 PDF | 564 Downloads |
Stephen Boscolo
ABSTRACT: Kenneth Burke’s theories of Dramatism, motives and the pentad function both allow a listener to better understand a speaker’s message, and serve as a useful tool for persuasion. Burke’s theories about why and how persuasion occurs can be readily applied to the field of persuasive legal writing. Professor Clarke Rountree has written extensively on the intersection between Burke and judicial discourse, suggesting that by nature of their positions, judges are constrained in legal writing such that in the opinions typically reflects certain judicial ideals, or “motives". Incorporating Professor Rountree’s theories, this article suggests that legal writing that is best able to convey such motives is significantly more persuasive to a judge. To delve into this theory, this article uses the Petitioner’s Brief in the Supreme Court case of Lawrence v. Texas as an illustration.