The subject of the study is the pragmatic functions of interrogative constructions in the monological genres of contemporary Russian judicial speech - opening and closing statements of the defense, rebuttals, and final words. The dual nature of the question in institutional judicial communication is examined: on one hand, the question serves as a procedural tool for obtaining information, while on the other hand, in monological genres, it loses its epistemic function and transforms into one of the most subtle means of persuasion. Special attention is given to the rhetorical question as a subtype of indirect speech act with split illocution, which functions as an enthymeme in its radical form: the conclusion itself remains unexpressed and is formulated independently by the addressee. The study investigates the boundary between legitimate persuasion and manipulative influence in the use of interrogative constructions, as well as the practical significance of such differentiation in the context of expanding video recording of court sessions and evaluating the communicative characteristics of speech acts in linguistic expertise. The research relies on a comprehensive linguopragmatic approach. The empirical basis is formed from the texts of judicial speeches by prominent Russian lawyers - G. M. Reznik, N. M. Kipnis, A. Ya. Asnis, N. S. Gasparyan, S. A. Nasonov, E. A. Rubinstein - published in the collections of the Federal Chamber of Lawyers of the Russian Federation in 2024 and 2025. As a result of the analysis, six main pragmatic functions of interrogative constructions in the monological genres of judicial speech have been identified and described: deconstructively-argumentative (exposing the flaws in the opponent's arguments), dialogizing (turning a monologue into a virtualized dialogue), provocative-evaluative (encouraging the addressee to make an independent evaluative judgment), incorporating (engaging the addressee in joint reasoning), persuasive-image (shaping the image of a competent speaker), and ethical-exposing (moral qualification of the opponent's actions). It has been established that the persuasive potential of the rhetorical question is based on the mechanism of split illocution: by mentally constructing an answer, the addressee aligns themselves with the speaker's implicit assertion. A criterion for distinguishing legitimate persuasion from manipulation has been formulated: a question based on credible premises that maintains the autonomy of the addressee's critical assessment is an acceptable tool, while a question with false premises or that imposes an emotional-moral answer falls into unacceptable forms of manipulative influence. The results obtained are relevant in the professional training of lawyers, the practice of judicial rhetoric, and linguistic expertise.
Vsevolod Sergeevich Prisada (Mon,) studied this question.