parisa najafi

Within the context of courtroom discourse, participants, ranging from legal professionals to lay individuals, strive to present their own narratives of events and establish the veracity of these narratives in their own minds. Consequently, courtroom discourse can be described as a "War of Narratives". In this struggle for narrative dominance, participants employ a range of discursive and interactive strategies, some of which are non-linguistic in nature and warrant investigation. One such strategy is the utilization of oaths, which serve as a persuasive tool aimed at influencing the audience. This study aimed to analyze the structural, semantic, and pragmatic dimensions of oaths in court discourse, employing both quantitative and qualitative approaches to examine the data. In the qualitative dimension, we explored the functions of different types of oaths within the framework of "cultural linguistics" (Sharifian, 2017), utilizing "cultural schemas". In the quantitative dimension, we employed statistical calculations to investigate the structure and frequency of various types of oaths. Examination of the data revealed that the most frequently used types of oaths were associated with the semantic domains of God (Allah) and the Quran (Word of God). Additionally, the presence of semantic diversity in the types of oaths employed could be attributed to the socio-cultural backgrounds of the participants. Furthermore, the analysis of various cultural schemas of swearing in court discourse confirmed identification of at least five discursive functions, namely self-defense, claim substantiation, slander, threat or warning, and request.

Different linguistic constructions, including comparative, superlative, similative, and equative constructions, are employed to convey the concept of comparison. Equative and similative constructions exhibit the highest semantic and structural resemblance out of all the specified constructions. In such constructions, two entities -referred to as the comparee and the standard- are compared based on a specific characteristic or quality. In equative constructions the comparison is based on a gradable property, where one of the referents has the property to a higher degree, while similative constructions compare the similarity in manner. This study explored the equative constructions in the Laki language by primarily relying on classification put forth by Haspelmath (2017). The data for the present study consists of 123 equative sentences taken from spoken interviews with twelve individuals residing in Noorabad city. The findings indicate that speakers mainly use seven strategies to convey the concept of equality in Laki. Furthermore, the data show that in numerous equative constructions in Laki, there is a preference for omitting the standard marker while retaining the degree marker

The judicial system is universally recognized as a paramount institution for the exercise of power. Within this system, language assumes a paramount role as nowhere is its use more pronounced and impactful than in the legal and judicial context. In these contexts, language serves as a tool for wielding power, establishing dominance, and exerting control. The objective of this research was to comprehensively analyze the various dimensions of trial discourse with a particular focus on the representations of power exhibited in the interactions among participants in diverse court sessions. To accomplish this, we examined a multitude of civil, criminal, and family court sessions associated with the court and prosecutor's office of Dorud City. The present study employed a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches for data analysis. Our analysis drew upon the ethnographic framework proposed by Hymes (1974) supplemented by statistical calculations.The data analysis results demonstrated that professional participants, including judges, investigators, and prosecutors, employed various verbal and non-verbal strategies to establish their power and dominance during trial discourse. Notably, the strategies of "questioning" and "interruption" played a prominent role in this regard. In contrast, lay participants, such as the accused, complainants, and suspects, demonstrated resistance to the exercise of dominance and power by utilizing tactics, such as "intervention", "interruption", "counter-questioning", and "silence."

The verb "xɑstan" in Persian has a dual nature, so that it can be used both as an auxiliary verb and a lexical verb. " xɑstan " as a lexical verb indicates different meanings that are also expressed in the form of different structures. Accordingly, the purpose of this study is to discuss the syntactic and semantic dimensions of this verb in different constructions. The authors believe that Role and Reference Grammar (RRG), with its approach to the study of complex constructions, is well capable of giving a comprehensive description of the constructions in question. In this command, complex constructions are explained based on the "Interclausal Relations Hierarchy ". The mentioned hierarchy consists of two syntactic and semantic continuities. In the syntactic dimension, juncture-nexus relations are considered and in the semantic continuum, the type of semantic relations based on the main predicate is discussed. In this regard, an attempt was made to describe the various uses of the verb " xɑstan " based on hierarchy, and from this approach, the assumptions of the RRG were tested based on research findings. Some findings suggest that the verb " xɑstan " semantically falls into the category of psych-action, jussive and propositional attitude predicates, and in the syntactic dimension it also appears in the form of core cosubordination and core subordination. It is worth mentioning that the data of the present study are taken from the corpus of Hamshahri 2.

