chelsea Green Publishing.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Leontiev, A. A. (2003). Fundamentals of psycholinguistics. Smysl.
Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge University Press.
Matoesian, G. M. (2001). Law and the language of identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith rape trial. Oxford University Press.
Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An introduction (2nd ed.). Blackwell Publishers.
O’Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. Academic Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. Springer.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Shuy, R. W. (2008). Fighting over words: Language and civil law cases. Oxford University Press.
Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and cognition (2nd ed.). Blackwell.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Tracy, K. (2013). Everyday talk: Building and reflecting identities (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
Trosborg, A. (1997). Rhetorical strategies in legal language: Discourse analysis of statutes and contracts. Gunter Narr Verlag.
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science, 211(4481), 453–458.
Wodak, R. (2011). The discourse of politics in action: Politics as usual. Palgrave Macmillan.
Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (Eds.). (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). Sage.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Zandvoort, H. (2018). Language, persuasion, and courtroom discourse. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 31(4), 851–869.
