Identifying Discourse Markers of Power and Powerlessness in the Discourse of Iran's Criminal Courts
Subject Areas : Research on Iranian social issuesBahman Gorjian 1 * , Elkhas Veysi 2 , Soraya Sobhani 3
1 - Associate Professor, Department of English, Abadan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Abadan, Iran.
2 - Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, Payam Noor University, Tehran, Iran.
3 - Ph.D in Linguistics, Khuzestan Institute of Education, Iran.
Keywords: Forensic Linguistics, Power, Courtroom Discourse, Judge, Defendant.,
Abstract :
Forensic linguistics, as an emerging and impactful discipline, plays a crucial role in analyzing written and spoken discourse in court cases and facilitating judicial processes, from investigation and case filing to sentencing. As a branch of applied linguistics, it assists researchers in analyzing the discourse of court actors and uncovering the structure and style of courtroom documentation. The present study examines the conversations between judges and defendants in Iran's criminal courts through the lens of the theory of power and powerlessness (Aghagolzadeh, 2012; Gibbons, 1994, 2003). The research employs a mixed-method approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques. The primary research question focuses on identifying the frequency of speech patterns of judges and defendants in 29 well-known and prominent cases. The analysis of these patterns in the conversations between judges and defendants, from the perspective of forensic linguistics, constitutes the core of this study. Data were collected from courtroom conversations available on the Aparat platform and transcribed. Qualitative analysis involved calculating the frequency and percentage of discourse components used by judges and defendants, while inferential analysis compared their discourse to detect significant differences using the chi-square statistical test, following the assessment of data reliability and validity. Regarding the variable "power," the findings revealed that among the indicators of power, judges demonstrated a statistically significant difference from defendants in the use of two markers: "use of suggestive sentences, leading and closed questions" and "use of imperative sentences." In the category of powerlessness, defendants showed a significant difference from judges in all indicators except "reference to a source of power." The results of this study can enhance judges' training, both pre-service and in-service, by improving their knowledge of linguistics and discourse analysis.
Keywords: Forensic Linguistics, Power, Courtroom Discourse, Judge, Defendant
Extended Abstract
Introduction
Forensic linguistics, as an emerging and effective discipline, is instrumental in analyzing written and spoken discourse in court cases and streamlining judicial processes, encompassing stages from investigation and case preparation to verdict issuance. This field, a subset of applied linguistics, aids researchers in dissecting the discourse of courtroom participants and elucidating the structure and style of court documents. Forensic linguistics is a domain of applied linguistics dedicated to the scientific study of language within the judicial system. It seeks to apply linguistic findings to analyze legal discourse. Olsson (2004) identifies "language and courtroom discourse" as a key branch of forensic linguistics, focusing on the relationship between individuals present in the courtroom and the language they employ. A review and critique of recent studies in forensic linguistics and the discourse of power and politeness revealed that the identification of discourse markers of power and powerlessness in the discourse of Iran's criminal courts has not been previously addressed. Discourse markers provide a methodological approach to understanding which markers are used by investigators, judges, lawyers, and defendants, and for what purposes, to succeed in their roles. Analyzing power and powerlessness can assist judicial practitioners in identifying effective verbal strategies and techniques for employing these markers in court. Such awareness also contributes significantly to issues at the intersection of law and linguistics, as well as to the existing literature on courtroom conversation analysis.
The concept of power within the courtroom context influences several aspects, such as the mode of discourse communication (written or spoken), the discourse genre (formal or informal), the speech acts employed, and the determination of who initiates or interrupts speech in discourse sequences. Accordingly, a defendant may be required to speak in standard language, respond solely to posed questions, refrain from speaking unless permitted, communicate respectfully, and limit their remarks to the matter at hand. The scarcity of research applying linguistic theories to forensic linguistics, particularly in the courtroom context and on a scale encompassing all criminal courts nationwide, has been a notable gap in conversation analysis. The significance of this study lies in shedding light on the conversations within a societal context (the courtroom) that, due to security and legal constraints, has remained largely inaccessible, deterring researchers from engaging with this field. The primary objectives include uncovering the structure of courtroom conversations and examining how power manifests in the discourse of judges and defendants, with the influence of these structures on the persuasive impact of their speech—as key actors in the judicial process—being discussed and concluded. This study seeks to answer the overarching question: To what extent and with what differences are the markers of power and powerlessness utilized in the conversations of judges and defendants?