The present study examines and describes the process of stance-taking and engagement in the arbitration theories related to the family court grounded on Hyland’s (2008) approach to voice and stance-taking. In divorce cases, the judge asks each of the parties (wife/husband) to nominate an arbitrator who is supposed to present the result of his/her considerations on each of the parties to the judge in terms of a theory. In this research, 36 arbitration theories were selected for discussion and analysis. Eighteen theories are related to the arbitrators selected by the parties, which are non-specialist theories, and eighteen cases are related to the theory of court-selected arbitrators, which are called specialized theories. After examining the data based on quantitative and qualitative approaches, it was found that stance markers and (to a lesser extent) engagement markers have a pivotal role in the formation of the discourse of arbitration theory. This goes to the extent that for every 59.26 words in the corpus, there is one stance and engagement marker. Likewise, the comparison of specialized and non-specialized theories shows that specialized theories have more descriptive and explanatory sufficiency.

The current research is an attempt to analyze the different structural, semantic, and pragmatic dimensions of "questioning" in trial discourse. The basic questions raised in this regard are: what question forms does the interrogator use in the discourse? And what pragmatic criteria make the choice of one question form superior to another? The data of the present research is taken from cross-examination of the witness in the criminal and civil courts and prosecutor's office of Doroud city. We have applied a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches to analyze the data. In the quantitative dimension, we measured the types of question forms, and in the qualitative dimension, the types of pragmatic strategies were considered, and in this regard, we mainly used the opinions and methodology of Woodbury (1984) and Gibbons (2003). Questions are categorized in terms of structure and meaning, and they can be placed in five categories of Wh-questions, yes/no questions, alternatives, tags, and declarative questions (Biber et al., 1999). Wh-questions are also divided into broad and narrow categories (Woodbury, 1984). Gibbons (2003) explores the types of pragmatic strategies that each participant in judicial discourse uses during questioning and answering. The desired strategies are placed in a general division into two categories, person-targeted and idea-targeted. The first strategy refers to methods that question the character and identity of people, and the second category targets their opinions and statements.

The present article is part of a research that studies "the role of questions in judicial discourse" in three contexts of criminal, family, and civil courts of Dorud city. The overall corpus contains about 100 thousand words collected in the period from 10/12/1401 to 03/20/1402 from different courts. Then we tagged the data according to research objective -question forms- using Python software (3.10.11). In order to maintain the balance of the corpus, we tried to extract equal number of words from each context as possible. 4963 words are related to the criminal context and 5160 words are related to the legal context. In order to examine the data, we have mainly used quantitative and qualitative approaches. In the quantitative dimension, we have analyzed the types of question types and in the qualitative dimension, we have explained and described the types of verbal strategies in judicial discourse. In order to protect people's privacy, all information such as first and last name, names of specific places and any information that determines the identity of people in some way has been removed.

The findings show that the interrogator (including prosecutor, investigator and judge) uses different types of questions such as broad and narrow wh-questions, declaratives, tags, yes/no, yes/no negative and alternatives in their interaction with the lay participants. Figure 1shows the distribution diagram of the types of question forms in the corpus: Figure 1. Distribution of question forms in witness interrogation in criminal and civil courtsEach of the mentioned types also has its own pragmatics effect and that is the degree of control and limitation of the desired answer. As a result, from this point of view, it can be assumed that there is a continuum of the degree of control of different types of questions,which may change depending on the context. In addition to the structural aspects and components related to the type of question, each participant in the interrogation discourse uses strategies to achieve their goals. Regarding the discourse of the interrogation and specifically the interrogation of the witness, the findings indicate that the interrogator can implement the type of questions depending on the goal he is pursuing in the form of strategies that can either express doubts about the personal competence of the witness or directly contradict his statements. In addition to interrogating the witness, as an active participant in the discourse, he can use strategies according to the situation he is in and the answer he wants. We introduced the types of pragmatic strategies used in the present corpus as follows: reformulation, repetition, contrast, presupposition, distortion of modality, etc. It is worth noting that although the interrogator as a participant with "power" has the most important tool of exercising dominance - question - in the discourse, but other participants can also achieve their goals in a limited way by using linguistics devices (such as lexicon choice and counter questioning) that have their own pragmatic effect. It should be noted that the types of strategies in the court discourse are not limited to those mentioned in the present study and it is obvious that more diverse and significant results can be obtained in other contexts and with the presence of other participants. In addition, some discourse markers that are specific to judicial and interrogation discourse have been left out due to lack of space, but they play a central role in the formation of said discourse (such as turn taking, interruption, interference, etc.) and therefore other researches should be conducted to can cover different dimensions of judicial discourse.

