Juridinės retorikos pagrindai

LTŠi tarpdalykinė iškalbos ugdymo studija teisininkams yra pirmoji Lietuvoje. Trūkstant medžiagos, nemaža pasisemta iš tų teisininkų darbų, kuriuose pagrindinis dėmesys skiriamas teismo procesui. Kitaip negu teisininkų veikaluose, kuriuose rūpinamasi grynai teisine argumentacija nagrinėjant teisės ginčus teismo tvarka (tai teisininko profesionalo kompetencija, nes teisiškai argumentuoti reikia specialių teisės žinių), šioje knygoje didesnis dėmesys sutelktas į retorinę argumentaciją ir bendruosius kalbėjimo stiliaus bei etikos principus. Šia studija kaip vadovėliu pirmiausia galės pasinaudoti studentai, taip pat universitetų bei kolegijų specialybės kalbos ir retorikos dėstytojai. Praktikai, dirbantys teisme, policijoje, prokuratūroje, notariate, Vyriausybėje, Seime, Prezidentūroje ir kitose institucijose, taip pat turėtų rasti šiokios tokios naudos. Pagaliau nemaža galbūt paskaitys ir iš smalsumo - juk ne vienas teisininkas iškalbos praktikos veidrodyje pirmą kartą iš labai arti pamatys ir atpažins save, savo asmenybę ir kalbėjimo būdą.Reikšminiai žodžiai: Juridinė retorika; Retorinės figūros; Retorinis ekskursas; Juridicak rhetoric; Rhetorical figures; Rhetorical excursus.

ENIf we defined juridical rhetoric as a form of purposeful, rational and persuasive communication in a certain social context, as a process of achieving certain goals by commenting on the soundness and equity of normative statements and arguments, then we could call juridical rhetoric a successor of the Aristotelian rhetoric. The synonym of such rhetoric today is public or legal discourse. A purposeful legal discourse requires the inference of the ultimate motive of the speaker and identification of the orator and his values on the basis of words said (or written) and the circumstances of speech production: whether that motive is in concert with the ethics and morale, whether the speaker's purpose is really to persuade the addressee of what is discussed by using rational arguments. If that is the ultimate motive of the speaker, then law and rhetoric make a tight unity, supplementing one another and serving the same purpose. The nature of rhetoric, its origins, close historical links between rhetoric and law show that the disciplines of law and rhetoric can go together when they are related to ethics and to moral values of the speaker. The etymology of the word rhetoric reveals the links between law and elocution, a common stem and legal dualism branching from that stem - justum et aequum.That is why the concept of the ideal rhetoric and lawyer orator, laid out in this monograph as the seven capital Es (Erudition, Ethics, Etiquette, Emotions, Energy, Aesthetics, Eloquence), is revived in the studies of lawyers and authors of rhetorical works in modern Lithuania, because justum watching aequum still mean the same they meant in Ancient Greece, in the Renaissance and pre-war independent Lithuania: citizens relying on the justice of the word and con duct of a judge (as well as a solicitor, prosecutor or another state representative), even though they understand justice subjectively, accept his final decision as objective and equitable. This shows that in the ethical sense equity is higher than the law itself. Since the same problem of the relationship between law and equity keeps emerging under the present conditions of democracy, the disclosure of common roots of law and rhetoric, rhetorical analysis of the lawyers' speeches and the pursuit of the unity of justum et aequum as well as the orator able to speak justly and persuasively should be meaningful and relevant. The suggested theoretical principles of rhetoric tested throughout the long experience of the discipline are applied in the practical linguistic activity of modern lawyers: they should be used to measure justice, to analyse legal discourse or to carry out semantic linguistic analysis of a disputable text. The interdisciplinary nature of juridical rhetoric is especially obvious: law, linguistics and other disciplines go there hand in hand. Juridical rhetoric can be claimed to be a new interdisciplinary area since the issues of linguistic interpretation and semantic definition in legal cases are of utmost importance. The knowledge of law and linguistics is closely intertwined and only a joint effort of lawyers and linguists can produce a desirable effect.Linguists writing a textbook of rhetoric for lawyers need the theoretical knowledge of law and lawyers writing about court proceedings or working as forensic linguists need the knowledge of linguistics and awareness of social circumstances. However, lawyers are more concerned with procedural issues, legal content, facts ad arguments, while linguists are more interested in elocution, i.e. what arguments and what linguistic means the lawyer should use for presenting that content and those facts in public speaking. The content (res) and the form (verbum) are inseparable in rhetoric: the content must suit the form and the form must suit the content. Rhetoric helps to present and comprehend the content of law, therefore it teaches how to create and use the language appropriate for certain content, it teaches to discriminate and use the style appropriate for a concrete situation and type of public speech. The focus of juridical rhetoric is on public speeches (spoken and written, monologue and dialogue) of lawyers. First, the theory of rhetoric includes the methods of creating, writing and delivering speeches, theory of argumentation, principles of discussion applied to the speaker. Second, it helps to understand speeches written or delivered by others, to analyse, interpret and explain the meaning of the word or utterance in a certain context. The monograph devotes a lot of attention to the analysis of public speeches, comprehension of a many-sided context (not only linguistic, but also social, cultural and historical), investigation of the use of rhetorical devices, ways of presenting arguments which help the listener and the reader to critically assess the discourses of other speakers, discriminate between the reasons for effective and ineffective speaking, to recognise demagogy, manipulation of the addressee's mind using subtle rhetorical means and cunningly put questions during the conversation. [...].

• Teisė / Law
• Kalbotyra / Linguistics