This article explores the pragmatic features of lawyer’s speech within legal discourse. Drawing upon examples from courtroom communication, legal interviews, and written submissions, the study analyzes how pragmatic strategies – including speech acts, implicature, politeness, hedging, and presupposition – contribute to persuasion, credibility, and legal argumentation. Through linguistic-pragmatic analysis, the article identifies key markers of power, institutional authority, and communicative intention that distinguish legal speech from everyday discourse. The study also emphasizes the importance of intercultural and ethical awareness in legal pragmatics.

Pragmatics, lawyer’s speech, legal discourse

Austin, J. L. (1962). “How to Do Things with Words”. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). “Politeness: Some Universals in Language Usage”. Cambridge University Press.

Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J. Morgan (Eds.), “Syntax and Semantics, Vol. 3: Speech Acts” (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.

Levinson, S. C. (1983). “Pragmatics”. Cambridge University Press.

Searle, J. R. (1979). “Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts”. Cambridge University Press.

Tiersma, P. (1999). “Legal Language”. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Gibbons, J. (2003). “Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System”. Oxford: Blackwell.

Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). “An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence”. London: Routledge.

Kuchimova, SH. N. (2024). “Extralinguistic Features of Legal Speech”. Tashkent: Academy of MIA Press.