The manner of social actor’s representation in divorce demanding women’s discourse based on Van leewen (2008): forensic linguistics approach

Authors
H. Hallajzadeh 1
S. F. khalifehloo 2
ّ. Aghagplzadeh 3
1 Ph.D. student of linguistics, University of Sistan and Baluchestan
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Language and Literature, University of Sistan and Baluchestan
3 Professor of Linguistics Department at Tarbiat Modares University
Abstract
According to the important role of linguistic factors in reproducing social power and controlling the mind of subjects by redistribution of ideologies the present research tries to explore the underlying levels of surface aspects related to the structural organization of the discourse which can be led to appearance of a new and deep insight. Thus, mastering discourse concepts is an appropriate instrument for a realistic analysis of group’s minds and ideologies. According to the Discourse- Society- and knowledge , Van Dijk (2006) concludes that, each human being, in order to reach the goal of persuasion of the audience, tries to magnify and emphasize his positive actions and minimize the opposing party's attributes. In parallel to this effort, he tries to mitigate its negative qualities and the positive features of the other party. Strategies used to this end can be classified as: actor description, categorization, comparison, euphemism, disclaimers, evidentiality, example/illustration, generalization, number game, hyperbole, irony, populism, norm expression, national self-glorification, negative other representation, metaphor, implication, presupposition, lexicalization, victimization, vagueness, positive self-presentation, polarization/ Us – them categorization, Burden and Authority. By naturalizing the text and studying structures, critical discourse analysis tries to eliminate the power relations, discourse-based elements of texts and hidden ideologies in texts.in entrance to the concrete layers of language, human wants to select between options and alternatives. Each selection between alternatives shows the actors ideology, knowledge and attitudes. One of these linguistic tools is the manner of social actor’s representation. Each manner of naming shows the users’ attitude about the named actor. In this research writers tried to study the manner of naming family court actors by divorce demanding women. To do this, we attended 20 meeting of the General Court and family counseling center of Zahedan- Iran and recorded the divorce demanding women’s Statements. With regard to the prohibition of the use of audio and video equipment or any kind of electronic means in the court environment, only a written record of women's statements has been limited. After collecting, data were studied based on Van leeuwen (2008) theory to sort different types of actor’s representation. After that in order to study the goal of each type of naming and representation, each class of representation was studied according to Van Dijk (2006) theory. Research results showed that divorce demanding women represent the others by three type of naming. The first was relational identification, the second was passivation and the third was mitigating the others negative properties and magnify positive characteristics of themselves




Subjects

• Adams, S. H. (1996). “statement analysis: what do suspects words really reveal?”. FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin. Pp. 12-20.
• Aghagolzadeh, F. (2005). “Legal Linguistics (Forensic), A New Approach to Applied Linguistics”. (Proceedings): The First Conference of the Iranian Linguistic Association. University of Tehran. [In Persian].
• Aghagolzadeh, F. (2006). Critical Discourse Analysis. Elmi and Farhangi Press, Tehran. [In Persian].
• Aghagolzadeh, F. (2012). “Describing the ideological linguistic constructs in discourse analysis”. Quarterly Journal of Comparative Literature and Language Studies. Vol. 3, No. 2 (10).Pp. 1-19[In Persian].
• Aghagolzadeh, F. (2012). Forensic Linguistics (Theoretical and Applied) 2nd Edition. Tehran, Elm Publication. [In Persian].
• Aghagolzadeh, F. (2013). Descriptive Dictionary of Discourse Analysis and Pragmatics. Tehran, Elmi publication. [In Persian].
• Asgari, M. S. et al. (2013). “Analyzing forensic discourse; Analyzing the role of speech act theory in the forensic context”. Tehran, Quarterly Journal of Language Linguistics, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Successive 16), Winter 2013. Pp. 172-151[In Persian].
• Austin, J.L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words. Cambridge. Harvard University Press.
• Berk, S. (1990). The Bilingual Courtroom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Coulthard, M. (Eds.). Texts and Practices: Readings in CDA. London: Rutledge.
• Crystal, D. (1969). Investigating English Style. London: Longman.
• Crystal, D. (2003). A Dictionary of Linguistics & Phonetics. USA: Blackwell.
• Groot Gerard, R. (2003). language and law. The Netherlands، mastricht university press Publishers.
• Hamedi Shirvan, Z. & Sh. Sharifi, (2014). “The effect of lexical components on the amount of clarity or coverage in press texts”. Tehran, Journal of Culture and Communication. Volu. 15, No. 25, Spring 2014. Pp. 171-196. [In Persian].
• Kheyrabadi, R. (2016). “Critical discourse Analysis of naming and the presence or absence of Iran in the times of the american journal of the 1920s”. Tehran, 2 Months Language Linguistic Quarterly. 7th Edition, No. 2 (30).Pp. 33 -47. [In Persian].
• Lesani, M. Sadat. Sh. Barimani, (2013), “Forensic Linguistics: Discourse Analysis of People in Court Courts of Tehran Based on the Principles of Gricean maxims”. Proceedings of the first national conference on legal linguistics: The analysis of forensic discourse. Pp. 99-111. [In Persian].
• Momeni, N. (2012). “Linguistic analysis of "lie in the judicial system" from the view point of forensic linguistics (case study in judicial courts of Tehran)”. Language Research. Tehran, Al-Zahra University. Year 4, No. 7. [In Persian].
• Richardson, John E. (2007). Analyzing Newspapers: An Approach from Critical Discourse Analysis. New York: Palgrave Publishing
• Searl, J. R. (1969) Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of language. Cambridge university Press.
• Solan, L. (1993). The Language of Judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
• Solan, L. & P. Tiersma (2003). Hearing voices: speaker identification in court«. Hastings law journal. 54.Pp.373-435.
• Stygal, G. (1994). Trial Language. Philadelphia: John Benjamin’s.
• Taghipour, M. (2015). “Lawyers Methods of soliciting in criminal courts from forensic linguistics perspective”. Proceedings of the Second National Conference on Forensic Linguistics: Forensic Discourse Analysis. Pp. 99- 75. [In Persian].
• 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. (Pp. 91-116).
• Van Dijk, T.A. (2001a). Discourse, Ideology and Context. Pp. 27-28, retrieved from http://www.discourse-in-society.org/teun html.
• Van Dijk, T.A. (2001). Discourse, Ideology and context. Folia Linguistica. XXX/1-2.Pp. 11-40.
• Van Dijk, T.A. (2006). Discourse and manipulation, Discourse & Society. 17(2)، Pp. 359-383، London.
• Van Dijk, T.A. (2010). Studies in Discourse Analysis from Text Order to Critical Discourse. Translator Group. Tehran: Media Studies Center. 1th Edition. [In Persian].
• Van Leeuween, Theo. )2008(. Discourse & Practice: New Tools for Critical Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Van leeuwen, T.A. (1996). The Representation of Social Actors. In coldes coulthard, C.R. & Coulthard, M; (Eds.), texts and Practices: Readings in CDA. London: Rutledge.
• Yarmohammadi, L. (2000). Using Translator from Discourse Analysis. Translator Magazine, No. 328. [In Persian].
• Yarmohammadi, L. (2004). Common Critical Discourse. Tehran: Hermes Publications. [In Persian].
Language Related Research
Volume 9, Issue 4 - Serial Number 46
September and October 2018
Pages 113-135