Methods
The present study analyzes the conversations between judges and defendants in Iran's criminal courts based on the theory of power and powerlessness (Aghagolzadeh, 2012; Gibbons, 2003). The research adopts a mixed-method approach, integrating quantitative and qualitative methods. The central question pertains to identifying the frequency of speech patterns of judges and defendants in 29 well-known and prominent cases. The analysis of these patterns in their conversations, from the perspective of forensic linguistics, forms the focus of this study. Data were gathered from courtroom conversations available on the Aparat platform and transcribed. Qualitative analysis entailed calculating the frequency and percentage of discourse components used by judges and defendants, while inferential analysis involved comparing their discourse to identify significant differences using the chi-square statistical test, conducted after assessing the reliability and validity of the data.
Conclusion
In the context of courtroom discourse, when one party leverages conversation as a tool for asserting social and political dominance, they gain greater authority to speak and employ linguistic strategies and tools. Although some scholars argue that power is an unstable and transient phenomenon, defendants in the courtroom context, regardless of their level of authority, lack the ability to control verbal events, choose topics, or shift the direction of discourse. Thus, they consistently remain subordinate to power in this setting. The findings of this study can strengthen judges' supervisory role in courtroom interactions and conversations among litigants and other participants in these proceedings, making their oversight more robust and precise.
Drawing on Gibbons’ and Aghagolzadeh’s perspectives on linguistic markers of power and powerlessness, asymmetrical power relations are clearly observable in courtrooms. Throughout the conversations analyzed in this study, the power dynamic is evident in the unidirectional question-and-answer sequences initiated by judges. According to Gibbons, one method of exerting power in judicial settings is through questioning techniques that steer defendants toward responses desired by judges. The defendants’ predominant use of powerlessness markers, contrasted with judges’ minimal reliance on these indicators, further corroborates the assertion that judges exercise power within courtroom discourse.
Regarding the variable "power," the results indicated that among the markers of power, judges exhibited a statistically significant difference from defendants in two indicators: "use of suggestive sentences, leading and closed questions" and "use of imperative sentences." In the category of powerlessness, defendants demonstrated a significant difference from judges in all indicators except "reference to a source of power." The findings of this study can enhance judges’ pre-service and in-service training by deepening their understanding of linguistics and discourse analysis.
References
Aghagolzadeh, F. (2012) Forensic Linguistics: Theoretical and Applied, 2nd ed. Tehran: Elm Publication.
Gibbons, J. (2003) Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
آقاگل¬زاده، فردوس (1391) زبان¬شناسی حقوقی (نظری و کاربردی)، ویراست دوم، تهران، علم.
--------------- (1394) زبان¬شناسی حقوقی: تحلیل گفتمان حقوقی، تهران، نویسه پارسی.
باغبانی، غزل و فاطمه كرمپور (1396) «بررسی چگونگی رابطه بین شاخص قدرت و پديده ادب زبانی در روند بازجويی به لحاظ زبان¬شناختی: رويکردی گفتمانی و حقوقی»، پژوهش¬های زبانی، سال هشتم، شماره 2، صص 1-20.
بریگز، استیون (1397) جرم¬شناسی، ترجمه مریم مهذب، تهران، آوند دانش.
تقی¬پور، مرجان و دیگران (1390) رابطه زبان و قدرت در دادگاههای کیفری، پایان¬نامه کارشناسی ارشد زبان¬شناسی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، به راهنمایی نیما مرندی، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد علوم و تحقیقات، تهران.
حساس¬خواه، ژاله و معصومه ارجمندی (1399) «گفتمان¬کاوی دو متن قانون اساس ایران در قرن بیستم و رابطه آن با قدرت»، فصلنامۀ علمی زبان¬پژوهی دانشگاه الزهرا(س)، سال دوازدهم، شماره 35، صص 206-240.