The concept of comparison in our cognitive system can appear in the form of various constructions. One of the constructions that can be used to establish a comparison relationship between two (or more) referential nominal are "similative constructions". In such constructions, a referential phrase, which is called a standard, has a superior characteristic/attribute, and another referential phrase is compared to it (standard) due to having the same characteristic/attribute. In the present research, based on the opinions and methodology of Haspelmet and Bachholtz (1998), we analyzed the data of Persian language. These data are 739 samples, mainly from contemporary stories and screenplays. The findings confirm that the speakers generally use two morphological and syntactic strategies to encode the concept of similarity in the language. In the morphological construction strategy, we can consider three types of simile constructions with similative particle, similative predicate and Essive case. At the level of syntax, there are phrases and clauses that appear as adjunct and add the concept of similarity to the whole structure, they include disjunct constructions, role phrases, similative clause, simile clause, and accord clause. In addition, in this research, two types of equative constructions were identified in Persian language, which were neglected in other researches.

In Persian, like other languages, there are constructions in which two or more verbal predicates form a "single event". These constructions have been the subject of many linguistic researches and they are mainly interpreted as serial verbs, converbs, double verbs, etc. In the current research, all the mentioned constructions have been introduced under the general title of "complex constructions" and an attempt has been made to discuss the syntactic and semantic dimensions of these constructions. In order to achieve this goal, some basics of Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) such as "layered structure of the clause", "juncture-nexus relations" and "interclausal relations hierarchy" were used. The findings show that based on the semantics of the main predicate, complex constructions in Persian are placed in two categories: manner constructions and phase constructions, and syntactically, they appear in the form of nuclear and core juncture, and they have a linkage of cosubordination. In addition, based on the "Core-MEP theory", it was proved that complex constructions in Persian language have a MEP (macro-event property) and as a result, they are considered a macro-event phrase.

The present study studies control constructions in Persian language based on Role and Reference Grammar (RRG). In RRG, control constructions are discussed based on " theory of obligatory control ". This theory has semantic foundations and specifically evaluates the phenomenon of control based on the thematic relations of the arguments as well as the type of control predicates. In the present paper, we first categorized the types of control predicates based on " Interclausal semantic relations " in the RRG and in this command, we analyzed the types of control constructions based on psych-action, causative and jussive predicates. The findings confirm that the Persian language data are consistent with the theory of obligatory control and as a result, the explanatory adequacy of the theory can be confirmed. It is worth mentioning that the data of the present study are taken from the corpus of Hamshahri 2.

Phase predicates describe each of the beginning, continuation, or end phases of an event and are expressed in the form of verbs such as start, continue, end, and so on. In this regard, we call the structures in which there is a phasal predicates "phase construction" and discuss them. We believe that Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) with its approach to the analysis of complex constructions can be used as a theoretical framework for the present study. Based on this, we first analyze the syntactic and semantics aspects of phase constructions, then explain the interaction of the two levels of syntax and semantics. Finally, we will present the “constructional scheme” of phase constructions in Persian language. In the syntactic dimension, various types of "juncture-nexus" relations are considered, and in the semantics dimension, various properties of predicates will be the focus of discussion. Syntactic-semantic interaction in phase constructions will also be justified in the form of linking algorithms. It is worth mentioning that the data of the present study are taken from the corpus of Hamshahri 2.

