You are on page 1of 23

Language Related Research

Vol.4, No.4 (Tome 16), Winter 2014

Forensic Discourse Analysis: Legal Speech Acts


in Legal Language
Sajjad Asgari Matin1, Ali Rahimi2
1. Master of Research, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2. Assistant Professor, Department of English Language and Literature, University of Kashan,
Kashan, Iran
Receive: 17/9/2012

Accept: 17/2/2013

The multidisciplinary analysis of relationship between language and law has


been in the spotlight for many linguists in the last two decades. Forensic
Linguistics attempts to describe and, where possible, explain the features
that distinguish the language used in legal settings from the everyday
language. Furthermore, discourse analysis is capable of application in a wide
variety of settings and contexts. The purpose of this paper is to outline the
theory and practice of forensic discourse analysis as a tool for interpretation
and analysis of legal context with a particular focus on legal pragmatics in
Persian legal events to enable both researchers in legal system and forensic
linguists to pass the level of theory and barge into the practice of discourse
analysis in Persian legal system. In this regard, we focused on the Legal
Speech Acts based on the theory of Searle J. (1969). A collection of 20 files
issued in legal context were analyzed and the results and applications will be
discussed.
Keywords: Forensic discourse analysis, Searle J, Speech Act, Corpus.

Corresponding Authors Email: samatin@ut.ac.ir

287


*1

.1
.2
91/6/27 :

91/11/29 :

.
. ) (1975
.

-
)( .
)( .
-
.
: . .

.1
.
:

Email: samatin@ut.ac.ir m


4) 4 (16 1392172-151

...


.

.


.



)
(
.
3

.

)
(... .

4 .

.

5
) Danet,
.(1980: 446 & 1985: 278; Gibbons, 1994: 285

.
) (1969, 1975 .
1Corpus
2 Sy stemic
L inguistics
Functional Lingu istics
3Forensic
Discourse Analy sis
4Pragmatics
5Speech Act

152

4 ) 4 (16 1392


.
:
-

) (1975

- )(
.

.2

. 1990

.6
) Solan,

(1993 ) (Stygall, 1994 ) .(Berk, 1990


1993 7
1994 8 .

.9

) (1390:
) (1390
: ) (1391 .10

)6 : 1994 1990 6 .(1990
7The International Association of Forensic Linguis ts
8International
Journal of Speech, Language and the Law
2005 9 (2007
)9 : 2003 2005 2005
10 1384
)10 . . 1389 1384

153

...

. ) (1969
. 11
) Gustafsson,

(1975
. 1980
) .(Shuy, 1982: 113; Kurzon, 1986: 19
) (

12

1980 13
.
).(Gibbons, 1994: 286 1985

14 .


... .


.
.

.

15 16


.17 1980

11Legal Register
12Law and
13Brenda society review
Danet
14Spo ken legal
discourse
15Structural
16 Functional
(17 .
)18 . . 1979 1389

154

4 ) 4 (16 1392

. 18
19 .

20 .

21
). Dumas, 1990 :
22 ( 1

.

23

.2-1
24 )
(12 :1389
. 25


18Adjacency pairs
19
Formulaic language
20Case
21 ( 1979Stu
)22 . :1982 dy

22Speech
23Critical dacts
iscourse analy sis
24Verbal and
structural complexity
25Pragmatics
of legal discourse

155

...

.

) Levinson,

.(1983: 31

) .(Danet, 1985: 276

26
) Kurzon,

.(2001: 61-85; Archer, 2011: 16-30



.
.

.3 27

28 .29

.
.


.

.

.30

26Negative face work

27
.

28Performative
)30 . : 1962 1969 29 1996
30 (.(1390
)31 . : 1980 1994 1994 1994

156

4 ) 4 (16 1392



.

.

) (Illocutionary ) (Locutionary ) (Perlocutionary

) (81 :1384

.

.3-1
) (1975
) (Declarative) (Representative ) (Expressive )(Directive
) (Commissive ) (Austin, 1962; Searle, 1975

.31

. : ) (
) .(Searle, 1975: 354; Danet, 1980: 458
.:
.... .... . .. ... ... . ...
.
. :
) .(Ibid: 355; Ibid
31 .

157

...

.:
... . ... ... ... .
... .
. :
) .(Ibid: 354; Ibid
.:
. .
...
.
. : -
) .(Ibid: 356; Ibid:
... . ... . ...
.
. :
.
) .(Ibid; Ibid: 358:
... . ... ... .
... .

158

4 ) 4 (16 1392

.3-2
) (1989
. 32 .

33

34

) .(Habremas, 1989: 3 ) (2007: 68


:

. :35
. :36
. .


):(Habermas,1989: 63; Leech, 1983: 198-199

37

)(

. : .

38

. )(
. : .

):(Cao, 2007: 71-82

. 39 :

) ( . :
.
32Constative Speech Acts
33
Regulative Speech Acts
34 Expressive
Speech Acts
35 Legislative
Speech Acts
36 Judicial
37
Acts Acts
Speaker Speech
based Speech
38 Hearer-Oriented
Speech Acts
39 Prohibitio
n force

159

...

. 40 :
) .(... :
.

41

. :
) .(... :
.

.42

.4
1390
. Rtf
Microsoft Office Word 2010 .
:

Rtf.


2052

668640

87320

138
Freq.

) (1975
) (1983
PSAW Statistics V.18
. )(

:
. :

40Permission force
41
Obligation force
(42 .
)43 . .2000 , 1996

160

4 ) 4 (16 1392


. : .

. : .

/
. : .
) (
. :
) (.
:
) (Dec-01 (Rep-02) (Exp-03)
) (Com-04 (Pro-05) (Per-06)
(Obl-07) (Part B) (Part C)
(Part D) ) (Part E
.


p0/05 a= 0/89 .
.

.5

1.

161

...

1
Frequency

Valid

Valid Per.

Cum. Per.

Exp-03

20

1/4

3/0

3/0

Per-06

40

2/7

6/1

9/1

Obl-07

82

5/6

12/5

21/6

Pro-05

83

5/7

12/6

34/2

Dec-01

103

7/0

15/7

49/9

Rep-02

329

22/4

50/1

100/0

Total

657

44/8

100/0

Part C
Percent

Valid Per.

Cum. Per.

Com-04

80

5/5

5/5

5/5

Obl-07

100

6/8

6/8

12/3

Pro-05

122

8/3

8/3

20/6

Dec-01

201

13/7

13/7

34/3

Rep-02

962

65/6

65/7

100/0

Total

1465

99/9

100/0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Per.

Cum. Per.

Exp-03

20

1/4

2/3

2/3

Rep-02

239

16/3

27/2

29/5

Dec-01

620

42/3

70/5

100/0

Total

879

60/0

100/0

Frequency

Percent

Valid Per.

Cum. Per.

Pro-05

60

4/1

11/8

11/8

Rep-02

122

8/3

24/0

35/8

Dec-01

327

22/3

64/2

100/0

Total

509

34/7

100/0

Frequency

Valid

Part B
Percent

Part D

Valid

Part E

Valid

162

4 ) 4 (16 1392

) (1 :
. )(Part B 50/1
31/2 15/7 3/0

. )(Part C 65/7 15/1
13/7 5/5
. )(Part D 70/5
27/2 2/3
. )(Part E 64/2 24/0
11/8 .
2
Percent

Percent

18/7

657

PartB

25/1

879

PartD

41/7

100

3510

Total N

14/5

N
0

PartA

1465

PartC

509

PartE

3510 41/7
25/1 18/7
14/5 ) .(2
1
.
)75/5
( ) 65/7( .

163

...

2 .

164

4 ) 4 (16 1392

.
3 33 19
7 . 41
.

.5-1

)( .
. ) 43 (

Multiple Response Analysis


:
.
.

