144
PERSUASION STRATEGIES IN LAWYER'S SPEECH:
A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS IN ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES
Khujaniyazova Hilola Turaevna
Senior Teacher, Researcher
Uzbek State University of World Languages
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15471793
Abstract.
This thesis presents a comparative analysis of persuasive rhetorical strategies
employed in lawyer’s speech in English and Uzbek languages. Based on Aristotle’s concepts of
logos, ethos, and pathos, the study investigates the differences and similarities within the
juridical discourse of both languages. While English juridical speech prioritizes a formal,
logical, and evidence-based approach, Uzbek juridical rhetoric tends to emphasize emotional
influence, traditional forms of address, and cultural values. The research provides a practical
basis for improving juridical rhetorical competence and enhancing effective cross-linguistic
juridical communication.
Keywords:
lawyer’s speech, persuasive strategy, juridical rhetoric, logos, ethos, pathos,
comparative analysis, courtroom discourse, language and culture
ADVOKAT NUTQIDA ISHONTIRISH STRATEGIYALARI: INGLIZ VA O‘ZBEK
TILLARIDA QIYOSIY TAHLIL
Xujaniyazova Hilola Turayevna
Katta o‘qituvchi, ilmiy tadqiqotchi
O‘zbekiston davlat jahon tillari universiteti
Abstrakt.
Ushbu tezisda advokat nutqining ishontirishga yo‘naltirilgan ritorik
strategiyalari ingliz va o‘zbek tillari misolida qiyosiy tahlil etiladi. Aristotelning
logos
,
ethos
,
pathos
kabi ishontirish vositalari asosida har ikki tildagi huquqiy diskursdagi farqlar va
o‘xshashliklar ko‘rib chiqiladi. Ingliz tilida rasmiy, mantiqiy va dalillarga suyanghan uslub
ustuvor bo‘lsa, o‘zbek tilida hissiy ta’sir, an’anaviy murojaatlar va madaniy xususiyatlar ustun
turadi. Tadqiqot huquqiy ritorik mahoratni takomillashtirish, hamda tillararo huquqiy
muloqotni samarali tashkil etish uchun amaliy asos yaratadi.
Kalit so‘zlar:
advokat nutqi, ishontirish strategiyasi, huquqiy ritorika,
logos
,
ethos
,
pathos
, qiyosiy tahlil, sud diskursi, til madaniyati
Lawyer’s speech, as a vital component of juridical rhetoric, is a powerful instrument that
serves to uphold justice in society. This genre demands not only juridical knowledge but also
rhetorical skill aimed at convincing the audience—whether a judge or jury. The primary
function of a lawyer’s speech is to uncover the truth and thereby influence the court’s decision
in favor of the client. In this process, the effective use of persuasive strategies plays a decisive
role. These strategies differ in scope and application across cultures and languages.
Particularly, the comparative study of persuasive strategies in English and Uzbek courtroom
discourse constitutes a significant area of modern juridical linguistics.
Among the main persuasive strategies are the categories proposed by Aristotle—logos
(logic), ethos (speaker’s credibility), and pathos (emotional appeal) — which are widely used
in juridical speeches (Aristotle, trans. 2007). In English juridical discourse, special emphasis is
placed on logos. For instance, expressions like “It is evident from the testimony that…” are
used to draw logical conclusions based on evidence (Tiersma, 1999). This reflects a mature
145
juridical style grounded in structured reasoning. Uzbek lawyers also rely on logical reasoning;
however, they often incorporate pathos — emotional appeal and humanitarian
considerations—into their arguments. For example: “My client is the sole breadwinner of a
large family; his punishment would bring hardship to the entire household,” (“Himoyamdagi
shaxs katta oilaning boquvchisi, uning jazolanishi butun oilasini qiynalishiga olib keladi.”)
which conveys not only a juridical but also an ethical message.
Ethos, the credibility of the speaker, plays a significant role in both languages. English
lawyers highlight their professional authority through a formal, balanced tone: “As a
representative of the Crown, I must stress the importance of integrity.”
Uzbek lawyers, by contrast, emphasize their standing through traditional honorific
expressions: “Honorable members of the court, my life experience and sense of professional
responsibility do not allow me to remain indifferent to this matter.”(“Muhtaram sud hay’ati,
mening hayot tajribam va kasbiy mas’uliyat hissim bu masalaga befarq bo‘lishimga yo‘l
qo‘ymaydi.”).
Moreover, stylistic features of each language play an important role in persuasion. In
English, a formal and neutral tone is dominant, often employing passive constructions and
conditional structures to influence the audience without direct pressure (Gibbons, 2003). For
example: “It could be argued that…” or “There is a reasonable doubt…” allows the speaker to
avoid imposing an opinion, instead encouraging the listener to arrive at a conclusion. In
Uzbek, more assertive expressions, direct address, emotive vocabulary, comparisons, and
proverbs are frequently used to appeal to the audience’s feelings.
Cultural factors are also crucial. In the Anglo-Saxon juridical tradition, values such as
juridical precedent, objective evidence, and the presumption of innocence significantly shape
the content and expression of juridical speech. In Uzbekistan, juridical rhetoric is influenced
by national values, family relationships, and appeals to public opinion (Rakhimov, 2020).
These cultural nuances define structural differences in rhetorical construction.
In conclusion, both juridical systems employ persuasion strategies aimed at achieving
specific objectives. However, the tools, style, and lexical choices involved vary due to cultural,
juridical, and rhetorical differences. English juridical speech is more logic- and evidence-
oriented, whereas Uzbek juridical discourse tends to rely on ethical and emotional influence.
This study contributes to a deeper understanding of cross-linguistic and cross-cultural
features of persuasive rhetoric in juridical contexts and serves as a foundation for enhancing
rhetorical competence in juridical practice.
References:
Используемая литература:
Foydalanilgan adabiyotlar:
1.
Aristotle. (2007).
On Rhetoric: A Theory of Civic Discourse
(G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). Oxford
University Press.
2.
Gibbons, J. (2003).
Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System
.
Blackwell Publishing.
3.
Rakhimov, B. (2020).
Linguopragmatic Features of Uzbek Court Speech
. Tashkent: Fan
Publishing.
4.
Tiersma, P. M. (1999).
Juridical Language
. University of Chicago Press.