حق¬نثار فرد، پگاه و علی افخمی (1386) تحلیل گفتمان قضایی: زبان¬شناسی قضایی، به راهنمایی علی افخمی، پایان¬نامه کارشناسی¬ارشد زبان¬شناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه تهران.
دهقان، مسعود و ژیلا مهربانی (1401) «بازنمایی مؤلفه¬های گفتمانی وکلا در اقناع قاضی از منظر زبان¬شناسی حقوقی (مطالعۀ موردی: گفتمان پرونده¬های کیفری)»، مجله جستارهای زبانی، دوره سیزدهم، شماره 2، صص 529-562.
زائری، عظیمه و دیگران (1396) «توصیف و تحلیل شیوه¬های زبانی و فرازبانی وکلا جهت اقناع در دادگاههای علنی ایران: تحلیل گفتمان دادگاه کیفری»، دوماهنامۀ جستارهای زبانی، دوره هشتم، شماره پنجم، صص 139-158.
سلطانی، سید علی¬اصغر (1387) قدرت، گفتمان و زبان: سازوکارهای جریان قدرت در جمهوری اسلامی ایران، تهران، نشرنی.
سیدرمضان، خدیجه و فاطمه پورمسجدیان (1400) «واکاوی سبک نوشتاری دادنامه¬های حقوقی و کیفری بر پایه فرانقش اندیشگانی»، فصلنامۀ علمی زبان¬پژوهی دانشگاه الزهرا(س)، سال سیزدهم، شمارۀ 39، صص 312-331.
صبری، مژگان و دیگران (1397) «تحلیل گفتمان پلیس- متهم در حوزه زبانشناسی اجتماعی حقوقی»، فصلنامه زبان¬شناسی اجتماعی، دوره دوم، شماره اول، صص 99-109.
عباس¬زاده، فرنگیس و دیگران (1399الف) «تحلیل نشانگرهای کلامی و سبکی در گفتمان حقوقی دادگاه¬های انقلاب»، مجله زبان فارسی و گویش¬های ایرانی، سال پنجم، دوره دوم، صص 231-244.
---------------------- (1399ب) «تأثیر گفتمان حقوقی بر کاربرد واژگان در دادگاه مدنی بر اساس طبقه¬بندی روابط مفهومی»، مجله پژوهشهای حقوقی، شماره 44، صص 325-344.
----------------------- (1400) «تجزیه و تحلیل هنجارهای زبانی گفتمان در محاکم کیفری بر اساس نظریه مک¬منامین (مطالعۀ موردی: در دادگاه کرباسچی)»، مجله پژوهش-های حقوق جزا و جرم¬شناسی، دوره نهم، شماره 18، صص 407-433.
مؤمنی، نگار و سیروس عزيزی (1394) «نقش تغییر موضوع و نقض اصول گرايس توسط متهم در بازجويی¬ها (مطالعه موردی: در آگاهی تهران بزرگ)»، فصلنامه زبان¬پژوهی، سال هفتم، شماره 16، صص 159-175.
Bogdan, R. C., & Biklen, S. K. (2007) Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods (5th ed.) Boaton: Allyn & Bacon.
Conley, J. M., O’barr, W. M., & Allan Lind, A. E. (1978). The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal, 2(8), 1375-1399. Creswell, J. W. (2009) (3rd ed.) Thousand oaks. CA: Sage.
Gibbons, J. (1994) Language and law. London & New York: Longman Publishing.https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844329.
Gibbons, J. (2003) Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
Heydon, G. (2005( The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502932.
Hutauruk, B, S., Murni, S. M., Sinar, T. S., & Saragih, A. (2022) Speech function and presupposition in Indonesia courtroom discourse. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(4), 6907-6915.
Mohammed Ali, J. H. (2020) Forensic linguistics: A study in criminal speech acts. BSU International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, (BIJHS) 2(1), 39-65.
Monsefi, R. (2012) Language in criminal justice: Forensic linguistic in Shipman trial. International Journal of Law, Language and Discourse, 2(2), 43-69.
Olsson, J. (2004) Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language, crime and the law. London and NewYork, Continuum.