A Comparative Study of the Pragmatic Theory of Speech Acts in the legal Discourse

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original Article

Author

Phd graduate,, linguistics,, institute of teaching and training,, Education department, Khouzestan, Ahvaz

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Linguistic Studies: Theory and Practice

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 23 February 2025

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 25 August 2024
  • Revise Date: 20 February 2025
  • Accept Date: 23 February 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics