FACULTY OF HUMAN SCIENCES 

 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION 

 

MASTERS OF ENGLISH AND APPLIED LINGUISTICS 

Topic:  A Forensic Linguistics Study of the Spoken Courtroom Language Used in 
Theft and Burglary cases at the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court. 
 

 

 

STUDENT NAME  : MARIAN TEGGA HARUPE 

STUDENT NUMBER              : 9512829 

SUPERVISOR               : Dr. NIKLAAS FREDERICKS 

Date                 :  OCTOBER  2019 

 

 

 

 



 
 

 

 

Namibia University of Science and Technology 

 

 

 

 

 

A FORENSIC LINGUISTICS STUDY OF THE SPOKEN COURTROOM LANGUAGE USED IN THEFT AND 

BURGLARY CASES AT THE WINDHOEK MAGISTRATE’S COURT. 

      

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                        Marian Tegga Harupe 

 

 

 

 



 
 

 

Thesis Presented in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of 

English and Applied Linguistics at the Namibian University of  Science and Technology. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Supervisor:  Dr. Niklaas Fredericks 

         October 2019 

 

 

 

A FORENSIC LINGUISTICS STUDY OF THE SPOKEN COURTROOM LANGUAGE USED IN THEFT AND 

BURGLARY CASES AT THE WINDHOEK MAGISTRATE’S COURT 

                                   

 

 

 

 

 

  M.T HARUPE     Master  Degree  of  English and Applied Linguistics 2019



 
 

i 
 

AUTHENTICATION OF THE THESIS 

I certify that this candidate has successfully completed all the research work for this degree and that:  
 

1. the thesis conforms to NUST postgraduate rules as stipulated  in the Year Book 2019  

and submission of theses for higher degrees; 

 

2. the thesis includes a certificate indicating the extent to which the research  has been 

conducted  by the candidate; 

 

3. the thesis is properly presented and is prima facie worthy of submission; 

 

4. instances of inadequate presentation were pointed out to the candidate for correction 

before the thesis was bound; 

 

5. the candidate has completed an approved program of study and research as required; 

 

6. an abstract of not more than 300 words has been included in the thesis; 

 

7. both hard/bound and soft copies  of the thesis have been submitted to NUST Library’s 

open access digital archive. 

 

 

Name of the supervisor: Dr. Niklaas Fredericks 

 

Signature:  

 

Date : October 2019 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

ii 
 

DECLARATION 

I, Marian Tegga Harupe, hereby declare that this dissertation entitled: A FORENSIC 

LINGUISTICS STUDY OF THE SPOKEN COURTROOM LANGUAGE USED IN THEFT AND 

BURGLARY CASES AT THE WINDHOEK MAGISTRATE’S COURT 

is a true reflection of my own research, and that all the sources that I have used or quoted 

have been indicated and acknowledged by means of complete references.    

 

 

 

 

Marian Tegga Harupe                                                     Date: October 2019                                                 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

iii 
 

RETENTION AND USE OF THESES 

I, Marian Tegga  Harupe being a candidate for the degree of Master of English and Applied 

Linguistics accept the requirements of the Namibia University of Science and Technology 

relating to the retention and use of Master’s theses deposited in the Library. 

 

In terms of these conditions, I agree that the original of my thesis deposited in the Library 

will be accessible for purposes of study and research, in accordance with the normal 

conditions established by the Librarian for the care, loan or reproduction of theses/mini-

theses. 

 

 

 
Signature:                                                                                        Date: October 2019 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

iv 
 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 

First and foremost, I would like to thank the Almighty  God for  giving me wisdom, 

knowledge and understanding  and everlasting love and mercy which strengthen  me 

throughout my studies.   

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my husband Ben and my two loving 

daughters Joy and Iyaloo who have been so supportive and instrumental in making this 

study a success. 

My supervisor, Dr. N .Fredericks, for his guidance and patience during the course of this 

study, his encouragement, interest and enthusiasm is highly appreciated. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

v 
 

DEDICATION   

This work is dedicated to my two daughters Joy and Iyaloo for the love and support they 

always gave me throughout my study. 

Finally, I dedicate this work to my husband Ben for the love, encouragement, perseverance 

and unrelenting support he has given me during my study. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

vi 
 

Abstract 

Forensic Linguistics is the application of linguistics to legal issues. It is, rather, the application 

of linguistic knowledge to a particular social setting. It is an integral part of applied 

linguistics. Those who do this work analyse statutes, legal procedures, courtroom language, 

and language used as evidence in criminal and civil court cases. One major difference from 

other types of applied linguistics is that there is no need to gather data because it is already 

provided. This means that the linguist has to work with data that already exists, using the 

major tools of linguistics, including morphology (lexical),and syntax. Throughout the 

process, the forensic linguist, like any applied linguist, has to teach lawyers, judges, and 

public prosecutors   the way linguistic analysis works in relation to the specific legal issues. 

