PERSUASIVE STRATEGIES IN COURT ROOM DISCOURSE

Previous studies have identified few persuasive strategies applicable in court room discourse, albeit, without so designating them and without considering whether or not the strategies are effective. Consequently, the present study proceeds to identify many more persuasive strategies and determine their degrees of effectiveness by critically analyzing purposefully selected court cases as addressed in recent final submissions of two Lagos-based legal pundits. The theoretical framework for the study identifies and explicates court room persuasive strategies as rhetorical devices and categorizes them as being linguistic or non-linguistic (cognitive). The submissions of Lagos-based pundits are chosen for the study, because Lagos is, indisputably, the home of tough and celebrated trials in Nigeria. Again, the case is one of the rare tenancy suits won by the defendant, a tenant, and so, a matter of public interest at all times and places in Nigeria. Substantially and very effectively, the two Final addresses (FADS) analyzed in the study reflect non-linguistic persuasive markers (NLPM), but very scantily exploit linguistic persuasive markers (LPM). That is, the two addresses jointly mirror pedagogical lopsidedness against (LPM) in connection with legal training in Nigeria, Africa and beyond. Again, in varying degrees, the two FADS reflect grammatical errors and blunders. The foremost implication of these findings is that legal training programmes around the world, especially in Nigeria and Africa lack adequate linguistic input. In other words, lawyers are not sufficiently exposed to language learning as it relates to proficient Use of English. Hence, there is urgent need for legal training curricular to be overhauled. It should be overhauled such that lawyers in training will begin to be sufficiently exposed to English grammar and rhetoric. Once they are so exposed, they will begin to produce FADS that are effective and error-free, grammatically. Such FADS will of course perfectly reflect both NLPM and LPM. These persuasive markers need to be reflected in lawyers’ FADS, because court room discourse is an argumentative forum which must be grammatically impeccable and rhetorical to ensure effective communication, a necessary object of every discourse.