Language, Power, and Resistance in Criminal Courts: A Discourse Analysis of Judge–Defendant Interaction Based on Systemic Functional Linguistics

Abstract

 This study aims to analyze how judges and defendants in Iranian criminal courts use linguistic process types to construct, negotiate, and resist institutional power within courtroom discourse. This mixed-method investigation examined over 4,500 linguistic units extracted from official transcripts of twenty criminal court hearings in Iran. The dataset included diverse case types such as financial crime, theft, assault, and document forgery. Using the analytical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics, each clause was coded for material, mental, relational, verbal, behavioral, and existential processes, while speaker identity (judge or defendant) was recorded. A Critical Discourse Analysis lens guided the interpretive examination of how linguistic choices enacted power and resistance. Two independent coders achieved an inter-coder agreement rate of 85%. Quantitative analysis included frequency distributions and chi-square tests to assess significant differences in process usage across institutional roles. Inferential statistics revealed significant differences between judges and defendants in their use of material, mental, relational, and verbal processes (p < 0.05), demonstrating systematic divergence in linguistic strategies shaped by institutional authority and role expectations. Behavioral and existential processes showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Judges predominantly utilized material and verbal processes, indicating a discourse style oriented toward action, evidence, and narrative control. Defendants relied significantly more on mental and relational processes, signaling attempts to foreground intention, perception, and identity as forms of discursive resistance within the institutional setting. Courtroom interaction in Iranian criminal courts reflects structured linguistic asymmetries that embody institutional power and individual resistance. The patterned use of process types by judges and defendants reveals how legal authority is enacted through discourse and how defendants strategically mobilize linguistic resources to negotiate identity, intention, and culpability. These findings highlight the central role of language in shaping the administration of justice and the dynamics of courtroom communication.