پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 25 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 951 |
| تعداد مقالات | 7,816 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 12,997,829 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 9,214,274 |
The Role of Pragmatic Strategies in Interrogation in Legal Discourse: The Case of Shiraz | ||
| Journal of Language Horizons | ||
| دوره 5، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 9، فروردین 2021، صفحه 227-249 اصل مقاله (553.16 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: Research article | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22051/lghor.2020.32000.1330 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| Parisa Najafi* 1؛ Farideh Haghbin* 2؛ Ehsan shariaati3 | ||
| 1PhD Candidate of Linguistics, Literature and Humanities Faculty, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. | ||
| 2Professor, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Literature, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 3PhD Candidate in Criminal Law and Criminology, Law Faculty, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| Questions are the most important and the most common feature of legal talk. Questioning is the weapon that is used to test or challenge statements made by lay people and it is considered as a tool to make accusations. Based on syntactic and formal features of questioning, which are important parts of any linguistic analysis, questions are categorized into two classes: closed and open questions. The criteria for choosing one form over the others is determined by pragmatic factors. In other words, the questioner chooses one form of questions on the base of pragmatic strategies that s/he adapts during questioning. This article is dedicated to exploring the crossroads where structural and pragmatic features of questions come together to achieve this goal. To this end, we combined two quantitative and pragmatic approaches. The data of the present research was gathered from four cases during interrogation processes in the court of Shiraz. The research findings indicate that pragmatic strategies determine the types of question forms and, also, closed questions have the most application in the interrogation process because they have a high level of control that can challenge the addressee’s statements. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| forensic linguistics؛ legal talk؛ questioning؛ question forms؛ pragmatic strategy | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| نقش راهبردهای کاربردشناختی در گفتمانِ حقوقی: بررسی موردیِ شهرِ شیراز | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| پریسا نجفی1؛ فریده حق بین2؛ احسان شریعتی3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکترای زبان‌شناسی، گروه زبان‌شناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران. | ||
| 2استاد، گروه زبان شناسی، دانشکده ادبیات، دانشگاه الزهرا، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شیراز، ایران. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| پرسش‌ها، مهم‌ترین و رایج‌ترین ویژگیِ گفتار حقوقی هستند. پرسش، سلاحی است که برای آزمودن و به چالش کشیدنِ گفته‌های افراد عامی به کار برده می‌شود و همچنین ابزاری برای ایراد اتهام است. بر مبنای ویژگی‌های دستوری و ساختاری سؤال پرسیدن، که بخش‌های مهمی از هر تحلیل زبانی هستند، پرسش‌ها به دو دسته باز و بسته تقسیم‌بندی می‌شوند. معیار انتخاب یک صورت زبانی از دیگر صورت‌های ممکن، با بهره‌گیری از راهبردهای کاربردشناختی تعیین می‌شود. به عبارت دیگر، پرسشگر، بر پایة راهبردهای کاربردشناختی که طیِ پرسیدن به کار می‌گیرد، یک صورت پرسش را از میان دیگر صورت‌ها بر می‌گزیند. جستار حاضر بر آن است تا جایی‌که مشخصه‌های ساختاری و کاربردشناختیِ پرسش‌ها تلاقی پیدا می‌کنند تا بدین هدف دست یابند، را بیابد. به این منظور، به تلفیق دو رویکرد کمی و کاربردشناختی پرداختیم. داده‌های پژوهشِ حاضر، در جریان فرایندهای بازجویی چهار پرونده در دادگاهِ شهر شیراز به دست آمده‌است. یافته‌های پژوهش نمایانگر آن است که راهبردهای کاربردشناختی تعیین‌کننده نوع صورت‌های سؤال هستند و همچنین پرسش‌های بسته بیشترین کاربرد را در فرایند بازجویی دارند، زیرا دارای بیشترین میزان کنترل‌کنندگی هستند که می‌توانند گفته‌های مخاطب را به چالش بکشند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| زبان‌شناسی قضایی, گفتار حقوقی, سؤال پرسیدن, صورت‌های پرسشی, راهبرد کاربردشناختی | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
Archer, D. (2005). Questions and answers in the English courtroom. John Benjamins.
Berry, M. (1981). Systemic linguistics and discourse analysis: A multi-layered approach to exchange structure. In M. Coulthard & M. Montgomery (Eds), Studies in discourse analysis (pp. 120-45). Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
Brown, R., & Gilman, A. (1960). The pronouns of power and solidarity. In T. Sebeok (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 253-277). John Wiley. http://doi.org/10.1515/9783110805376.252
Bulow-Moller, A. M. (1991) Trial evidence: Overt and covert communication in court. International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 1(1), 38-60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.1991.tb00004.x
Cooke, M. (1995). Aboriginal evidence in the cross-cultural courtroom. In D. Eades (Ed), Language in evidence: Issues confronting Aboriginal and multicultural (pp. 55-96). University of New South Wales Press.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Routledge.
