Baltic accent

2018 Vol. 9 № 1

Back to the list Download an article

Linguistic Means Expressing Argumentation in Judicial Discourse late 19th: The Prosecutor’s Speech in Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov



This article analyses linguistic means of expressing argumentation in judicial discourse as used in the prosecutor’s speech in F. M. Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov. The author identifies logical and psychological types of argumentation characteristic of the 19th-century courtroom speeches. Such speeches use a complex structure of theses and arguments and employ various pragmatic and rhetorical means and devices alongside compound and complex sentences. The force of persuasion of the prosecutor’s speech depends on its emotional effect on the jury. The author concludes that the distinctive characteristics of speeches delivered to present arguments in court stem from the institutional nature of this type of discourse and the use of specific linguistic means. When employing pragmatic and logical and rhetorical linguistic means, it is necessary to follow the rules of usage and consider the suitability of such means. An excessive use of rhetorical devices leads to unintended communicative mistakes and may cause a communicative failure. In a work of fiction, such a use of a linguistic means can contribute to the overall aesthetic effect as well as to the compositional, cognitive, logical, illocutive, expressive, and pragmatic expressiveness of the narrative.


1. Bachaliashvili, O. V., 2013. Argument as the speech act in the judicial discourse. Vestnik Leningradskogo Gosudarstvennogo Universiteta im. A. S. Pushkina [Bulletin of the A. S. Pushkin Leningrad State University], 4(1), pp. 169—175.
2. Brjushinkin, V. N., 1999. The system model of argumentation. In: Transcendental'naja antropologija i logika: Trudy mezhdunarodnogo seminara «Antropologija s sovremennoj tochki zrenija» i VIII Kantovskih chtenij [Transcendental Anthropology and Logic: Proceedings of the International Seminar "Anthropology from a Modern Perspective" and the VIII Kantian Readings]. Kaliningrad. pp. 137—160.
3. Volkov, A. A., 2013. Teorija ritoricheskoj argumentacii [The theory of rhetorical argumentation]. Moscow.
4. Demina, L. A., 2014. Teorija i praktika argumentacii: uchebnoe posobie [Theory and practice of argumentation: a tutorial]. Moscow.
5. Dostoevskij, F. M., 2016. Brat'ja Karamazovy [The Brothers Karamazov]. Moscow.
6. Ivakina, N. N., 2007. Osnovy sudebnogo krasnorechija (ritorika dlja juristov) [Foundations of forensic eloquence (rhetoric for lawyers)]. Moscow.
7. Koni, A. F., 1958. Izbrannye proizvedenija. Tom 1. Stat'i i zametki. Sudebnye rechi [Selected works. Vol. 1. Articles and notes. Forensic speech]. Moscow.
8. Koptsev I. D., Kutdinova N. V. 2013. To speech pragmatic argument in the artistic discourse (on the material of the novel of T. Mann “Buddenbrooks”)., 11, pp. 168—186.
9. Kotov, S. L., 2014. Chto imel v vidu Dostoevskii? Rossijskaja advokatura v romane F. M. Dostoevskogo «Brat'ja Karamazovy» [What did Dostoevsky mean? Russian bar in the novel F. M. Dostoevsky “The Brothers Karamazov”]. Available at: [Accessed 23 June 2017].
10. Nesterenko, K. V., 2012. Analysis of speeches as way characteristics of the characters and recreate the fragment of the naive picture of the world “the court” (on the novel by F. Dostoevsky “The Brothers Karamazov”). Nauchno-metodicheskij zhurnal [Scientific-methodical journal], 1—2(46), pp. 32.
11. Osnovy sudebnogo rechevedenija: Monografija / Pod red. prof. M. V. Gorbanevskogo. [The Foundation of the court receivedany: Monograph / Under the editorship of Professor M. V. Gorbanevskaya]. Moscow, 2003.
12. Pirinova, N. V., 2006. Kognitivnaja obuslovlennost' i stilevoe svoeobrazie sudebnyh rechej F. N. Plevako [Cognitive conditionality and the stylistic peculiarity of the judicial speeches of F. N. Plevako]. Cand. philol. sci. diss. Taganrog.
13. Ustinova, K. A., 2011. Institutional characteristics of judicial discourse. Vestnik Cheljabinskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Ser.: Filologija. Iskusstvovedenie [Bulletin of Chelyabinsk State University. Ser.: Philology. History of Art], 33(60), pp. 125—127.