Analyzing Linguistic and Stylistic Patterns of Forensic Discourse in Revolution Courts

This study investigated the changes and deviations from linguistic and stylistic patterns of forensic discourse in Revolution Courts of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The research problem focused on the frequency and the percentage of verbal deviations in judges’ and the defendants' speech. The research tool was McMenamin’s (2002) linguistic and stylistic framework concerning the standard, prescriptive, and descriptive norms and the deviations from these norms in both judges’ and defendants’ speech. Data were collected through observing 45 court sessions among them 15 sessions were randomly selected based on systematic sampling method. The data were analyzed statistically through descriptive statistics. Data were divided into three categories of verbal norms: standard speech, changes of standard speech, and deviations from the norms. Findings indicated that using the standard and non-standard words have vital role in the defendants' speech. While the judges followed standard norms, the defendants changed or deviated from the norms more significantly than the judges did. The findings of the study suggest that analyzing court speeches can lead to the study of judges and defendants' linguistic and stylistic patterns correlated to their use of discourse. 

Verbal and stylistic markers regulate interpersonal relationships (Hargie & Dickson, 2004)and the majority of members within the society adhere to it. According to McMenamin (2002), the patterns of discourse in the court are categorized into three linguistic and stylistic markers including prescriptive, descriptive and statistical norms. These indicators may be violated or performed by judges and defendants in Revolution Courts in Iran. For example, the sentence lotfan haqiqat ra be dâdgâ begin. 'Please, tell the truth to the court' is considered as standard norm in terms of prescriptive speech style. With respect statistical patterns in the court, up to 85 or 90 percent of speech frequency can be observed in the judges' speech. If the sentence haqiqat râ begin.'tell the truth!' is changed or deviated from benâl 'confess!' from the standard norm, it can be assumed that two categories from the standard pattern. If the sentence is changed, the style is informally descriptive. In the sentence, "He beating Mary." the speaker may violate linguistic markers and deviate from the standard norm of "He is beating Mary." The use of "He's beating Mary" could be the change in the standard norm. Deviation from discourse norms is considered prescriptively because it is ungrammatical in the court environment. On the other hand, it is odd the judge says the violated word or sentence with a low percentage (below 5%). The effect of stylistic markers on the observance of verbal norms and deviation from these rules and principles is the goal of this study. The present research also intends to examine judges’ and defendants’ discourse regarding observing, changing or deviating from prescriptive, descriptive and statistical norms. Comparing the frequency of these changes and deviations (Momeni, 2010) can show the practical nature of discourse in Iranian Revolution Courts (Biabani & Hadianfar, 2005). 

The aim of this study is to investigate judges’ and defendants’ linguistic and stylistic markers with regard to changing or deviating from speech norms in the Islamic Revolution Courts following McMenamin’s (2002) approach. He introduces three verbal patterns including prescriptive, descriptive and statistical norms in terms of standard, variation (i.e., changing) or deviation (i.e., ungrammaticality) and their sub-categories. For example, the phrase "Water am drinking." is considered as a standard variation in terms of observing prescriptive norm. But the statement,” Water I'm drinking. "can be a change in the norm; however, it is understandable. If the sentence is not comprehensible linguistically (e.g., drink my water), it is reagrded as the violation in the speech norms.   

The reasrerch design of the present study is based on descriptive method and the corpus was 45 sessions in Revolution Courts. The video files were randomly selected among the pool of data that were broadcasted on TV or on the Internet. Two experts in linguistics for the sake of reliability and validity indices prescribed recorded videos. These trials included the outstanding court sessiosns that are recently performed in Iran. They are the trial of Akbar Tabari (former executive deputy of the Judiciary for receiving bribes), Fazel Khodadad (economic acusation and the embezzler of 123 billion Tomans), Babak Zanjani (embezzlement), Gholamhossein Karbaschi (the former mayor of Tehran accused for embezzlement), etc. For validity of identifying and analyzing the types of discourse patterns and verbal and stylistic markers in judges’ and defendants’ conversations, two linguists matched the sentences with a video file with 95% validity. There was an agreement on how to implement and identify linguistic and stylistic markers in judges’ and defendants' speech. Finally, 2230 sentences of the judges and 2270 sentences of the defendants were analyzed. Descriptive and inferential statistics including means, percentage, frequency, and independent samples t-test were implemented. 

Findings revealed the judges observed descriptive norms more than the defendants concerned with the prescriptive norms. Results indicated that the judges used more socially accepted descriptive patterns.Defendants tried to maintain their social status by using standard language or close to it. The judges frequently asked the defendants through standard linguistic and stylistic norms but the defendants violated or changed the standard norms. For instance, the judge asked, čerâ ân âqâ be šomâ yek âpârtmânčand milyuni dâd? ‘Why did that person give you a multi-billion apartment?’ Mr. Tabari as the defendant replies; čon man ro dus dâšt.  šomâ dus nadârid?  ‘Because this gentleman loved me. Don’t you like it?’ This can be regarded as the deviation in stylistic norms in terms of power because the defendants thought he was in a position to ask questions in the court. He did not follow the standard speech and continued,če bâyad manbekonam? in barâ dostiye. ‘What should I do? That’s due to Friendship.’ The defendants' speech was full of deviations in descriptive norms. Here, Tabari compared himself with the judge and stated that he had friends who could give him the whole Lavasan property as a gift. This power is completely diminished in front of the judge when the judge did not say anything, made a sarcastic smile and only said čerâ? ‘why?’ which indicated the deviation from the standard norm in prescriptive pattern. This can be seen in the words of most of the defendants who believe that they can justify themselves with money, bribes, and so on.   

The results showed that the use of linguistic and stylistic markers play a decisive role in judges’ and defendants’ individual and social status. Considering power in legal discourse, we studied different dimensions of standard, changes and deviations from the speech norms among the judges and defendants. Members of a social group can expand their ideas and cultural heritage through communication and attempt to preserve it. The defendants used more changed and violated instances than the judges did. Further research is needed to uncover the changes and violations from the lawyers' speech or interrogators in the courts. Implications of the study for forensic researchers and the students of law could be beneficial. Training centers for judges and lawyers can use linguistic and stylistic markers affecting their speech in Revolution Courts.