158 SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL OF POLONIA UNIVERSITY 43 (2020) 6 LINGUISTIC REPRESENTATION OF POWER IN JUDICIAL DISCOURSE Margarita Zaitseva Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Yaroslav Mudryi National Law University, Ukraine e-mail: margozay@i.ua, orcid.org/0000-0003-4304-3644 Summary This study sheds light on the terms discourse of power and power of discourse. The two concepts are closely intertwined and interdependent as manifested in the influence of power on discourse, on the selection of the linguistic means expressing that power. Such linguistic means of conveying power relations are cratologemes. Accordingly, the approach used to study cratologe- mes is thought to be linguocratological. From the perspective of the linguocratological approach discourse has become a vigorous resource of power. Therefore, language of discourse is of great interest an instrument of manipulation, which gives grounds to study it as an object, a process, and as a tool. During the process of investigation, the following research methods have been used: lin- guistic observation and analysis as well as cognitive method, pragmatic analysis method, critical discourse analysis method. These methods have allowed us to establish some of the cratologemes that are characteristic of judicial discourse.Such cratologemes have been singled out at different language levels: at the morphological level, at the lexical-semantic level, at the syntactic level. Keywords: language means, discourse of power, power of discourse, linguistic observa- tion, pragmatic analysis method, critical discourse analysis method, cratologemes, linguocrato- logical approach, language levels. DOI https://doi.org/10.23856/4320 1. Introduction The cratological approach to discourse is heterogeneous and should be divided into two strands – the cratological approach itself as analysis of discourse of power and the linguocra- tological approach as analysis of power in discourse. Thus, for example, Norman Fairclough (1995) refers to this phenomenon as «power behind discourse» and «power in discourse», explaining the discourse of power through asymmetries of the roles of litigants and the inability to control the texts of the law in terms of their production, distribution and use; and power in discourse involves analyzing language itself and how power manifests itself through language. For example, if one person in communication uses formal means of communication (for exam- ple, «sir»), and the other one does not, then this demonstrates a relationship of power through language (Fairclough, 1995). His thoughts are developed by modern scholars: in the compen- dium edited by Anne Wagner and Le Cheng «Exploring Courtroom Discourse the language of power and control» (2011), there is also a distinction between power and control in the language from power and control outside the language: «Power and Control in Language» and «Power and Control behind Language» (Wagner, Cheng, 2011). The authors point out that power and its control are reflected in statements in the courtroom: «Mapping the contours of power and con- trol in the courtroom equals an interpretation of linguistic utterances and their uses and abuses» (Wagner, Cheng, 2011, 2). The authors refer to the discourse of power from the point of view of the parties to the proceedings: being a party to the proceedings in a given status, it must abide by the rules established by the authorities, the discourse of power becomes effective: «After the