The concept of comparison is expressed in the form of various linguistic constructions. Among the different types of comparative constructions, we can mention similative and equative constructions. In these constructions, two referential phrases, which are called comparee and standard, are compared with each other in terms of a shared characteristic (parameter). Equatives express equal extents and similatives express equal manners. In the present essay, we attempted to discuss and investigate the similative and equative constructions in Lori Silakhori. The findings confirm that the speakers mainly use 3 types of strategies to express the concept of similarity and 8 types of strategies to encode the concept of equality in Lori Silakhori. Also, the data show that there is a tendency to remove the parameter in both constructions, especially similative construction. In addition, due to the free nature of lexical order in Lori Silakhuri, it is not possible to introduce a fixed order for the elements in similative and equative constructions.

Role and Reference Grammar (RRG) provides a workable mechanism, namely “interclausal relations hierarchy”, for the analysis of complex constructions. It is used as a general rule for interlinguistic studies. This hierarchy consists of "semantic continuum" and "syntactic continuum" and is based on iconicity, which means that constructions with high semantic correlations are expressed in the form of stronger syntactic relations and vice versa. In this hierarchy, causative constructions are also included, which were the focus of the present study. In this research, causative constructions were divided into 3 types: causative [type 1] or direct causatives, causative [type 2] or indirect causatives, and jussives. We first examined their syntactic semantic forms and interactions in causative constructions. The juncture-nexus relations and semantic hierarchy were discussed in the syntactic and semantic dimensions, respectively. The findings indicated that the direct causatives were in nuclear co-subordination relations, while the indirect causatives and jussives were in core co-subordination relations. We also proposed a constructional scheme for direct causation in Persian. The interaction of the two levels of syntax and semantics in causative constructions was also explained in the form of linking algorithms. Finally, it was found that Persian language acts in a way that it confirms the "interclausal relation hierarchy" and thus, its explanatory adequacy could be corroborated.

There is a section in the case law that deals with "expert theory." The interesting thing about these theories is that many of them are challenged and different opinions may be presented to the judge by experts about a single event. In the present article, an attempt is made to find out the cause of the existing contradictions in the opinion of experts. The main question of the research is what are the components of "expert theory" as a judicial discourse and whether the existence of contradiction in the theories of experts depends on these components. In order to answer the above questions, the authors discussed expert theories in nineteen court cases related to work accidents and car accidents in Shiraz (2018-2019). The findings confirm that in addition to the narrative and anti-narrative components, expert theory also has a "stance" component and its linguistic characteristics are evident in theories, and these personal stances cause differences in theories. Finally, the authors suggest that in formulating expert theories, more emphasis be placed on the anti-narrative aspect so that this court approach can reach a specialized decision more quickly, reduce the differences between theories, and ultimately avoid spending extra time and money.

Equative constructions have not been desirably studied due to their formal and semantic similarity to similitive constructions. Haspelmath (2017) proposed the six basic types of equative constructions in distinct patterns based on typological studies. On the basis of these six patterns, there are also three cross-linguistic generalizations. In the present study, by examining the equative constructions of the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language, we conclude that five types of six types of these basic constructions can be found in the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language. Regarding the generalizations mentioned above, all generalizations are valid in (Turkic) Azarbaijani. It should be noted that the data of the present research are based on the corpus of the ordinary speech of the native speakers and the intuition of one of the writers.

In the present study, we have used a descriptive-analytical method to examine the data. The data of the present research are based on the corpus of the ordinary speech of the 10 native speakers and the intuition of one of the writers. This research mainly analyzes data from direct elicitation and does not include data from written text.

