COGNITIVE BIAS AS A SUGGESTIVE DEVICE IN ENGLISH COURT DISCOURSE

Abstract

Purpose. This article aims to establish the specifics of the use of cognitive biases in terms of their impact on the recipients in the advocate court discourse. To achieve this aim, the following objectives are to be solved: 1) to clarify the terminological apparatus of the article; 2) to define language means expressing сognitive bias in advocate discourse; 3) to characterise these language means from the point of their suggestive influence on recipients.

Methods. At the stage of terminological grounding the main method is comparison, that is comparing the views of different scholars, directions of problem analysis, etc. Whereas at the second and third stages the following methods as classification (identifying linguistic means), generalisation (summarising information), argumentation (in support of its position) were used.

In our choice of approaches to the analysis we were guided by the contemporary scientific paradigms: cognitive linguistics, pragmatic linguistics, speech communication theory, lexico-semantic analysis methods. Elements of cognitive analysis helped to identify the dependence of court discourse on social conditions.

To carry out our research, we selected and described the authentic language material (вказати який саме матеріал).

Results. Based on the analysis of the linguistic material, it was established that in the absence of direct and irrefutable evidence, the advocate uses suggestive tactics and appropriate suggestive language means by which he first tries to influence the jurors’ emotions, and then their consciousness. The linguistic means used to express cognitive biases are highlighted. The following cognitive biases have been identified: the authority bias effect, the confirmation bias, Dr. Fox effect, the anchor effect and the Ellsberg paradox effect. Certain semantic groups expressing these cognitive biases are identified.

Conclusions. It is concluded that the use of the highlighted cognitive biases, expressed through certain linguistic means, helped the defense lawyer, who argued that he had no direct and convincing arguments, to question the arguments given by the prosecutor and to postpone the jury’s verdict. Thus, the above cognitive biases serve as suggestive means in the advocate discourse.

The piece of research is prospective, as the cognitive biases found may be supplemented by cognitive biases inherent to the prosecutorial discourse.