عنوان مقاله [English]
The present study is an analytical descriptive study which is conducted in the field with the purpose of how linguistics and its pragmatic approaches can be applied in forensic linguistics discourse in order to assess various verbal linguistic techniques used to persuade judges by the accused person in penal courts of Shiraz.
The data of the research were gathered from 20 open sessions of court rooms in Shiraz contains 2112 sentences altogether out of which 654 sentences belong to lawyers, 351 sentences belong to the judges, 987 refer to the accused and 120 sentences belong to the accusers.
In the present study, only the sentences used by the accused have been assessed in terms of verbal and non-verbal persuasion analysis techniques.
Also, the researcher has been trying to answer the question of how actors used verbal elements (syntax, semantics, and pragmatics) and non-verbal methods to achieve their goals and persuade each other. Findings of the study indicate that the accused employed verbal techniques such as use of legal acts and pragmatics approaches like: exclusion, inclusion, nominalization, emphasis on remorse arousal, and non-verbal discourse methods in the court rooms in the realm of forensic linguistics, silence and crying, stimulating the feelings in order to persuade the judges.