پیوندهای مفید
اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 49 |
| تعداد شمارهها | 1,296 |
| تعداد مقالات | 11,157 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 23,239,061 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 15,673,045 |
واژگان قانون در بوته نقد: تحلیل کلیدواژهمحور زبان تخصصی در پیکره آراء دادگاههای کیفری ایران | ||
| فصلنامه علمی - پژوهشی زبانشناسی اجتماعی | ||
| دوره 9، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 34، خرداد 1405، صفحه 77-102 اصل مقاله (710.73 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30473/il.2026.76882.1734 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| پریسا نجفی1؛ فریده نیک پور2؛ محمودرضا مرادیان* 3؛ سینا احمدوند4 | ||
| 1استادیار/ گروه زبان انگلیسی/ دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی/ دانشگاه لرستان/ خرمآباد/ ایران | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری زبانشناسی همگانی،گروه زبانهای خارجی و زبانشناسی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران | ||
| 3دانشیار/ گروه زبان انگلیسی/ دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی/ دانشگاه لرستان/ خرمآباد/ ایران | ||
| 4دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد، گروه حقوق، حقوق خصوصی ، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه آیت الله بروجردی، بروجرد، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| این پژوهش با رویکردی پیکرهبنیاد به بررسی ویژگیهای واژگانی آراء کیفری دادگاههای بدوی ایران میپردازد و میزان فاصله زبان این متون تخصصی از زبان عمومی و پیامدهای گفتمانی و نهادی آن را تبیین میکند. برای این منظور، پیکرهای حدود ۸۵ هزار واژهای از آراء کیفری گردآوری و پس از پیشپردازش با پیکرهای بزرگ از زبان عمومی فارسی شامل بیش از ۳۸ میلیون واژه مقایسه شد. تمایز واژگانی با استفاده از شاخص کلیدواژگی مبتنی بر معیار Log-Likelihood سنجیده شد و هزار واژه دارای بیشترین بیشرخدادی آماری استخراج گردید. پس از حذف استاپوردها و پالایش معناییکاربردشناختی، واژگان منتخب بهصورت بسامدی و همایندی تحلیل شدند. تحلیل همایندیها با بهرهگیری از نرمافزار انتکانک نشان داد که این واژگان عمدتاً در ساختهای اسمیسازیشده، غیرشخصی و استنادی به کار میروند. نتایج نشان میدهد که کلیدواژههای مثبت عمدتاً به حوزههای جرم، فرآیند دادرسی، نهادها و نقشهای قضایی و مفاهیم کیفری تعلق دارند و در زبان عمومی یا غایباند یا بسامد اندکی دارند. تفسیر یافتهها در چارچوب زبان برای اهداف ویژه و تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی نشان میدهد که زبان آراء کیفری با بازتولید فاصله شناختی میان متخصصان حقوقی و مخاطبان عمومی، به تثبیت اقتدار نهادی میانجامد. | ||
| کلیدواژهها | ||
| پیکره حقوقی؛ کلیدواژگی؛ گفتمان قضایی؛ زبان تخصصی حقوق؛ فهمپذیری متن؛ تحلیل گفتمان انتقادی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Legal Vocabulary Under Scrutiny: A Keyword-Based Analysis of Specialized Language in a Corpus of Iranian Criminal Court Judgments | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Parisa Najafi1؛ Fardie Nikpour2؛ Mahmood Reza Moradian3؛ Sina Ahmadvand4 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Lorestan University, Khorramabad, Iran. | ||
| 2PhD Candidate in General Linguistics, Department of Foreign Languages and Linguistics, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran | ||
| 3Associate Professor, Department of English Language, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Lorestan University of Lorestan, Khorramabad, Iran. | ||
| 4M.A student,, Department of Law, Private Law, Faculty of Humanities, Ayatollah Boroujerdi University, Boroujerd, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| This study examines the lexical structure of first instance criminal court rulings in Iran to determine how far their language departs from general usage and what institutional and discursive effects this departure produces. A specialized corpus of approximately eighty five thousand words drawn from written criminal judgments was compiled, preprocessed, and compared with a reference corpus of contemporary Persian containing over thirty eight million words. Lexical distinctiveness was measured through keyness analysis using the Log Likelihood statistic, which yielded the one thousand most overrepresented items. After removing stopwords and analytically irrelevant forms, the remaining items were examined through frequency analysis and qualitative concordance analysis. The results show that positively keyed items cluster around four main domains: criminal acts and attributes, judicial procedures, institutional roles and actors, and punishment related concepts. These items are rare in general Persian but statistically prominent in judicial texts. Concordance analysis indicates that they typically occur in nominalized, impersonal, and citation based structures that frame judicial actions as autonomous, agentless processes. Interpreted through ESP and Critical Discourse Analysis, the findings suggest that such lexical and syntactic patterning reinforces epistemic boundaries between legal experts and lay readers, supports institutional authority, and limits interpretive agency. | ||
| کلیدواژهها [English] | ||
| Critical Discourse Analysis, Judicial Discourse, Keyness, Legal Corpus, Specialized Legal Language, Text Comprehensibility | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
References Adler, M. (2012). The Plain Language Movement.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199572120.013.0006. Allen, L. E., & Engholm, C. R. (1980). The need for clear structure in "plain language" legal drafting. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, 13, 455–. Anthony, L. (2024). AntConc (Version 4.3.3) [Computer software]. Waseda University. https://www.laurenceanthony.net/software/antconc/ Ash, E., Kesari, A., Naidu, S., Song, L., & Stammbach, D. (2024). Translating legalese: Enhancing public understanding of court opinions with legal summarizers. In Proceedings of the 3rd Symposium on Computer Science and Law (CSLaw '24) (pp. 136–157). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3614407.3643700