Equative constructions express situations in which “two referents have a gradable property to the same degree" (Haspelmath, 2016, p. 9). Equative constructions vary widely in different languages, but the six main types are distinguished by Hespelmat (2016). Each of these types is characterized by the following five components:  (1) 1                  2                      3                  4                      5 Compare      degree-marker parameter standard-marker standard Kim        is   [as                      tall]         [as                    Pat]. Type 1: Only equative standard-marker:In this type of equative construction, there is a comparee, standard and standard marker, and there is no degree marker, and also the parameter generally plays the role of a predicate. (2) Sanin  taĉin  xošgel  di. "Taĉin" has appeared as a standard marker and is mostly used to compare similarities in human traits, and as it is obvious, this standard marker has appeared as a post-addition (after the standard marker). The comparee is used as a pronoun. (3) Maryam mehrnaz ĉimi  gozal  di. "ĉimi" is standard marker that is placed in postposition of standard (after the standard) and is used to express the similarity of traits between humans and other living things.Type 2: Equative degree-marker and standard-marker:In this type of construction, in addition to the three main components (comparee, standard, parameter), there are also a degree marker and a standard marker. In Azerbaijani, as far as the authors have studied, there is no structure in which it is possible to show both the standard marker and the degree marker based on type 2. Type 3: Equative degree-marker unified:In this type of construction, there are predicate parameter, degree marker (meaning the same degree) and [comparee + standard] exists as a unified unit, but there is no standard marker. In examples (4-5), "ham" and "bir" indicate degree marker. (4) Nɑsirinan mahdya ham qiɑfa dilar (5) Husseinan Ɂahmad bir Ɂandɑzada dilar Type 4: Primary reach equative:In this type, the predicate is a verb means to reach / unite. In the Azerbaijani (Turkish) language, as shown in Examples (6-8), the verbs tʃatmaz, jetišmasan, tʃakib are used to mean to arrive, go or unite:(6) Hiškim safihlida   Behruza  tʃatmaz (7) San zirahlixda  maʤida   jetišmasan (8) Sanda tanbalihdan bɑʤuɁɑ tʃakib san. Type 5: Primary reach equative unified In this type of construction, [comparee and standard] appear as a unified unit in role of subject, there is a verb to reach / unite and a parameter (usually in a dative case).(9) Rɑmininan Bahram chohlexdɑ barɑbar dilar. (10) Bizim mɑšininan sizin mɑšini sürɁatda bir dilar. Type 6: Secondary reach equative In this type of construction, there is a parameter as the first predicate and a verb (to reach united) as a second predicate. In examples (11-13), being good, being tall, and being stingy, respectively, are used as the predicate parameters, and the verb "tʃakib" is used as the second verb, which implicitly means to unite / achieve. (11) Amir gözal di xɑlasina tʃakib (12) Mohammad uzün   di   Aliya tʃakib (13) Hasan xasi  di   Ɂisya   tʃakib

In the present study, by examining the equative constructions of the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language, we conclude among six types of these basic constructions, five can be found in the (Turkic) Azarbaijani language. The authors also provide the seventh pattern of the aforementioned constructions by examining other ways of expressing equative constructions in (Turkic) Azarbaijani. Regarding the generalizations mentioned above, all generalizations are valid in(Turkic) Azarbaijani.

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.

In our ordinary and everyday speech and in the informal and colloquial contexts in general, we encounter the use of constructions, in which two verbs appear in a “verb-verb” situation, thus making a complex predicate construction, such as "kešid bordeš", "gereft xabid", and "daram miravam". All these three constructions have a common feature of adjacency of verbs, in which one verb has a matrix function and the other has a dependent function. Thus, in the present study, they were studied under the title of "adjacent verbs". The authors believed that the “Role and Reference Grammar (RRG)” would provide a useful theoretical framework for better understanding of the “construction of adjacent verbs”. In RRG, all linguistic constructions are explained in three dimensions: syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic (focus structure). Accordingly, in the present paper, we first classified the different types of adjacent verbs and then discussed their features. It starts by identifying the syntactic, semantic, and focus structure representations will be discussed and then, the constructional scheme of adjacent verbs in Persian will be represented.

Physical injuries caused by the use of various detergents and household cleaners indicate the lack of proper consumer awareness of these products. On the other hand, the most important way for the producer to inform the consumer is to put a "warning" on the product, so it seems that the warnings on the products do not have the desired and optimal adequacy, and therefore their scientific study is necessary. In the present study, based on data consisting of 67 types of detergents, household cleaners and disinfectants based on linguistic component, design component and color component, we analyzed the warning labels on the products and analyzed their adequacy. What is understood from the examined data is that the warning labels on the products do not have the desired adequacy, and finally, the authors consider the model of the desired alert label with high adequacy by considering all three of the above components. It should be noted that most of the researches conducted in this ground have been proposed and presented in "forensic linguistics" field.

