Examining the Legal and Criminal Aspects of the role of Semantics and Discourse Analysis to Improve Judicial Testimony in Courts
Subject Areas : Jurisprudence and Criminal Law Doctrines
Zohreh Bahrami
1
,
Davood Madani
2
,
Mahmoud Qayyumzadeh
3
1 - PhD student in Linguistics, Khomein Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khomein, Iran.
2 - Assistant Professor, Department of Linguistics, Khomein Branch, Islamic Azad University, Khomein, Iran.
3 - Professor, Department of Islamic Culture and Education, Saveh Branch, Islamic Azad University, Saveh, Iran.
Keywords: legal linguistics, semantics and judicial testimony, Hyland’s model in testimony, Grice’s model in testimony,
Abstract :
One of the most important evidences of judgments in judicial courts is reference to the testimony of witness, since slips and mistakes have been and continue to be with humans. Therefore, in the issue of testimony, sometimes people take their personal motives, interests and intentions into account and based on that, they testify. Accordingly, there is a need for legal linguistics to distinguish between true and false testimony and other failures in testimony. Therefore, the following research, focusing on the two aforementioned principles, explains the legal and criminal aspects of the role of semantics and discourse analysis in order to improve judicial testimony in the courts through a case study. The results of the research show that Hyland’s model monitors the words and expressions used in witness testimony but Grice’s principle is based on phrases and sentences of witness testimony. So Hyland’s model is more effective than Grice’s principle in distinguishing true from false testimony. The Hyland’s principle, by means of its meta-discourse tools, determines the witnesses’ knowledge of the events and challenges and shortcomings of the witnesses’ statements, based on which the courts can distinguish true from false testimony.
کتابشناسی
_||_
