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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