Equative constructions have not been desirably studied due to their formal and semantic similarity to similative constructions. Haspelmath (2017) proposed the six basic types of equative constructions in distinct patterns based on typological studies. The five key components in an equative construction, are illustrated in (1), using an English and a French example. The six types can be characterized with reference to these five components: (1) 1 2 3 4 5 comparee degree-marker parameter standard-marker standard Mary is [as beautiful] [as Lili]. Mary est [aussi belle] [que Lili]. As Haspelmath (2017) points out, an equative construction must allow a way to express the PARAMETER (component3, some gradable property concept words, usually are called adjective), the COMPAREE (component 1, the first referent to be compared), and the STANDARD (component 5, the other referent to which the first referent is compared). Regarding the equative constructions in Persian language, as far as the authors have considered, no research has been done. However, some works of research can be mentioned regarding the methods of expressing analogy and similarity, such as; Shariat (1988), Arzhang (1971), Farshidvar (2009) among them. In this paper, however, we intend to answer the following questions by studying equative constructions: 1- What will be the representation of different types of equative constructions in Persian language? 2- what are the generalizations given about equative structures in Persian? The data used in the present study comes from two main sources: from published stories and novels with colloquial styles, and from daily conversations of people around. The methodology used to collect the data was, primarily, direct elicitation of sentences. The authors built contexts and ask people to make a constructions according to that contexts. We tried to provide enough context to give a clear view of the use of the construction in question. After studying the data, the authors identified seven types of equative construction in Persian, which are introduced as follows. Type 1: this type of equative construction in the most common type in data. It consists of a predicative parameter plus compare and standard. There is an equative standard-marker, but no equative degree marker. 1. Mɑ mesle to hɑzerjavab nistim. We like you spontaneous are not We are not as spontaneous as you. Type 2: In this type of equative constructions, in addition to the three main components (comparee, standard, parameter), there is also a degree-marker and a standard standard-marker. In Persian, as far as the authors have considered, there is no construction in which the standard-marker and the degree-marker can be shown at the same time based on type 2, but there is a construction similar to the type 2 in such a way: “comparee+ preposition+ nominal adjective+ Ezafe+ standard”: 2. Afshin be zerangi-e Bijan nist. Afshin as smart as Bijan is not. Afshin is not as smart as Bijan. In (2) we can consider preposition (be) as a degree-marker and Ezafe as a standard-marker. Type 3: This type consists of a predicative parameter with an equative degree-marker, the comparee and standard referents are unified, i.e. they are expressed as a single conjoined or plural noun phrase (‘Afshin and his brother’). There can thus be no standard-marker. As Haspelmath (2017) points out, “This construction can also be regarded as a kind of reciprocal construction.” [Afshin va barɑdar-ash] ham qiɑfe-and. Afshin and brother-his the sam appearance are. Afshin and his brother are the same. (have the same appearance) Type 4: this type of equative construction contains a verb as its primary predicate that in other contexts represents a notion of ‘residan= reaching’ or ‘raftan= take after’, there are comparee as subject and the standard as second argument that is generally the object, and the parameter that expresses as a kind of oblique constituent (‘in kindness’). 4. Sɑrɑ tu mehrabɑni be Maryam nemiresad. Sɑrɑ in kindness to Maryam doesn’t reach. Sɑrɑ does not reach Maryam in kindness. Type 5: In this type of equative construction, there are comparee and standard as a continuous unit as a subject, a verb expresses the notion of “reaching or equalling” and a parameter as an oblique constituent (tu zibaei). 5. [Afshin va Bijan] tu zibɑei be ham miresan. Afshin and Bijan in beauty to eachother reach. Afshin and Bijan are equal (to each other) in beauty. Type 6: In this type there is a parameter as the first predicate, and a second verb that expresses a notion of ‘residan=reaching’ or ‘yeki shodan=equaling’. This type of construction does not exist in Persian as far as the authors have considered. In more precise terms, it is not possible to use an adjective as the first predicate and a verb as the second predicate at the same time. But the construction is used with a attributive adjective, such as in example (6): 6. Zibɑei-e Arash be pedaresh nemirese. beauty-Ezafe (of) Arash to his father doesn’t reach. Arashʹs beauty doesn’t reach to his father (beauty). Type 7: In this type of equative construction, comparee and standard is used along with the verb of “reaching/ equalling”. There is standard-marker without standard, it inferred from the context. The important point that distinguishes this type of construction from other constructions is that the comparee also has a marker that appears as a postposition (after comparee). 7. Maryam ham be mɑdaresh rafte. Maryam as well to her mother take after. Maryam takes after his mother (in manner). Based on the research findings, some generalizations of equative constructions in Persian can be provided. First, [if the Ezafe is considered as a standard-marker] there is no equative construction in Persian that has a degree-marker but left the standard without any marker. Second, in all examples of equative constructions in Persian that the parameter appears as a predicate, the parameter is placed after the standard, and according to Haspelmath (2017), in such a situation, the language has an object-verb word order. According to Dabir Moghaddam (2001), Persian language, especially in the field of simple sentences, tends to have a predominant object-verb order. Therefore, the mentioned generalization is valid in Persian language equative constructions. Third, in all examples of equative constructions (with predicative parameters) with the order of [parameter + standard] in spoken and written data, the standard-marker is placed before the standard. This violates Haspelmath's (2016) prediction. Perhaps the reason for this discrepancy can be attributed to the nature of the free word order of the Persian language.

