A Critical Discourse Analysis of Language used in Judicial Family Courts

Abstract

This study examines discourse analysis and illustrates the method by examining various aspects of language used in Family Courts, particularly in the high court. It is hypothesized that the spouses are the most powerful and influential person in the courtroom. The judge, it is reasonable to assume, wields the most power in a courtroom. Aims to see if the use of agency roles during cross-examination gives lay witnesses substantively just treatment in terms of narrative and stance freedom. The research focuses on the Judicial Family Court case and includes interviews with judges, counsel, and the Director of Public Prosecutions. There is a conclusive study that supports the detection of dishonest indicators in the reported person's statements during the courtroom discourse and investigation process.