) (
:

.

  
.

 .
43String A naly sis

165

...

:
} = 1148 1652 + {

44
.
. )(
)(
.


.

.6
) (1975

.
3-2
.

.
:
.

.

.
44Pragmatic act of declaration

166

4 ) 4 (16 1392

.

.

:
.
.

.




.

.7
corpus linguistics
systemic functional linguistics
forensic discourse analysis
pragmatics
speech act
See: Gibbons, 1994; Levi & Walker, 1990; Rieber & Stewart, 1990.
The International Association of Forensic Linguists
International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law
See: Cotterill, 2003; Eades, 1994, 2005; Heffer, 2005; Hydon, 2005; Rock,2007.
.10 . .1389 1384 .1383

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

11. legal register


12. law and society review
13. Brenda Danet
14. spoken legal discourse
15. structural
16. functional
167

...

.1389 Charrow & Charrow, 1979 :. .17


18. adjacency pairs
19. formulaic language
20. case study
.1979 Shuy, 1982 :. .21
22. speech acts
23. critical discourse analysis
24. verbal and structural complexity
25. pragmatics of legal discourse
26. negative face work
. .27
28. Performative
29. See: Austin, 1962; Searle, 1969,1975; Yule, 1996; Shuy,1993,2004:Mey,1993.
Stygall, 1994 Malley & Fahey, 1991,1994 Jori, 1994 Danet,1980 :. .30
.1390
. .31
32. constative speech acts
33. regulative speech acts
34. expressive speech acts
35. legislative speech acts
36. judicial speech acts
37. speaker based speech acts
38. hearer-oriented speech acts
39. prohibition force
40. permission force
41. obligation force
42. See: Yule, 1996.
43. string Analysis
44. pragmatic act of declaration

.8
.2 .( ) .(1390)
. :
: ( ).(1384) ________
: . .
.225-215 .
168

1392 (16 )4 4

.(1389)

. :
.11 .1 .1 .( )
. : .(1390)
. : .
: . .(1379) .
.
. : . .(1384) .________

. . .(1383) .
.380-365 .48-49 .68 .

. : .(1391)
. : .
Reference:
Aghagolzadeh, Ferdows (2005). Forensic Linguistics: A New Approach in
Applied Linguistics. The First Seminar of Linguistics Society of Iran (LSI).
Tehran: Allameh Tabatabai University Press. Pp. 215-225 [In Persian].
Aghagolzadeh, Ferdows (2011). Forensic Linguistics (A Course Book). 2nd Ed.
Tehran: Nashshre Elm [In Persian].
Aghagolzadeh, Ferdows, Arsalan Golfam & Faezeh Farazandeh-Pour (2010).
Linguistic Analysis of jury Votes/Verdicts Based on Innovative Parrern.
Language Related Research (Comparative Language and Literature Research).
Year 1. No. 1. Pp. 11 [In Persian].
Archer, Dawn (2011). Cross-examining Lawyers, Facework and the Adversarial
Courtroom. Journal of Pragmatics. 43.
Austin, Joh. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.

169

...

Azizi, Sirous & Negar Momeni (2012). Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to