During the interrogation process and its discourse language contains certain characteristics that can be the source of many linguistic researches and studies. One of the most important issues that can be mentioned in the interrogation process is how to evolve the verbal communication by the interrogator in order to obtain the truth of the interrogee’s statements. In this regard, the interrogator uses strategies to advance the discourse in his/her own way. In analyzing the data, the participants in the interrogation interaction were divided into two groups of specialist and non-specialist. The first category are the people who are familiar with the law and the legal language and include the police, judge, lawyer, etc. On the other hand, the second group are people who are not familiar with the law (or at least have little familiarity), including the accused, the plaintiff. In the present essay, based on the corpus of ten litigation files and based on the analysis of the verbal interaction between the expert (judge) and the non-expert (the accused, the plaintiff), we attempted to extract the various strategies used by the interrogator. The strategies include question formulation, use of repeated questions, quotation clauses, contrast,the use of the phrase "khob" as a discourse maker and interruption.

The discourse in the interrogation process is one of the most interesting and valuable areas of language research. What creates the discourse of an interrogation is the sequence of questions and answers among the participants in an interrogation interaction. The interrogator, including the police, the interrogator, the judge, etc., uses the Q&A strategy to control the conversation and interact with respondents, including witnesses, defendants, informants, etc. This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. How many questions can be used in the interrogation process? What is the degree of control and the pragmatic role of each question? Among the studies on the use of language in the judicial system, it seems that the discourse of interrogation and verbal interaction in this area has not been seriously discussed, and in this respect, the present study may provide insights into the interrogation process and the participants in the interaction which has not been investigated so far.

