Features of Persuasiveness and Suggestiveness in Legal Discourse

  • Margarita Zaitseva Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine
  • Iryna Lypko Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine
Keywords: persuasiveness, suggestiveness, linguistic means, discourse markers, extraposition, fronting, transferred negation, nominalisation


The article is devoted to the problem of persuasiveness and suggestiveness as well as ways of their manifestation.  The phenomenon of persuasiveness has become the center of attention for many scientists lately, especially since nowadays the ways of influence on public opinion have become more complex and not so obvious. And furthermore, suggestiveness is the new trend in linguistic research. That is why it is important to analyse, on the one hand, how persuasiveness and suggestiveness are manifested on the linguistic level and, on the other hand, how they influence the arrangement of the language means in the texts of legal discourse.  The goal of the research was achieved with the help of such scientific methods as: linguistic observation and analysis as well as cognitive method, critical discourse analysis method, pragmatic analysis method.

The type of discourse (either persuasive or suggestive) determines both the choice of language means and their arrangement. Fronting, discourse markers, sentences with introductory there and it as well as extraposed sentences are widely used in the suggestive type of discourse while nominalisation and transferred negation are inherent in the persuasive type. In the texts of persuasive discourse neutral lexical means are primarily used, whereas emotionally charged adjectives and adverbs, idioms and intensifying words are characteristic of the suggestive discourse. From the point of arrangement, the persuasive type is clearly structured and can be presented in the form of scheme. The suggestive type has no clear logical construction. More detailed analysis of the legal discourse (persuasiveness and suggestiveness in writing) is the prospect of further research studies.


Download data is not yet available.


Borchers, T. (2012). Persuasion in the Media Age. Waveland Press, Inc. from https://books.google.com.ua/books?id
Cherepanova, I. (1995) Dom kolduni: Nachala suggestivnoy lingvistiki [Witch's Home: Basics of Suggestive Linguistics]. Perm : Izd-vo Permskogo un-ta [in Russian].
Fraser, B. (1999). What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics, 31, 931–952 from http://www.gloriacappelli.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/dm.pdf
Grinder, J., & Pucelik, F. (2012). The Origins of Neuro Linguistic Programming. Crown House Publishing Limited from http://codenlp.ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/2012-The_Origins_of_Neuro_Linguistic_Pprogram_-_John_Grinder.pdf
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. (2002). The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Beccles: William Clowes Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316423530
Krois-Linder, A. (2007). International Legal English. Cambridge University Press.
Muller, S. (2005). Discourse Markers in Native and Non-native English Discourse (Pragmatics and Beyond. New Series). John Benjamin's Publishing Company. Amsterdam/Philadelphia from http://bookre.org/reader?file=1070703&pg=19
Opening Statements. The Amadou Diallo Killing from criminaldefense.homestead.com/diallo.htm
Pratkanis, A., & Aronson, E. (2007). Age of Propaganda: the Everyday Use and Abuse of Persuasion. Holt. from http://bookre.org/reader?file=1273850
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman. from http://bookre.org/reader?file=777220
Rowley-Jolivet, E., & Carter-Thomas, Sh. (2005). Genre Awareness and Rhetorical Appropriacy: Manipulation of Information Structure by NS and NNS. Scientists in the International Conference Setting. English for Specific Purposes 24, 41–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2003.09.003
Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841
Side, R., Wellman G. (2002). Grammar and Vocabulary for Cambridge Advanced and Proficiency. Pearson Educational Limited.
Swan, M. (2005). Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press.
Teliya, V.N. (1997). Ekspressivnost [The expressiveness]. Russky yazyk: Entsiclopediya – Russian language: Encyclopedia (4th ed.), (pp. 637–638). Moscow [in Russian].
Thompson, G. (2014) Introducing Functional Grammar. Third edition. London; New York: Routledge from http://www.academia.edu/10910807/Thompson_Introducing_Functional_Grammar
Vishnevskaya, G., & Kremen, N. (2014). O funkcionirovanii diskursivnyh markerov v ustnoj politicheskoj rechi [Discourse Markers in Oral Political Discourse]. Gosudar stvennoe upravlenie. Elektronnyj vestnik – State administration. E-Bulletin (45th ed.), (pp. 247–263). Moscow, MGU [in Russian].

Abstract views: 442
PDF Downloads: 231
How to Cite
Zaitseva, M., & Lypko, I. (2018). Features of Persuasiveness and Suggestiveness in Legal Discourse. PSYCHOLINGUISTICS, (23(2), 81-93. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1199138