This study analyses the nature of courtroom communication in a Namibian context in cases 

of alleged theft and burglary. The research investigated the language used by both court 

officials and lay persons during legal proceedings and examined the linguistic and socio-

cultural factors that motivate the choice of certain linguistics features. This study employed 

qualitative method and data was collected through tape-recording and non-participant 

observation. The tape-recorded data were transcribed using transcribe. wreally.com. The 

data was than analysed using context, schema and frame theory. 

 

Findings of the study indicate that due to the fact that the lay people find it difficult in legal 

language comprehension they tend not to give unexpected answers during courtroom 

conversation. The finding reveals significance of this study to the legal community according 

to their respective duties. Moreover, the translators and interpreters can use this research 

to communicate with greater accuracy. Additionally, the power relation of the lawyers and 

magistrates during the court interactions might be intimidating to the witness which might 

result to confusion since the witness who are in this instance are ordinary lay people feel 

powerless. The data indicated that participants in courtroom interactions (especially the 

accused) use very polite and formal terms of address when addressing court officials 

especially the magistrate.  

Keywords: Forensic linguistics, courtroom language, written language evidence, spoken 

language evidence, ethics, forensic phonetics, voice analysis, language, linguistic, linguistics, 

legal system. 



 
 

vii 
 

Table of Contents 

 

AUTHENTICATION OF THE THESIS............................................................................................................ i 

DECLARATION ......................................................................................................................................... ii 

RETENTION AND USE OF THESES ........................................................................................................... iii 

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ............................................................................................................................ iv 

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................................ v 

Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. vi 

CHAPTER ONE: ........................................................................................................................................ 1 

INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1 

2. Statement of the Problem .............................................................................................................. 2 

Objectives of the Study ....................................................................................................................... 3 

1.4. Significance of the study .............................................................................................................. 3 

1.5 Definition of the technical terms .................................................................................................. 4 

CHAPTER 2: Literature review ................................................................................................................. 6 

2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 6 

2.1.1 Carrying out a forensic linguistic analysis of the spoken language in courtrooms in theft         

and burglary cases. ......................................................................................................................... 6 

2.1.2 Examining how court participants comprehend the courtroom language ........................... 8 

2.1.4 How forensic linguistics can be used to avoid miscommunication during the court   

proceedings ................................................................................................................................... 11 

2.2 Theoretical framework ............................................................................................................... 18 

SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................. 19 

CHAPTER 3 ............................................................................................................................................ 21 

Research methods and procedures ...................................................................................................... 21 

3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 21 

3.2 Research design .......................................................................................................................... 21 

3.3. Research Setting ........................................................................................................................ 22 

3.4. Study Population ........................................................................................................................ 22 

3.4 Sampling and sample size ........................................................................................................... 22 

3.5 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 22 

3.6 Ethical clearance ......................................................................................................................... 25 

 

SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 25 



 
 

viii 
 

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Discussion of findings ............................................................................ 26 

4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 26 

4.2 Findings and Discussion .............................................................................................................. 27 

4.2.1 Morphology(lexical features) ............................................................................................... 27 

4.2. Syntactic features....................................................................................................................... 33 

SUMMARY ......................................................................................................................................... 50 

Chapter 5: Conclusion and Recommendations ..................................................................................... 51 

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 55 

APPENDIX .............................................................................................................................................. 58 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

1 
 

CHAPTER ONE: 

 INTRODUCTION 

Namibia is a multilingual country where people speak one or more indigenous languages as 

their mother tongue or first language and English as the official language. For the vast 

majority, English is learned formally in schools and remains a second language. Despite this 

language scenario, English remains the language of the criminal law courts. The importance 

of courtroom interaction to every society cannot be overemphasised because it represents 

the justice system of every society.  

According to Wardhaugh (1998), people make certain linguistic choices to indicate the 

relationships between themselves as speakers and their listeners. This is reflected in the 

naming or addresses systems adopted by interlocutors.  Justice is crucial to every social 

setup because it represents the legal system used to achieve fair treatment of people, a 

medium to advocate the equality of all citizens before the law and the supremacy of the law 

above everyone. Language is also crucial to the judicial process of every society because 

laws, judgments, judicial proceedings are all conducted through language. Among current 

concerns in Forensic Linguistics are translation issues for people with a limited command of 

English and this study are important in several ways. Firstly, the role of linguistics in 

analysing courtroom discourse is not known to have been an object of serious systematic 

study in the Namibian context. Yet, despite the close connection and importance of 

language to law, neither local linguists nor lawyers have paid much attention to it. Stubbs 

(1996), for instance, discusses the nature of courtroom discourse in non-African contexts. It 

is Van Greisen’s (2001) study on the role and effectiveness of court interpreting that places 

courtroom discourse in the Namibian context. 

