Ideational Metafunctions in Legal Discourse: A Critical Linguistic Analysis of Panama Case Verdict

A Critical Linguistic Analysis of Panama Case Verdict

Authors

  • Verda Ahmed Higher Education Commission
  • Muhammad Yousaf Higher Education Commission
  • Azhar Habib Higher Education Commission

Keywords:

SFL, Panama Case Judgement, Patterns of Language, Legal Discourse

Abstract

The study centers on the Systematic
Functional Linguistics (SFL) Analysis of a
legal document, namely, The Panama Case
Judgement, officially released on the
Pakistan Supreme Court website. As there
was a lack of literature on the linguistic
analysis of legal documents in Pakistan, this
paper aimed to give a thorough analysis of
the indictment of a former prime minister.
The paper made use of the articulated
judgement by the court and explored the
patterns of language in relation to power in
legal discourses. The paper explored that
verbal category has used different modes of
speech such as; commanding, stating or
asking. It also showed that this process was
used mostly by the Court itself. This
highlighted the significance of the stance
taken by the Court throughout the whole
judgment, where no external factor made
any effect on the outcome or the result. The
paper highlighted how linguistic analyses of
the legal document can represent the true
ideology of the judgement to the reader.

Published

2020-04-27

How to Cite

Ahmed , V., Yousaf, M., & Habib, A. (2020). Ideational Metafunctions in Legal Discourse: A Critical Linguistic Analysis of Panama Case Verdict: A Critical Linguistic Analysis of Panama Case Verdict. Erevna: Journal of Linguistics and Literature, 2(1), 65-82. Retrieved from http://journals.au.edu.pk/ojserevna/index.php/erevna/article/view/49