Persuasion prosody in prosecutor’s speech: Ukrainian and english

Vladyslava Akkurt; Tetiana Korolova; Oleksandra Popova

doi:10.34069/AI/2021.47.11.13

Vladyslava Akkurt State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” Scientific degree: CSc. (Philology), Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3542-3428
Tetiana Korolova State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3441-196X
Oleksandra Popova State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”, Ukraine. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6244-5473

DOI: https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.47.11.13

Keywords: persuasion modality, prosecutor’s speech, court, speech expressiveness, prosody semantics.

Abstract

This paper presents the research of prosodic means conveying the persuasion modality in a prosecutor’s speech in court. The material under study consists of English and Ukrainian speeches of the prosecutors (the total duration time is 16 hours). The results of the experimental material examination demonstrate common and specific characteristics of prosody components (melody, loudness, tempo, timber and sentence stress) in English and Ukrainian. Pragmatics of prosody semantics and correlation between its parameters have been proved. It has been stated that in both English and Ukrainian an utterance becomes emphatic due to the prosodic means of persuasion in a prosecutor’s speech as follows: 1) changes of tempo; 2) changes of the pitch of a voice; 3) replacements of the rising tone with the falling one and vice versa; 4) usage of complex tones; 5) use of an interrupted ascending or descending scale; 6) change of sentence stress type; 7) division of a sense group into two or more parts. The above mentioned facts enable us to conclude that: while describing the first of these aspects of typological similarity of prosody in the compared languages, the parameters of the pitch component of intonation are most informative when differentiating attitudinal ones. The specificity of interaction between prosodic and grammar means when expressing persuasion in Ukrainian and English prosecutor’s speech is caused by a degree of distinction between the grammatical and vocabulary systems of the compared languages.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Vladyslava Akkurt, State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” Scientific degree: CSc. (Philology), Ukraine.

Stakeholder, Chair of Translation, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Place of employment: State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky” Scientific degree: CSc. (Philology), Ukraine.

Tetiana Korolova, State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”, Ukraine.

Chairperson, Chair of Translation, Theoretical and Applied Linguistics Place of employment: State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”, Ukraine.

Oleksandra Popova, State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”, Ukraine.

Dean of the Foreign Languages Department Place of employment: State institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”, Ukraine.

References

Aristotle (1978). Rhetoric. Ancient rhetoric. Moscow: Labirint.

Baum, L. (2006). Judges and Their Audiences: A Perspective on Judicial Behavior. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.

Biber, D. (1988). Variation across Speech and Writing. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bickerton, D. (1996). Language and Human Behaviour. Washington: University of Washington Press.

Brovchenko, T. O. & Korolova, T. M. (2020). Phonetics of the English language (contrastive analysis of English and Ukrainian pronunciation). Odesa: Helvetyka.

Bybee, J. L. (2003). Phonology and Language Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Chemerinsky, E. (2016). Federal Jurisdiction (Aspen Student Treatise) (Aspen Treatise) [the 7th ed.]. Alphen aan den Rijn: Wolters Kluwer. ISBN-13: 978-1454876618. ISBN-10: 1454876611.

Dowis, R. (1999). The lost art of the great speech: how to write it, how to deliver it. AMACOM Div American Mgmt Assn.

Dubovsky, Y., & Yermolenko, G. (1987). Attitudinal semantics of prosody and its metalanguage. Proc. XI-th ICPhS Vol. 5. Tallin.

Dubrovskaya, T.V. (2010). Judicial discourse: speech behavior of a judge. (Dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences). Saratov: Institute of Philology and Journalism of the State Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education “Saratov State University named after N. G. Chernyshevsky".

Gold, V. (1987). Psychological Manipulation in the Courtroom. Neb. L. Rev, 66. Recovered from ps://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol66/iss3/11

Jespersen, O. (1958). Philosophy of grammar. Moscow: Inostrannaya literature.

Klimovich, O.V. (2016). Language Identity of Attorney in the Context of Juridic Discourse (based on the speeches of S. A. Andrievsky and N. P. Karabchevsky). (Dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences). The Russian Language. Ufa: Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Education “Bashkir State University”. Recovered from https://bashedu.ru/sites/default/files/dissovets_files/disrab/dissertaciya_klimovich_o.v.pdf

Korolova, T. M. (1989). The mechanism of interaction of linguistic means when transferring modal attitudes. Linguistics, 2.

Laufer, N. I. (1993). Confident and convinced: two types of epistemic states. Logical analysis of language. Mental actions, 6.

Levy, D. M. (1979). Communicative goals and strategies: Between discourse and syntax. Syntax and Semantics. Vol. 12. New York: Discourse and Syntax

Meshchaninov, I. I. (1946). Conceptual categories and grammatical concepts. 1. Moscow: Moscow State University Bulletin.

Palmer, F. R. (1974). Modality and the English verbals. London, New York: Longman linguistics library.

Panasenko, N. (2016). Functional-semantic types of speech in journalistic messages. Megatrends and media: Critique in media, critique of media: Conference proceedings from international scientific conference on the 19th – 20th April, 2016, Congress Hall of the Slovak Academy of Science Smolenice, Slovak Republic.

Panasenko, N., Greguš, Ľ. & Zabuzhanska, I. (2018). Conflict, confrontation, and war reflected in mass media: Semantic wars, their victors and victims. Lege artis. Language yesterday, today, tomorrow. The journal of University of SS Cyril and Methodius in Trnava. Warsaw: De Gruyter Poland, III (2), p. 132−163. DOI: 10.2478/lart-2018-0017

Peshkovsky, A. M. (1956). Russian syntax in scientific coverage. Moscow: Uchpedgiz.

Schwartz, B. (1997). A Book of Legal Lists: The Best and Worst in American Law, with 150 Court and Judge Trivia Questions. New York: Oxford University Press.

Shevchenko N. V. (1983). Oral official speech in different situations (based on the speech of lawyers). (Synopsis for the thesis for the candidate degree in philological sciences). Russian language. Saratov [in Russian].

Shulga, K. S. (2016). The role of the prosecutor in the debate of the parties. Young scientist. 10. Kazan.

Shvedov, M. (ed.). (1980). Russian Grammar. Volume 1-2. Moscow: Nauka.

Shvetsova, V. (2012). Features of the structure of the prosecutor's speech in judicial discourse. The Latest Philology, 44. Mykolayiv: Petro Mohyla University.

Spence, G. (1996). How to Argue & Win Every Time: At Home, At Work, In Court, Everywhere, Everyday. New York: St. Martin's Griffin.

Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal Language. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Vargas, D. (1984). Two types of legal discourse: Transitivity in American appellate opinion and casebooks. Studies of legal discourse. Danet – Amsterdam.

Vinogradov, V. V. (1975). Selected Works. Studies in Russian grammar. Moscow: Nauka.

Vorobey, P., Felyk, V., Niebytov, A., Matviichuk, V., & Vorobey, O. (2021). Nature and significance of the State’s criminal law policy. Amazonia Investiga, 10(39), 225-231. Recovered from https://doi.org/10.34069/AI/2021.39.03.22

Vinogradov, V. V. (1986). The Russian language. Grammar teaching about the word [3rd ed.]. Moscow: Vysshaia shkola.

Wang, J. A. (2004). Study on the Verbal Interaction in Adversarial Courtroom Trial. Applied Linguistics, 3.