The context of the present study will mainly focus on the Windhoek Magistrate’s Court, in 

the capital city of Namibia, Windhoek. The Magistrates’ court practise criminal law using 

English. This study will focus on forensic linguistic analysis, analysing the courtroom spoken   

language used by trial participants.  According to McMenamin (2002) Forensic linguistics’ 

application include the analysis of courtroom spoken language used by trial participants, for 

example, magistrates, lawyers, prosecutors and witnesses.   



 
 

2 
 

Therefore, it is important to identify and analyse the specific courtroom spoken language -

based challenges such as legal phonetics, lexical phrases, conjunctions, prepositional phrase 

and framing of questions faced by lay participants in legal process. 

 

2. Statement of the Problem 

The Namibia legal system is based upon language and its use: to write contracts, promulgate 

laws, question suspects, give testimony, confess and deny. Nonetheless, much of the 

information conveyed by language is overlooked or misinterpreted by legal practitioners, 

sometimes with dire consequences for victims or defendants. 

The premise in this study, is that court officials and unqualified people, mostly in magistrate 

courts, specifically in Windhoek, use and comprehend the courtroom language differently. 

This language misalliance is assumed to have a bearing on the legal process.  

Legal English jargon used in the Namibian courtroom is distinct from the ordinary language 

used by lay persons without formal training in the field of law. Even for those who speak 

English well, the technicality of legal English, for instance its reliance on borrowed Latin 

terminology and specialised use of ordinary terms, causes great challenges and 

incomprehensibility. Yet, the magistrates’ courts practise criminal law using only the English 

language. The language of the legal process which govern interaction in courts of law’s 

lexical and phonetic phrases, create miscommunication problems for accused persons such 

as ordinary persons implicated in theft and burglary cases, vulnerable witnesses and other 

lay individuals present during court hearings. These people experience difficulties to 

comprehend the language spoken in the courtroom. Such lay suspects and witnesses may 

be lacking understanding in both legal language and knowledge of courtroom language and 

sensible resources employed in formal courtroom conversation. 

 Consequently, they are likely to encounter language- based problems that could place them 

at a disadvantage by hindering their full participation in a trial. Therefore, it is important to 

identify the specific linguistic based challenges such as legal phonetics and lexical phrases 

faced by lay participants in legal process with a view to describing them and suggesting 

possible ways of dealing with them. Legal phonetic and lexical phrases are very important 

for any legal analysis because missing one sound might change the meaning of that word or 

even a whole phrase. One example is that one mentioned by, Svongoro, et al., (2013), 



 
 

3 
 

referring to the rape court cases in Mutare‘s magistrate courtroom in Zimbabwe, whereby 

the victims were just ordinary people from different social class without any formal training 

in the English language   and   legal language. Although the above –mentioned case   

occurred outside Namibia, the situation is quite similar to   Namibia’ court cases of theft and 

burglary where the suspects or accused persons are mostly ordinary citizen without any 

formal English language knowledge. In Namibia, current literature reveals that no study of 

such kind has been conducted   in   Namibia yet, and this gap should be filled. 

  

Objectives of the Study 

The main aim of this study is to investigate how forensic linguistics can be used to explain 

criminal cases like theft and burglary and the growing need for the application of linguistics 

in court cases, in order to avoid miscommunication during the court proceedings. 

This research’s specific objectives are: 

 to carry out a forensic linguistic analysis of the spoken language in courtrooms in 

theft and burglary cases. 

 to examine how court participants, comprehend the courtroom language in relation 

to their cultural background and their goals of interaction in the courtroom. 

 to identify the specific linguistic based challenges such as legal lexical phrases faced 

by lay participants in legal process with a view to describing them. 

 to offer suggestions on how forensic linguistics can be used to avoid 

miscommunication during the court proceedings. 

 

1.4. Significance of the study  

 This study will benefit lay people and the lay audience e.g. the criminals, witnesses 

and the general public present during the court proceedings because they are the ones 

who do not understand court language. This is due to the usage a technical vocabulary, 

unusual archaic words, the construction and use of multiple negation and long and 

complex sentences. 

This study will also contribute to the improvement of the English language in the 

Windhoek Magistrate courtrooms. It will also contribute towards reforming the 

language of the law. This can happen either through simplification or translation by 



 
 

4 
 

leaving the legal language essentially as it is but providing better translation to the 

public in ordinary language when necessary. 

This research might also benefit the interpreters as translating from the legal language 

requires more than a literal, word for word matchup of two languages. 

 

1.5 Definition of the technical terms 

Forensic linguistics: It is a branch of applied linguistics. The goal of the linguist is to 

understand units of language their possible rule-governed combination and the 

conditions of how language is used as well as the norms of correct and appropriate 

language for a given speech community. 