In this study, the authors according to Woodbury (1994) divided the questions used by the interrogator in the interrogation process into six categories: 1) broad and narrow questions, 2) wh-questions, 3) optional questions, 4) yes/no questions, 5) declarative questions, and 6) tag questions and determining and discussing the pragmatic role of each questions by relying on the objective figure in data. In the (English) grammar, the question clauses are distinct from the other types of clauses (declarative, imperative) and are divided into five types according to Biber, Johansson, Leech, Conrad and Finegan (1999): Wh-questions (also called polar questions), yes/no questions, alternative questions, tag questions, declarative questions. Huddleston and Polem (2002) divided the questions into two categories of open and close, based on form and their expected answer. The open category includes wh-questions and the closed category includes yes/no questions, alternative questions, declarative questions, and tag questions (2002). Maley and Fahey (1991) also briefly divide the speaker's purpose of the question into two categories: 1) Information-seeking questions, and 2) Confirmation-seeking questions (1991). In fact, the purpose of asking information-seeking questions is to gain as much information as possible about the subject under discussion, and with the confirmation-seeking questions seeking to confirm the arguments or assumptions in the mind of the speaker. Hefer (2005) also considers the purpose of the information-seeking questions to be in two (implicit) requests from the interrogator: a request for narration and a request for transparency (2005). Among the major studies on the types of questioning strategies can also be mentioned Woodbury (1984), which examines the types of questioning strategies used in court and finally provides a continuum of the degree of control over the types of questions. Archer (2005) also presents a new version of the Woodbury Controller continuum while examining the different features of interrogation questions. Haqbin and Najafi (in press) also examine a variety of verbal strategies for interrogating the interpreter, including verbal strategies such as question formulation, repeated questioning, quotation marks, contrasting, the use of the phrase "khob" as a marker of discourse. Haqbin, Najafi and Jamali (2016) proved that the genre of speech in the trial space in Iran is a hybrid genre consisting of two narrative and anti-narrative genres.

The data was gathered from 21 criminal cases at the trial/interrogation phase in three criminal branches of Shiraz Public Prosecutor's Office. The authors analyzed a total of 558 question clauses. They first divided the types of questions into six categories of broad and narrow wh-questions, alternative questions, yes/no, declarative and tag questions, and then presented a distribution diagram of the types of questions mentioned in the interrogation discourse.

The authors analyzed a total of 558 question clauses. They first divided the types of questions into six categories of broad and narrow wh-questions, alternative questions, yes/no, declarative and tag questions. The point to be noted is that the division of questions is based on the speaker's usual expectation of the audience's response, and the audience, or in particular the defendant, may not answer the interrogator's expected response to the question and reformulate his or her answer, that is, implicitly seeks to divert the subject of discussion. Findings of the present study indicate that declarative questions are classified as open questions, which in many studies fall under the close questions, and consequently, the level of control is lower, which means less control than the other questions. Finally, the authors provide ad categorization of the questions used in the interrogation process in the prosecution as well as the continuation of the level of control.

The authors have examined and divided the types of interrogation forms in the interrogation process and have also taken into account the pragmatic role of the "amount of control" in the investigations. The analysis confirms that the distribution of the types of questions in the interrogation discourse differs significantly from one another in that among the six types of question forms of broad wh-questions, narrow wh-quastions, alternative questions, yes/no questions, declarative questions and affirmative questions, narrow wh-questions and broad wh-questions respectively are most frequently used and are the least controlling (questions). The reason for this can be attributed to the context and the space of the interrogation phase, where the investigator intends to gain as much information and evidence as possible for the subsequent trial. Other findings of the present study also indicate that the declarative questions that generally fall into the category of close questions in most of the studies are classified as open questions.

The information structure and how to represent it in a variety of constructions is one of the topics that has attracted much attention in the functional approaches to language review. In this article, we will look at how to distribute information from the perspective of common ground management in complex sentences. In the role and reference grammar, subordination constructions are divided into two types: daughter subordination and ad subordination. Hence, it is possible to construct external information, including information structure in an entirely subordinate clause, and constructing internal information including the embedded clause. In this research, based on the above parameters [daughter subordinate constructions vs ad subordinate and external information structure vs internal information structure] the distribution of information was examined  in complex sentences of the Persian language. The results, in brief, showed that restrictive relative clauses normally cannot host the focus of the sentence and that they are not a good domain for contrastive topics. The reason is that if there are any such categories of information, then it cannot successfully fulfil its primary function and help identify the referent of the head noun. The adverbial clauses that are kind of ad subordinate clauses cannot have internal information structure or, in other words, they cannot be questioned by any of their inner constituents. The only way to question these elements is through echo or in situ questions, which highly depend on texture. The complement clauses in the Persian language have a full internal information structure and the complement clauses with manner and factive verbs in the Persian language, especially in the language of speech, can have internal information structure; if there is a contrastive presupposition, the complement clauses will have internal information structure.