Danet, B. (1980a). “Baby” or “fetus”: Language and the construction of reality in a manslaughter trial. Semiotica, 32(3-4), 187-219. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1980.32.3-4.187
Danet, B. (1980b). Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review, 14(3), 445-564. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192
Danet, B., & Kermish, N. C. (1978). Courtroom questioning: A sociolinguistic perspective. In L. N. Massery (Ed.), Psychology and persuasion in advocacy (pp. 413-441). Association of Trial Lawyers of America, National College of Advocacy. https://doi.org/10.2307/3053192
Drew, P. (1990). Strategies in the contest between lawyer and witness in cross-examination. In J. N. Levi & A. G. Walker (Eds.), Language in the judicial process (pp. 39-64). Plenum Press.
Drew, P. (1992). Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In P. Drew & J. C. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 470-520). Cambridge University Press.
Ehrlich, S. (2010). The discourse of rape trials. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 265-281). Routledge.
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell.
Giles, H., & Powesland, P. (1975). Speech style and social evaluation. Academic Press.
Haghbin, F., Najafi, P., & Jamali, T. (2016). Narrative and anti-narrative use in legal discourse. Journal of western Iranian languages and dialects, 3(14), 37-59. https://doi.org/10.22126/jlw.2016.1273
Harris, S. (1984). Questions as a mode of control in magistrates’ courts. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 49, 5-28. https://psycnet.apa.org/doi/10.1515/ijsl.1984.49.5
Heffer, C. (2005). The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal–lay discourse, Palgrave Macmillan.
Heffer, C. (2010). Constructing crime stories in court. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson, A (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 199-218). Routledge.
Holt, E., & Johnson, A. (2006, May 10-14). Formulating the facts: Questions and repeats in police/suspect interviews [Paper presentation]. International Conference on Conversation Analysis, Helsinki. http://www.helsinki.fi/hum/skl/icca/abstracts/single/holt_johnson.pdf
Holt, E., & Johnson, A. (2010). Socio-pragmatic aspects of legal talk: Police interviews and trial discourse. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 21-37). Routledge.
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge University Press.
Jacquemet, M. (1996). Credibility in court: Communicative practices in the camorra trials. Cambridge University Press.
Kryk-Kastovsky, B. (2000). Representations of orality in early modern English trial records, Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 1(2), 201-30. https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.1.2.04kry
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form: Topic, focus, and the mental representation of discourse referents. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620607
Levinson, S. (1992). Activity types and language. In P. Drew & J. Heritage (Eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings (pp. 66-100). Cambridge University Press.
Loftus, E. (1979). Eyewitness testimony. Harvard University Press.
Luchjenbroers, J. (1997). “In your own words …”: Questions and answers in a supreme court trial. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 477-503. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(96)00033-1
Maley, Y., & Fahey, R. (1991). Presenting the evidence: Constructions of reality in court, International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 4(10), 3-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01303504
Matoesian, G. (2005). Nailing down an answer: Participations of power in trial talk. Discourse Studies, 7(6), 733-759. SAGE. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1461445605055424
Momeni, N. (2011). Forensic linguistics: Examination of court testimony in terms of linguistic features. Detective Journal, 2(10), 60-83.
Momeni, N. (2012). An analysis of language crime of perjury/lie from forensic linguistics viewpoints (A case study in Tehran’s judicial system). Journal of Language Research, 4(7), 239-265. https://doi.org/10.22051/jlr.2013.1009
Momeni, N., & Azizi, S. (2011). Forensic linguistics: An approach to identifying and analyzing secret language. Detective Journal, 2(12), 132-158.
Momeni, N., & Azizi, S. (2015). Role of topic shift and violence of Grice principles in interrogation: Forensic linguistics. Journal of Language Research, 7(16), 159-179. https://doi.org /10.22051/jlr.2015.2094
Najafi, P., & Haghbin, F. (2019). Questions usage in interrogation. Journal of Linguistics & Khorasan Dialects, 11(1), 313-333. https://doi.org /10.22067/lj. v11i1.82798
Najafi, P., & Haghbin, F. (2020). Verbal strategies in interrogation interaction (An investigation in legal discourse). Language Related Research, 11(4), 391-418. http://lrr.modares.ac.ir/article-14-25448-fa.html
O'Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic evidence: Language power and strategy in the courtroom. Academic Press.
Razavian, H., & Jalil, M. (2018). Spoken features of the robbery defendants in court. Language Related Research, 8(7), 91-116. https://lrr.modares.ac.ir/browse.php?a_id=9548&sid=14&slc_lang=en
Rovshan, B., & Behboudi, S. (2009). Description of syntactic and lexical properties of Persian civil law texts. Language and Linguistics, 8(5), 105-136. https://lsi-linguistics.ihcs.ac.ir/article_1572.html?lang=en
Sinclair, J. M., & Coulthard, R. M. (1975). Towards an analysis of discourse: The English used by teachers and pupils. Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R., (1987). Conversational power in FBI covert tape recordings. In L. Kedar (Ed.), Power through discourse (pp. 43-56). Abex.
Tiersma, P. (1993). Reforming the language of jury instructions. Hofstra Law Review, 22(1), 38-73.
Tiersma, P. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Tkacˇuková, T. (2010). Cross-examination questioning: Lay people as cross-examiners. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 333-351). Routledge.
Watson, D. R. (1990). Some features of the elicitation of confession in murder interrogations. In G. Psathas (Ed.), Interaction competence: Studies in ethnomethodology and conversation analysis (pp. 263-296). University Press of America.
Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica, 48(3), 197-228. https://doi.org /10.1515/semi.1984.48.3-4.197 | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 543 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 450 |
||