Burglary: Burglary is defined as the entry into almost any structure (not just a home or 

business) with the intent to commit a crime once inside (not just theft). 

Theft: Theft/larceny is taking almost anything of value, without the consent of the 

owner. Most states have degrees of theft, like “grand” or “petty.” The degrees usually 

have a relation to the value of what was taken. 

Interpreter: a person translating in other language  

Accused:  a person who is appearing in court who has been charged but not yet tried 

for   committing a crime. 

Complainant: A victim of the crime. Someone who has witnessed or heard something is 

referred to as the non-complainant witness. 

Witness: a person who saw a crime or was a victim of a crime. 

A lay person: The term lay people is used to describe the use of ordinary, non-qualified 

people   in courts to make the system fairer. 

Interlocutors: People taking part in a conversation 

Criminal Case: A trial involving a person who has been accused of committing either a 

misdemeanour or a felony offence. 

Cross – examination 

When a person first gives your evidence to the court, you will answer questions asked 

by the prosecutor, this is called 'evidence in chief'. This is followed by cross 



 
 

5 
 

examination, where the defence lawyer will ask you questions about what you said in 

your statement, and what you have already told the court 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

6 
 

CHAPTER 2: Literature review 

2.1 Introduction 

This chapter discusses the review of related literature. It covers the definitions of Forensic 

Linguistic analysis theory provided by various authors’ studies. The primary focus of this 

chapter is to review the current literature on factors that contribute to a Forensic linguistics 

study of the spoken courtroom as well as to make a contribution to the subject of power 

relation in a way of identifying and discussing additional contributory factors. 

Overview of Forensic linguistics 

Forensic Linguistics is the application of linguistics to legal issues. Forensic Linguistics is, 

rather, the application of linguistic knowledge to a particular social setting, namely the legal 

forum (from which the word forensic is derived). Forensic linguistics, legal linguistics, 

or language and the law, is the application of linguistic knowledge, methods and insights to 

the forensic context of law, language, crime investigation, trial, and judicial procedure. It is a 

branch of applied linguistics. The goal of the linguist is to understand units of language their 

possible rule-governed combination and the conditions of how language is used as well as 

the norms of correct and appropriate language for a given speech community. 

2.1.1 Carrying out a forensic linguistic analysis of the spoken language in courtrooms in theft 

and burglary cases. 

The object of the forensic linguist is to do the same within the narrower context for example 

to examine what language users know and do and make everyone in the courtroom a good 

backyard mechanic of language for the duration of a case. 

Blommaert (2005:211) argues that Forensic linguistics studies is real, and often extended, 

instances of social interaction which take linguistic form. The critical approach is distinctive 

in its view of the relationship between language and society, and the relationship between 

analysis and the practices being analysed. Courtroom discourse is viewed as an instrument 

of power, of increasing importance in contemporary societies. The way this instrument of 

power works is often visible and transparent in the courts of law. In that sense, Forensic 

linguistic analysis will be used to contribute to an understanding of contemporary social 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Applied_linguistics


 
 

7 
 

reality in the courtroom. Using this perspective, the study also seeks to establish the 

linguistic and socio-cultural factors that motivate the language used.  

Although the above-mentioned studies were carried out outside Namibia, they provide 

insight into the key role language plays in the courts of law, more so in bilingual courts than 

in monolingual ones. Apart from showing the utmost social significance of language in the 

courts of law, these studies shed some light on a number of aspects of courtroom discourse. 

The current researchers extend the use of Forensic linguistic analysis in studying courtroom 

discourse in the Namibia context.      

According to Shuy (2007) one of the most promising connections that linguistics can make 

to other fields is to the legal arena, primarily because much of the work in law is done in 

language and it is often largely about language, either spoken or written. For example, 

lawsuits, indictments, pleadings, briefs, legal opinions, and, of course, laws and statutes are 

all revealed and preserved in written language. Courtroom appearances and testimony, 

although presented orally, end up in written form and even oral evidence gets transformed 

into written transcripts. We begin with the observation that language and law are close 

bedfellows.  

In addition, Shuy (2007), further states that the major issue for linguists in a court case is not 

necessarily to improve the language of contracts, but to figure out what the meaning is. One 

thing a linguist easily can say about this is that the text is often written in a legal register 

that non-lawyers are not likely to comprehend, one that may have led to the dispute in the 

first place.  

Hence, O’Barr(1987) stated that the variety of spoken language typically used in the 

courtroom that most closely parallel written language used by judges, magistrate in 

instructing the prosecutors, passing judgement and speaking to the record, used by the 

lawyers when addressing the court, making the motion and requests, linguistically 

characterised by the length sentences containing much professional jargon and employing a 

complex syntax. Moreover, O’Barr (1987) further stated that most of English sentences   

tend to be right branching e.g. the verb in the sentences, and complex construction and   

instruction to be followed in some instances are poorly understood. 



