The subject of the study is speech influence in the institutional environment of judicial communication, considered as a multilevel system of purposeful persuasion, in which judicial speech is analyzed not independently, but as a procedurally mediated action implemented by the subject in a specific role and focused on the addressee with a specific communicative function. The theoretical and methodological foundations of the study of judicial persuasion, the differentiation of categories of evidence, persuasion and suggestion, the specifics of communicative strategies and tactics in judicial discourse, the influence of procedural asymmetry on the choice of rhetorical means, the features of dialogization, narrative competition and presentation self-identification of participants, as well as the limits of permissible speech impact in terms of an adversarial procedure and the asymmetry of professional training of the addressee are analyzed, including the jury panel. The empirical basis of the study was made up of speeches by classical Russian lawyers. The research methodology is based on a combination of general scientific techniques with a linguopragmatic and psycholinguistic approach. The methods of discursive analysis, interpretation of speech acts, systematization of strategies and tactics, conceptual comparative comparison of approaches of domestic and foreign researchers of judicial communication, as well as analytical generalization of theoretical provisions are used. It has been established that the analysis of rhetorical strategies and tactics in legal rhetoric is possible only if they are simultaneously considered as communicative means of achieving a convincing effect and as procedurally acceptable forms of behavior that do not replace evidence with verbal pressure and do not violate the addressee's autonomy of speech influence. The article substantiates the provision on a two–level structure for assessing speech impact in judicial communication, in which, at the first level, the correspondence of the communicative strategy to the procedural role of the subject is established, and at the second level, the admissibility of tactics implementing it is analyzed from the point of view of preserving equality of the parties, the limits of the subject of evidence and the addressee's cognitive autonomy. It is shown that linguistic and pragmatic analysis reveals the functional organization of speech behavior through a system of goals, roles and effects, the psycholinguistic approach provides an understanding of the mechanisms of perception and emotional processing of argumentation, especially in relation to the jury, while the regulatory requirements for judicial communication set the external limits of permissible impact.
Vsevolod Sergeevich Prisada (Mon,) studied this question.