Language, Crime, and law. Tehran: Jahad Daneshgahi Publications [In Persian].
Berk-Seligson, Susan (1990). The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Cao, D. (2007). Legal Speech Acts as Intersubjective Communicative Action.
In: Wagner, A., et al. (Eds.), Interpretation, Law and the Construction of
Meaning. Springer Netherlands, Netherlands. Pp. 6582.
Charrow, R.P. & V.R. Charrow (1979). Making Legal Language Understandable: A
Psycholinguistic Study of Juryinstructions. Columbia Law Review 79. 7.
Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the
O.J. Simpson Trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Crystal D. & D.Davy (1969). Investigating English Style. London: Longman.
Danet, B. (1980). Language in the Legal Process. Law and Society Review
14(3). Pp. 445564.
------------- (1985). Legal discourse. In van Dijk T A (Ed.), Handbook of
Discourse Analysis 1: Disciplines of Discourse. New York: Academic Press. Pp.
273291.
---------------, et al. (1980). An Ethnography of Questioning. In R. Shuy & A.
Shnukal (Eds.), Language Use and the Uses of Language: Papers From the Fifth
NWAV (Pp. 34222). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Dumas, Bethany K. (1990). An Analysis Ofthe Adequacy of Federally
Mandated Cigarette Package Warnings. In JudithLevi and Anne Walker (Eds.),
Languagein the Judicial Process. Newyork: Plenum. Pp. 52-309.
Eades, D. (1994). A Case of Communicative Clash: Aboriginal English and the
Legal System. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the Law (Pp. 64-234). Harlow:
Longman.
--------------- (2005). Applied Linguistics and Language Analysis in Asylum
Seeker Cases. Applied Linguistics. Vol. 26. No. 4. Pp. 26-503.
170

1392 (16 )4 4

Gibbons, John (1994). Language and the Law. London: Longman.


Gustafsson, M. (1975). Some Syntactic Properties of English Law Language.
Publications of Department of English, University of Turku Finland, 4.
Habermas, J. (1989). On the Pragmatics of Communication. MIT Press,
Cambridge.
Heffer, C. (2005). The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-aided Analysis of
Legal-lay Discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heydon, G. (2005). The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Jori, M. (1994). Legal Performatives. In Asher R E (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of
Language and Linguistics. Oxford: Pergamon Press. 20922097.
Kurzon D. (1986). It Is Here by Performed Explorations in Legal Speech Acts.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Kurzon, D. (2001). The Politeness of Judges: American and Birtish Judicial
Behavior. Journal of Pragmatics. No. 33. Pp. 61-85.
Leech, G.N. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. Longman Group Limited,
London.
Levi, Judith & Anne Walker (1990). Language in the Judicial Process.
Newyork: Plenum.
Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Maley, Y. & R. Fahey (1991). Presentingthe Evidence: Constructions of
Realityin Court. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law. 4(10) Pp. 317.
---------------- (1994). The Language of the Law. In Gibbons (Ed.). Pp. 1150.
Mey, J.L. (1993). Pragmatics: An Introduction. Oxford: Blackwell.
Rieber, Robert & William Stewart (Eds). (1990). The Language Scientist as
Expert in the Legal Setting. New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 606.
No. 6.

171

...

Rock, F. (2007). Communicating Rights: The Language of Arrest and Detention.


London: Palgrave.
Safavi, Koorosh (2000). An Introduction to Semantics. Tehran: Islamic
Propagations Organization [In Persian].
---------------- (2005). Descriptive Dictionary of Semantics. Tehran: Farhange Moaser [In
Persian].
Searle, J.R. (1975). A taxonomy of illocutionary acts. In: Gunderson, K. (Ed.),
Language, mind, and knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Pp. 344-369.
---------------(1969). Speech Acts : An Essay in the Philosophy of Language.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shuy, Roger (2004). To Testify or Not to Testify. In Cotterill, J.(ed.),
Language in the Legal Process. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
---------------- (1982). Topic as the Unit of Analysis in a Criminal Law Case. In
Deborah Tannen (ed.), Analyzing Discourse: Text and Talk. Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press.
---------------- (1993). Language Crimes.Oxford: Blackwell.
Shuy, W. Roger (2004). Linguistics of Law. Translation by Azam Staji. The
Court Journal of Law. Year 68. S 49-48. Pp. 365-380 [In Persian].
Solan, Lawrence (1993). The Language ofJudges. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Stygall, Gail (1994). Trial Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Ulson, John (2011). Wordcrime : Solving Crime through Forensic Linguistics.
Translation by: Azizi & Momeni. Tehran: Nashre Ketab [In Persian].
Yule, George (1996). Pragmatics. In Widdowsen H.G. (Eds.) Oxford
Introductions to Language Study. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

172