 
 

8 
 

Meanwhile, Oluwole (2016) Forensic linguists should be integrated in every court cross -

examinations to play interpretative roles to witnesses when being cross-examined so as to 

unearth to them the pragmatic, semantic and discourse implications of every question and 

statement asked by the cross-examining lawyer so they do not fall into murky waters. 

2.1.2 Examining how court participants comprehend the courtroom language    

A fair criminal justice system would ensure that both the accused and the witness 

understand the courtroom proceedings, and that both parties are also understood by the 

court. This fairness cannot be attainable in instances where court interpreters cannot be 

provided for court participants who do not speak or understand the language used during 

court proceedings.  

Shi (2008) states that the courtroom interaction is generally controlled by the powerful 

judges in all trials, magistrate and public prosecutors in criminal ones. Courtroom 

interaction is generally controlled by the powerful (judges in all trials, judges and public 

prosecutors in criminal ones). Occasionally, the non-powerful (plaintiffs, defendants, 

appellants, apples, witnesses, etc.) attempt to challenge the authority of the powerful. In 

such cases, the powerful will seek to reassert their control in various ways. This is 

comparable to the Namibian magistrate courtroom whereby the magistrate controls the 

courtroom interaction or discourse. 

 

Occasionally, the non-powerful (plaintiffs, defendants, and witnesses attempt to challenge 

the authority of the powerful. In such cases, the powerful will seek to reassert their control 

in various ways. A fair criminal justice system would ensure that both the accused and the 

witness understand the courtroom proceedings, and that both parties are also understood 

by the court. This fairness cannot be attainable in instances where court interpreters cannot 

be provided for court participants who do not speak or understand the language used 

during court proceedings.  

2.1.3 Identifying linguistic based challenges faced by lay participants in legal process. 

The issue of language rights becomes infinitely more complex when there is only single 

official language to be provided for out of 27 indigenous languages Namibia and 

all are living languages. Of these, twenty – two (22) languages are indigenous and five (5) 

languages are non-indigenous., as has been set out very clearly by our Constitution.  



 
 

9 
 

 Ideally, all court officials should be able to speak one official languages. The reality, 

however, is that presently, and for some time to come, this will not be possible. Part of the 

answer, it would seem, lies in the provision of a professional interpreting service. Failure to 

provide such a service will render the constitutional provisions meaningless and do great 

damage to the delivery of justice by the courts. 

In his book, Fairclough (1989, p. 46) explores various dimensions of the relation of power 

and language. He focuses on two major aspects of the power language relationship: Power 

in discourse and Power behind discourse. “Power in discourse has to do with powerful 

participants controlling and constraining the contributions of non-powerful participants.” 

(Fairclough (1989, p. 46)  

Moreover, Fairclough (1989) believe that this constraint rests on three factors which are (I) 

contents (on what is said or done); (ii) relations (the social relations people enter in 

discourse); (iii) subjects (the subject positions people can occupy. Language heard in the 

courtroom and other legal settings contains many standardized expressions and set phrases, 

and their equivalents in the target language should be familiar to the legal interpreter. 

Correspondingly, De Jong (2004) he had given an example of a court case where a certain 

accused who had pleaded no contest to stealing a toolbox, a misdemeanour, and would 

receive probation. He instead got fifteen years in prison for stealing a dump truck valued at 

$125,000 which is a felony. All this was because the interpreter did not provide an adequate 

interpretation of “toolbox” and “dump truck” which were key words in Alonzo’s case. This 

example serves to illustrate that misinterpretation can result in meaning loss for both the 

accused person and the judge.  

Courtroom discourse, as Penman (1987) argues, is highly established, giving rise to 

specifications regarding what, how and to whom things are said. It is as such a regulated 

speech characterized using honorific such as “my learned friend”, and “your honour”. 

International covenants and political rights like Australia Law Reform Commission (ALRC) 

(1984) provide that: Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression and this right 

shall include the freedom to speak, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds. 

Certain courtroom discourse makes this right difficult to achieve. This literature review is in 

this respect seeking to understand how the informal, spontaneous, non-institutionalised 



 
 

10 
 

language of the laypeople is affected by formalism or if its message content is stifled by 

institutionalised speech.  

Additionally, Katas (2005) views a trial in a court of law as a battle fought with words, and 

that such battles are fought by people who cannot speak and understand the legal language 

of the setting. Therefore, the presence of an interpreter, as a mediator and a necessary 

contributor in overcoming language barriers and ensuring communication, is considered 

essential. 

The issue of language rights becomes infinitely more complex when there are eleven official 

languages to be provided for, as has been set out very clearly by our Constitution.  Ideally, 

all court officials should be able to speak all official languages. The reality, however, is that 

presently, and for some time to come, this will not be possible. Part of the answer, it would 

seem, lies in the provision of a professional interpreting service. Failure to provide such a 

service will render the constitutional provisions meaningless and do great damage to the 

delivery of justice by the courts. 

