THE MAGIC OF THREE IN LEGAL DISCOURSE: THE ART OF PERSUASION IN THE COURTROOM
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##
Abstract
Modern courtroom rhetoric demands optimal structural framework to maximise the persuasiveness of argumentation under conditions of extreme information overload and emotional stress. This study provides a comprehensive pragmalinguistic analysis of the three-part compositional model as an instrument of strategic persuasion and refutation within polemical legal discourse. Grounded in linguopragmatics and discourse analysis, the research utilises contextual, semantic, and compositional-stylistic methods to examine how legal professionals transform neutral linguistic resources into emotionally evaluative tools. The empirical data comprises the closing arguments and judicial transcripts from the high-profile Paul J. Caneiro Trial (2026). The findings demonstrate that structural triads are rooted in human pattern recognition, functioning as the minimal numerical value required to establish cognitive equilibrium and systemic finality in court. The analysis reveals how the prosecution successfully realised three distinct triadic structures to achieve an unassailable perlocutionary effect. Conversely, the defense attempted to break these patterns by fragmenting the state's triadic pillars of proof. Integrating linguistic transformations with a three-part compositional model victory.turns normative legal logic into a psychologically compelling mechanism of complete
How to Cite
##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.details##
a three-part compositional model, polemical legal discourse, rule of three, courtroom rhetoric, linguopragmatics, perlocutionary effect, Paul Caneiro trial.
2. Becker, C. J. (2026, February). Closing arguments for the prosecution in the matter of the State of New Jersey v. Paul J. Caneiro [Courtroom transcript]. Monmouth County Prosecutor's Office, Freehold, NJ.
3. Lemieux, M. C. (2026, May 19). Transcript of Sentencing Proceedings: State of New Jersey v. Paul J. Caneiro. Monmouth County Superior Court, Judicial District of New Jersey.
4. Mastellone, M. (2026, February). Closing arguments for the defense in the matter of the State of New Jersey v. Paul J. Caneiro [Courtroom transcript]. Superior Court of New Jersey, Freehold, NJ.
5. Pelepeychenko, L., & Zaitseva, M. (2022). Transgression as a communication tool of influence in American courtroom discourse. Rasprave: Časopis Instituta za hrvatski jezik i jezikoslovlje, 48(2), 609–630.
6. Sloan, C., & Prussin, M. (2026, February 13). Paul Caneiro found guilty of murder in New Jersey trial over deaths of brother, brother's family. CBS News New York. Retrieved from https:// www.cbsnews.com/newyork/news/paul-caneiro-murder-trial-verdict/
7. State of New Jersey v. Paul J. Caneiro (2026). Indictment No. 19-03-00431. Superior Court of New Jersey, Monmouth County Law Division.
8. Zaitseva, M. O. (2014). Aspects of linguistic research of polemical discourse. Polemic as a special type of discourse. In Essays on linguistic discourse analysis: On the problem of typology and characteristics: Monograph (pp. 7–47). Kharkiv: Burun.
9. Zaitseva, M. O. (2020). Specific nature of legal discourse. In Teaching English for Specific Purpose in Context of Modern Educational Paradigm: Monograph (pp. 30–45). Kharkiv: Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University.
10. Zaitseva, M. O. (2024). Evolution of strategies in courtroom discourse. In Modern philology: theory, history, methodology: Scientific monograph (pp. 410–426). Riga, Latvia: Baltija Publishing.