Educational intentions in the communicative behavior of the investigator (based on detective stories by Russian and English authors)
Abstract
The article deals with one of the elements of the investigator’s speech behavior - didacticism during the interrogation of suspected persons. This behavior of the investigator is aimed at the implementation of the educational function in his professional activities. The analysis of the interrogations in eight novels by Russian authors and eight novels by English authors revealed the most frequent language markers of educational intentions, characterizing the main illocutions of the investigators' speech behavior, related to obtaining evidence from the defendant. The object of the study was the slots of the statements of investigators and a detective story with an educational illocution orientation. A statistical analysis of the results was carried out in order to determine the frequency of use of certain language means in the implementation of the educational function in the work of investigators and detectives. The article also provides a comparative analysis of the characteristics of markers of educational intentions in Russian and English linguocultural community, as well as the dominant speech behavior of Russian and English investigators, aimed at their pedagogical impact on the person under investigation.
About the Authors
V. M. Glushak
MGIMO University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Vasiliy M. Glushak
L. V. Zaikina
Surgut State University
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Blank, P.D. (1993). Interpersonal expectations: theory, research, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Cheng, H.-Y. (2011). Sprachliche Verfahren des Wissensmanagements im Kriminalroman. Ein Beitrag zur dynamischen Texttheorie (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Universitat GieBen, GieBen, Gernamy.
3. Dubrovskaya, T.V. (2010). Sudebnyi diskurs: rechevoepovedenie sud’i (na materiale russkogo i angliiskogoyazykov) [Judicial discourse: judge’s speech behavior (on the material of the Russian and English languages)]. Moscow: Akademiya MNEPUs (in Russian).
4. Ivanova, S.V., & Artemova, O.E. (2005). Stsenarnyi freim kak kognitivnaya osnova tekstov pretsedentnogo zhanra “limerik” [Scenario frame as a cognitive basis of texts of the Limerick case genre]. Voprosy kognitivnoi lingvistiki [Issues of cognitive linguistics], No 3(006), 46-52 (in Russian).
5. Khazagerov, T.G., & Shirina L.S. (1999). Obshchaya ritorika i slovar’ ritoricheskikh priemov [General rhetoric and dictionary of rhetorical devices]. Rostov-na-Donu: Feniks (in Russian).
6. Kikot, V.Ya., Stolyarenko, A.M., Belicheva, S.A., Budanov, A.V. Davydov, V.P., et. al. (2004). Yuridicheskaya pedagogika [Legal pedagogy]. Moscow: YuNITI-DANA, Zakon i pravo (in Russian).
7. Krasovskaya, O.V. (2008). O rechevoi kommunikatsii v sudebnoi praktike [On speech communication in judicial practice]. Moscow: Flinta (in Russian).
8. Melnik, V.V. (2000). Iskusstvo dokazyvaniya v sostyazatel’nom ugolovnom protsesse [The art of averment in adversary criminal proceedings]. Moscow: Delo (in Russian).
9. Merry, S. (1990). Study of American lower court litigants. New York: Wiley.
10. Mikhalskaya, A.K. (1996). Osnovy ritoriki: mysl’ i slovo [Basics of rhetoric: thought and word]. Moscow (in Russian).
11. Novitsky, V.A. (2002). Teoriya rossiiskogo protsessual’nogo dokazyvaniya i pravoprimeneniya [Theory of Russian procedural averment and law enforcement]. Stavropol: Izd-vo SGU (in Russian).
12. O’Barr, W.M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: language, power and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
13. Prigarina, N.K. (2008). Argumentatsiya sudebnogo diskursa: ritoricheskii aspekt [Argumentation of judicial discourse: rhetorical aspect]. Volgograd: Izd-vo Peremena (in Russian).
14. Romanov, A.A., & Malysheva, E.V. (2016). Osobennosti aktualizatsii freimovoi struktury neslovesnogo diskursa [Specificity of the actualization of the frame structure of nonverbal discourse]. Vestnik VGU. Seriya: Lingvistika i mezhkul’turnaya kommunikatsiya [Bulletin of Voronez state university. Ser. Linguistics andIntercultural Communication], No 3, 74-79 (in Russian).
15. Tigar, M.E. (1999). Persuasion: the litigator’s art. Chicago: Section of Litigation.
16. Wagner, A., & Cheng, L. (2011). Exploring courtroom discourse: the language of power and control. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company.
For citation:
Glushak V.M., Zaikina L.V. Educational intentions in the communicative behavior of the investigator (based on detective stories by Russian and English authors). Professional Discourse & Communication. 2019;1(2):22-36. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2687-0126-2019-1-2-22-36
Email this article 