Bagdasarov, A., & Degaetano-Ortlieb, S. (2024). Applying information-theoretic notions to measure effects of the plain English movement on English law reports. Proceedings of the Workshop on Legal and Ethical Issues in Human Language Technologies (LatechCLFL), 11–22. Baker, P. (2006). Using corpora in discourse analysis. London: Continuum. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Longman. Benson, R. W., & Kessler, J. B. (1987). Legalese v. plain English: An empirical study of persuasion and credibility in appellate brief writing. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 20, 301. Biber, D., Conrad, S., & Reppen, R. (1999). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press. Bivins, P. G. (2008). Implementing plain language into legal documents: The technical communicator’s role (Master’s thesis, University of Central Florida). https://stars.library.ucf.edu/etd/3602/ Blandino, G. (2024). The possibility of a uniform legal language at the interplay of legal discourse, semiotics and blockchain networks. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 32(1), 45–67. ellhttps://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10086-z Breeze, R. (2013). Lexical bundles across four legal genres. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 18(2), 229–253. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.18.2.03bre Breeze, R. (2019). Part-of-speech patterns in legal genres. In T. Fanego & P. Rodríguez-Puente (Eds.), Corpus-based research on variation in English legal discourse (pp. 79–104). John Benjamins Publishing. Breeze, R. (2021). Corporate and legal discourse. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Brezina, V. (2018). Statistics in corpus linguistics: A practical guide. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410899 Culpeper, J., & Demmen, J. (2015). Keywords. In D. Biber & R. Reppen (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of English Corpus Linguistics (pp. 90–105). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fairclough, N. (1995). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language. Longman. Fairclough, N. (2001). Language and power (2nd ed.). Pearson Education. Fanego, T., & Rodríguez-Puente, P. (Eds.). (2019). Corpus-based research on variation in English legal discourse (Studies in Corpus Linguistics, Vol. 91). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.91 Garner, B. A. (2023). Legal writing in plain English: A text with exercises (3rd ed.). The University of Chicago Press. Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell Publishing. Goźdź-Roszkowski, S. (2021). Corpus approaches to judicial discourse. In A. Wagner, E. Šarčević, & C. Cao (Eds.), Legal linguistics (Vol. 1, pp. 191–209). Springer. Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation of language and meaning. University Park Press. Han, Y., Ceross, A., & Bergmann, J. H. M. (2024). The use of readability metrics in legal text: A systematic review. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 21(1), 56–87. Hemmat, Z., Mehraeen, M., & Fattahi, R. (2023). A contextual topic modeling and content analysis of Iranian laws and regulations. ArXiv, abs/2309.13051. Hyland, K. (2004). Disciplinary discourses: Social interactions in academic writing (2nd ed.). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Kato Bukenya, T. (2025). The role of plain language in legal documents. Eurasian Experiment Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6(1), 18–21. Lin, X., Afzaal, M., & Aldayel, H. S. (2023). Syntactic complexity in legal translated texts and the use of plain English: A corpus-based study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 10, Article 17. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01485-x Martínez, E., Mollica, F., & Gibson, E. (2022). Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives processing difficulty in legal language. Cognition, 224, 105070. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105070 McEnery, T., & Hardie, A. (2011). Corpus linguistics: Method, theory and practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The language of the law. Waveland Press. Rayson, P. (2008). From key words to key semantic domains. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics, 13(4), 519–549. Rayson, P., & Garside, R. (2000). Comparing corpora using frequency profiling. In Proceedings of the workshop on comparing corpora (pp. 1–6). Association for Computational Linguistics. https://doi.org/10.3115/1117729.1117730 Rodríguez-Puente, P., & Hernández-Coalla, P. (2023). The corpus of contemporary English legal decisions 1950–2021 (CoCELD): Compilation, structure and applications. ICAME Journal, 47(1), 95–122. Sanni, A., & Osiejewicz, J. (2022). A review of legal language: A new direction for legal communication. International Journal of Language & Law, 11(2), 45–63. Scott, M., & Tribble, C. (2006). Textual patterns: Key words and corpus analysis in language education. John Benjamins. Scott, M. (1996). WordSmith Tools. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Scott, M. (2001). Mapping key words to problem and solution. In M. Scott & G. Thompson (Eds.), Patterns of text: In honour of Michael Hoey (pp. 109–127). John Benjamins Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/z.107.07sco Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. University of Chicago Press. Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge University Press. Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press. Van Besien, L. (2023). Plain language in the written law. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 36(4). van Dijk, T. A. (2006). Ideology and discourse analysis. Journal of Political Ideologies, 11, 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/13569310600687908 van Leeuwen, T. (2008). Discourse and practice: New tools for critical discourse analysis. Oxford University Press. Walla, P., Kalt, S., & Lachmayer, K. (2024). Neurophysiological correlates of expert knowledge: An event-related potential (ERP) study about law-relevant versus law-irrelevant terms. Brain Sciences. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci14101029 Williams, C. (2022). The impact of plain language on legal English in the United Kingdom. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003025009 Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2016). Methods of critical discourse studies (3rd ed.). Sage. Zotzmann, K., & O’Regan, J. P. (2023). Critical discourse analysis, critical discourse studies and critical applied linguistics. In W. Li, H. Zhu, & J. Simpson (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Applied Linguistics (2nd ed., pp. 57–67). London: Routledge. Ződi, Z. (2019). The limits of plain legal language: Understanding the comprehensible style in law. Law and Language Review, 11(3), 201–223. | ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 56 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 56 |
||