According to Sloan (2000) the law is, much of the time, concerned with the meaning(s) that 

ordinary speakers attach to words and expressions. Even so, Solan (2000) argues that there 

is still a role for the linguist, who is to explain and elucidate facts about language and usage 

as a result of which judge and jury will then be in the same position as the linguist and so 

can make linguistically informed decisions.  

Furthermore, Hlope (2014) language in the courts also needs to be seen within a broader 

context relating to transformational issues concerning the judiciary and the legal system. It 

is essential that the courtroom language should be accessible to all because of the 

fundamental role of the courts in society.   

In his study, Viljoen (1992) pays particular attention to how language is used in courtroom 

procedures such as the direct and cross examination of witnesses and sentencing 

procedures as well as during court interpreting. This establishes the linguistic and socio-

cultural factors that motivate the language used. Viljoen (1992) further notes that while it is 

common for casual conversation to consist of repeating and commenting on what other 

people have said, witnesses in a trial are not allowed to repeat such hearsay evidence. For 



 
 

11 
 

this reason, many lay people find these restrictions difficult to come to terms with. Shuy 

(2007) stated that a linguist could be contracted, because anyone can use any word at any 

time and therefore shared vocabulary can have no diagnostic significance. The linguist could 

single out words and phrases for criticism, on the grounds that they were items that could 

be expected to occur in any text that was arguing a case.  

Additionally, Moeketsi (1999) also laments the loss of meaning in courtroom translations 

through such techniques as approximation and lexical simplification which court 

interpreters often resort to. In some cases, she argues that there is outright falsification of 

source information by interpreters due to the limitations arising from lack of direct linguistic 

equivalents between different languages giving rise to the possibility of miscarriage of 

justice. The second similarity between the Namibian, Zimbabwean and South African court 

systems is that the dominance of English in the legal system leaves out the potential utility 

of African languages in legal practice. A study by Fernandez (1993), investigates how 

language policy in the law curriculum affected South Africa’s legal system.  The language 

setup observed by Fernandez (1993) in South Africa is similar to Namibia’s in two ways, 

mainly which in both systems, English occupies a pre-eminent position in the legal system, 

and that the dominance of English in the legal system leaves out the potential usefulness of 

African languages in legal practice.  

Furthermore, Svongoro, et al., (2013), state that the criminal law inherited from the British 

differs in several ways from the customary law which is practised by the chiefs and their 

people in the medium of local languages. Thetela (2003) studied crosstalk in courtroom 

discourse in an African context. The study illustrates the complex challenges facing 

communication in bilingual courtrooms, where a foreign, but official language, is used in a 

bilingual situation in which most participants speak languages other than English. 

 

2.1.4 How forensic linguistics can be used to avoid miscommunication during the court 

proceedings. 

According to Tiersma (2002), Forensic linguists are involved in many areas that relate to 

crime, both solving crime and absolving people wrongly accused of committing crimes.  



 
 

12 
 

Court officials must obey a different principle when they speak: they must speak neither for 

non-legal people or any lay person; rather, they must speak to meet the demands of 

conceptual thought. 

Moeketsi and Wallmach (2005) conducted a study on the profile of the court interpreter 

and the quality of the services rendered. In this study, the communications made by 

magistrates were analysed to determine whether the court interpreters had correctly 

interpreted these communications. The findings reveal that African languages lack linguistic 

equivalents of crucial words used in the court room. In instances like these, interpreters are 

obliged to go beyond the surface meaning of what has been said, to the values embedded in 

the language and culture of the discourse participants. The court translator becomes a 

“cultural broker” whose participation involves “mediating ideas, laws, customs and 

symbolism” (Moeketsi 1999b:4) 

Similarly, Erasmus (2009) is of the same opinion and believes that from the first appearance 

of an undefended accused in court until the imposition of a sentence in the event of a 

conviction, explanations should be directed at the accused by the presiding officer. Erasmus 

(2009) cites the case of S v Kester 1996 (1) SACR 461 (B) and states that the court held that:   

...it is the duty of a judicial officer to diligently, deliberately and painstakingly explain 

the rights of an unrepresented accused and to ensure and confirm that it was 

understood. This duty should not be delegated to an interpreter, but it is the duty of 

the presiding officer (Erasmus 2009: 16). 

