نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
دانش آموخته دکتری، زبان شناسی، پژوهشکده تعلیم و تربیت، آموزش و پرورش، خوزستان، اهواز
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Court conversations are a type of legal discourse in which the pragmatic role of language and understanding the intended meaning is very important; Because fair judgment requires a correct mutual understanding of the verbal intentions of the conversation parties. In a comparative study with a descriptive-analytical approach, it has been tried to examine the applicability of Searle's (1969) speech act theory in understanding the conversations of judges and defendants and to reveal the verbal differences between these two groups . 20 video files with a total of 100 minutes, all of which were taken from the Aparat website as available samples, form the data. It was found that in the judge and defendant's conversations, " representative " speech act had the highest frequency. In addition, comparative study showed that judges have been able to portray their undisputed superiority with the significant use of “directive” and “declarative” speech acts. Defendants' greater use of other speech acts shows their lack of power.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)