Negative Constructs in Family Court Discourse: A Case Study of Divorce Demanding Women based on van Dijk’s Approach

Hallajzadeh Bonab, Hossein; Delgir, Zahra

doi:10.22054/ls.2019.38660.1184

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

¹ Assistant Professor of Linguistics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran

² M.A. in Law, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Sistan and Baluchestan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22054/ls.2019.38660.1184

Abstract

Language as a social phenomenon is a reflection of thoughts and ideologies of actors and speakers. It contains the beliefs, worldviews, beliefs, and thoughts of its speakers. It constantly reflects immortalized and encrypted ideologies. Each speaker, from his own point of view, ascribes to the world, its phenomena and realities, and looks from the angle of his own view to represent those realities. Ideologies are hidden within language and subtly submerged in social structures and become social conventions. Divorce demanding women, as social activists in the family courts, use a variety of linguistic strategies and tools in order to persuade and ideologically inspire their audience in the courts. To probe into the way divorce demanding women use negative constructs for ideological expression of their desires and persuading the judge, the present study explored negative constructs in divorce demanding women’s discourse in family courts based on van Dijk’s (2006) theory of society-Knowledge and discourse. A total of 60 meetings were attended in the counseling center of families of the Public and Revolutionary Tribunal of Zahedan and divorce demanding women’s remarks were collected. The findings of the study showed that the participants used negative construction in order to magnify their positive points and reduce negative points of themselves.

Keywords

References

آقاگلزاده، فردوس. (1384). «زبانشناسی قضایی (قانونی)، رویکرد نوین در زبانشناسی کاربردی». مجموعه مقالات: اولین همایش انجمن زبانشناسی ایران. دانشگاه تهران.

آقاگلزاده، فردوس. (1391). «توصیف ساختهای زبانی ایدئولوژیک در تحلیل گفتمان». پژوهشهای زبان و ادبیات تطبیقی. 3/2: 1-19.

آقاگلزاده، فردوس. (1391). زبانشناسی حقوقی (نظری و کاربردی) ویراست دوم. تهران. انتشارات علم.

آقاگلزاده، فردوس. (1392). فرهنگ توصیفی تحلیل گفتمان و کاربردشناسی. تهران. انتشارات علمی.

آقایی، بهمن. (1387) فرهنگ حقوقی بهمن. تهران. نشر گنج دانش.

انوری، حسن. (1381).فرهنگبزرگسخن. جلد 8. تهران. سخن.

حلاجزاده بناب، حسین و همکاران. (1397). «شیوة بازنمایی کنشگران اجتماعی در گفتمان زنان خواستار طلاق بر اساس الگوی 2008 ونلیوون؛ رویکرد زبانشناسی حقوقی». تهران، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس، جستارهای زبانی. 9/4: 113-135.

حلاجزاده بناب، حسین. (1396). توصیف و تحلیل ساختهای ایدئولوژیک در گفتمان زنان خواستار طلاق برپایة نظریه ون‌دایک (2006): رویکرد زبانشناسی حقوقی. رساله دکتری. گروه زبانشناسی دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان.

رضویان، حسین و مریم جلیلی دوآب. (1396). «ویژگیهای گفتاری متهمان به سرقت در محاکم قضایی». تهران، دانشگاه تربیت مدرس. جستارهای زبانی. 8/7: 91-116.

روشن، بلقیس و شهلا باقری. (1392). «آیا هر جملة مثبت فارسی یک نظیر منفی دارد؟». ادب پژوهی. 25. 161-177.

ون‌دایک، تئون. (1382). مطالعاتی در تحلیل گفتمان، از دستور متن تا گفتمان کاوی انتقادی. گروه مترجمان. تهران: مرکز مطالعات رسانه‌ها.

Adams, S. H. (1996). "Statement analysis: What do suspects words really reveal?". FBI Law Enforcement bulletin. 12-20

Austin, J.L. (1975). How to do things with words. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Croft, W. (1990). Typology and Universals. 2nd edition, Cambridge.

Croft,W. (1991)."The evolution of negation". Linguistics. 27: 1-27.

Dahl, Östen. (1979). "Typology of sentence negation". Linguistics, 17: 79-106

Dahl, Ö. (2010). "Typology of negation". In L. R. Horn(ed.). The Expression of Negation. The Handbook of Pragmatics. Blackwell. Cambridge University Press. 701-723

Foster, D. (2000). "Auther unknown: on the Trail of Anonymous". Henry Holt. Cornell Law Rreview. 85:627-55.

Givon, T. (2001). Syntax, an Introduction. vol. I. The main clauses in a typological perspective, (Empirical Approaches to Language Typology 31), Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

Groot G. R. (2003). language and law. The Netherlands: Mastricht University press.

Halmari¸ H. and Virtanen¸ T. (2005). Persuasion Across Genres: A linguistic approach. Philadelphia: John Benjamin Publishing Co..

Horn, L. and Kato, Y. (2000). “Introduction: Negation and Polarity at the Millennium”. In Horn and Kato (eds.). Studies in Negation and Polarity, Oxford University Press. 1-19.

Israel, M. (2004). "The Pragmatics of Polarity". In: Horn and Ward.

Lawler, J. (2007). "Negation and negative Polarity". In The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the language sciences. Cambridge University Press.

Löbner, S. (2002). Understanding Semantics. London: Arnold.

Miestamo, M. (2005). Standard negation: the negation of declarative verbal. Netherlands: Benjamins.

Payne, J. (1985). "Negation". In Shopen (ed) Language Typology and Syntactic Descriptions. clause structure, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 197-242.

Solan¸ L. and Tiersma¸ P. (2003). Hearing voices: speaker identification in court. Hastings law journal. 54: 373-435.

Van Dijk¸ T.A. (1998). IDEOLOGY. A Multidisciplinary Approach. London: Sage.

Van Dijk¸ T.A. (2000). "Ideologies, racism, discourse. debates on immigration and ethnic issues". In Jessika ter Wal & Maykel Verkuyten (eds.). Comparative Perspectives on Racism. 91-116.

Van Djik، T.A. (2006). "Discourse and manipulation". Discourse & Society. 17(2): 359-383.

Yule¸ G. (2000). Pragmatics (fifth published). Oxford: Oxford University Press

Language Science

Negative Constructs in Family Court Discourse: A Case Study of Divorce Demanding Women based on van Dijk’s Approach

References

References

Volume 6, Issue 9 - Serial Number 9
September 2019
Pages 219-247

Negative Constructs in Family Court Discourse: A Case Study of Divorce Demanding Women based on van Dijk’s Approach

References

References

Volume 6, Issue 9 - Serial Number 9September 2019Pages 219-247

Volume 6, Issue 9 - Serial Number 9
September 2019
Pages 219-247