Once more, Penman (1987) while exploring discourse relations in courtroom situations 

contends that the highly ritualised and institutionalized discourse of the courtroom 

privileges the legal fraternity, who are then able to control and influence courtroom 

discourse to the great disadvantage of laypeople. For instance, in the process of cross 

examination where laypeople are involved, the rules of procedure regarding what can be 

said and how it can be said disadvantage the laypersons and prevent them from full and 

free expression. The use of closed questions that demand answers to be given in a certain 

way prevents laypeople from spontaneous and free expression. The use of anecdote, 

symbolism, proverbs and gestures, that are emblematic of spontaneous speech are severely 



 
 

13 
 

curtailed. Whereas these are important for full communication, the court treats them as 

irrelevant. These restrictions have impacts on interpretation and meaning generally 

The   outdated legal terms used such as "hereinbefore," "notwithstanding," and 

"arguendo,"' legal doublets such as "null and void" and "cease and desist,"" compound 

prepositions like "in the event that" and "with reference to,"' 1. general verbosity, 2 

multiple negatives, 3 frequent qualification and exception," the corruption of common 

words by assigning to them purely legal meanings, 5 dangling modifiers,' long strings of 

nouns,'" poor punctuation,'" "convoluted. 

Moreover, Shuy (2007) stated that one of the most promising connections that linguistics 

can make to other fields is to the legal arena, primarily because much of the work in law is 

conducted in language and it is often largely about language, either spoken or written.  

Yet again, Shuy (2007) further states that the major issue for linguists in a court case is not 

necessarily to improve the language of contracts, but to establish what the meaning is. 

Although the above-mentioned studies were not conducted in Namibia, they provide insight 

into the key role that language plays in the courts of law, more so in bilingual courts than in 

monolingual ones. 

Viljoen ((1992) mentions to the fact that language is the medium through which courtroom 

procedures are carried out, he points out that it is through language usage that power 

relations are established and maintained. In his study Viljoen (1992) pays attention to how 

language is used in courtroom procedures such as direct and cross examination of witnesses 

and sentencing procedures as well as during court interpreting. 

The concept of power has been defined differently by scholars in different disciplines. In 

sociology, power is defined as the ability of an individual or a group of individuals to carry 

out their will even in the face of resistance from others, and it includes the ability to control 

the behaviour of others, at times against their will (Giddens, 2009).Shi (2008) states that the 

issue of power relations are replicated by, and in turn affect, the linguistic structures used 

by subjects during the courtroom dialog. 

Additionally, Fairclough (1989, p. 46) explores various dimensions of the relation of power 

and language. He focuses on two major aspects of the power language relationship: Power 



 
 

14 
 

in discourse and Power behind discourse. Power in discourse has to do with powerful 

participants controlling and constraining the contributions of non-powerful participants.  

 Gibbons (2003), opined that “the justice system is arguably the most directly powerful 

institution in societies subject to the ‘rule of law’ ’’ (p.75) and the interest of the present 

study was to find out how this power manifests itself in courtroom interaction. As already 

indicated, interaction in the courtroom is mainly linguistic and we need to note that ‘an 

important manifestation of power relations is language behaviour’ (Gibbons, 2003, p.75) 

According to Wang (2006) explains that power relation is the inborn features of questions 

make them naturally bound up with power in that questions possess the ability to dominate 

and control.  By the mere act of asking a question, the questioner chooses the speaker, 

takes a turn, and defines the type of the following turn (i.e. questions are typically followed 

by responses. Sacks et al. 1974). What is more important, though, is that the questioner can 

define the topic, type and length of a response.  Farinde (2008) regarded as ‘an institutional 

discourse where power is pervasive’. He opines further that courtroom discourse is arguably 

the most direct powerful institution. Once more, Farinde (2008) postulates that even the 

furniture in the courtroom is indiscretion in relationship. 

 

Power can be found in any conversation of everyday life. Ideal dialogue (as coined by 

scholars such as Maranhao, 1990; Crowell, 1990; Linell, 1998) which is supposed to be 

exempted from power is believed to be unattainable and unrealistic. “Power is coherent in 

all dialogue whether in casual conversation or in institutional settings” (Wang 2006, p. 929). 

According to Hlophe (2004) it is through language that we are able to form concepts; to 

structure and order the world around us. Language bridges the gap between isolation and 

community, allowing humans to delineate the rights and duties they hold in respect of one 

another; and thus, to live in society.' He further states that language in the courts also needs 

to be seen within a broader context relating to transformational issues concerning the 

judiciary and the legal system. Because of the fundamental role of the courts in society, it is 

essential that they should be accessible to all. For too many years ordinary citizens have 

been subject to the terrifying ordeal of dealing with a court situation where judicial officers 



 
 

15 
 

and public prosecutors neither understand nor speak African languages. The court 

environment is intimidating, and the language issue complicates matters, 

Furthermore, De Jongh (2008) explains that a defendant’s physical presence in the 

courtroom is not enough to constitute legal presence. For a defendant to in criminal matters 

be meaningfully present, everything that is being said in the court must be communicated in 

a language he or she can understand, and it is this concept that is known as linguistic 

presence. 

Language rights are mentioned explicitly in several sections of the Constitution of the 

Republic of Namibia (Chapter 2, Article 3). General protection is afforded by sub -section 30 

which provides that ‘Nothing contained in Sub-Article (1) hereof shall preclude legislation by 

Parliament which permits the use of a language other than English for legislative, 

administrative and judicial purposes in regions or areas where such other language or 

languages are spoken by a substantial component of the population. ‘ 

Fairclough (1989, p. 46) explores various dimensions of the relation of power and language. 

He focuses on two major aspects of the power language relationship: Power in discourse 

and Power behind discourse. Power in discourse has to do with powerful participants 

controlling and constraining the contributions of non-powerful participants. Fairclough 

(1989) believe that this constraint rests on three factors which are (i) contents (on what is 

said or done); (ii) relations (the social relations people enter into in discourse); (iii) subjects 

(the subject positions people can occupy. 

Language heard in the courtroom and other legal settings contains many standardized 

expressions and set phrases, and their equivalents in the target language should be familiar 

to the legal interpreter. De Jongh (2004) he had given an example of a court case where a 

certain accused named Alonzo Juan Raman, case number (2004-34473), in 2006 in Florida, 

who had pleaded no contest to stealing a toolbox, a misdemeanour, and would receive 

probation. He instead got fifteen years in prison for stealing a dump truck valued at $ 

125,000 which is a felony. He instead got fifteen years in prison for stealing a dump truck 

valued at $ 125,000 which is a felony. All this was because the interpreter did not provide an 

adequate interpretation of “toolbox” and “dump truck” which were key words in Alonzo’s 



 
 

16 
 

case. This example serves to illustrate that misinterpretation can result in meaning loss for 

both the accused person and the judge.  

This can be related to Loftus (1998), in his study demonstrated that "extremely subtle 

changes in the wording of questions [regarding a crime may alter the witness's coding of the 

memory in question; for example, if asked, "Did you see the bike" rather than "Did you see a 

bike," a witness is more likely to answer "Yes" because the existence of the bike is strongly 

suggested by the use of the question. Consequently, when later questioned regarding the 

existence of the bike, the witness is likely to remember there being a bike even if there was 

not one in actuality. Similarly, verbs with different nuances may influence a witness' 

memory, as when "smash" is used instead of "hit", implying a more destructive action (p. 

11). It should be emphasized that Loftus's study was not conducted in an actual court 

setting or with specific reference to legal implications, although can have a substantial effect 

on the answers given" (p. 3). The wording of a question   studies have followed which more 

directly relate (Maher & Rokosz, 1992). 

Language is also crucial to the judicial process of every society because laws, judgments, 

judicial proceedings are all conducted through language. Courtroom interaction is significant 

because it provides insights into the language used in the process of delivering justice. It is 

in this bid that this study seeks to examine a legal process called cross examination which 

should be an area of interest for forensic linguists, since it is a legal process in which 

language is implicated because it has some underlying assumptions which make the legal 

activity to be hostile and uncooperative. The assumptions are that the power relation 

between lawyers and witnesses is asymmetrical; that lawyers deploy vindictive and 

exercitives paralinguistic acts in court cross-examinations; and that lawyers are usually 

impolite in the process of cross-examination. 

This study not only shed light on our understanding of the nature and characteristics of 

courtroom discourse, but also provided implications for judges and prosecutors as well as 

other courtroom subjects to reflect on and, thus, improve their language performance in 

court trials. The courtroom discourse represents an irregular established communication in 

which the powerful interactant, such as lawyers are more likely to dominate the interchange 

while powerless interactants usually the accused, defendants and witnesses are less 



 
 

17 
 

convincing and wield little or no power. Berk-Seligson (1999) stated that courtroom 

interaction has been researched from various linguistic perspectives: It has been analysed 

grammatically from the question types prevalent in courtroom interactions). He focused on 

the categorisation of question types, ranging from Yes/No questions, prosodic questions, 

and truth questioning. Gibbons (2003) on the other hand researched into the speech 

attributes that make speakers seem less powerful which are: hedges, hesitations, 

uncertainty, and use of your worship, intensifiers, time taken, and mitigation.   

 

Additionally, Viljoen (1992) looks at the relationship between discourse and power in the 

South African courtroom. Viljoen’s study pays attention to how language is used in 

courtroom procedures such as direct and cross examination of witnesses and 

sentencing procedures as well as during court interpreting. 

 

In another study, Loftus (1998) demonstrated that "extremely subtle changes in the wording 

of questions [regarding a crime] can have a substantial effect on the answers given" (p. 3). 

The wording of a question may alter the witness’s coding of the memory in question; for 

example, if asked, "Did you see the bike" rather than "Did you see a bike," a witness is more 

likely to answer "Yes" because the existence of the bike is strongly suggested by the use of 

the word. 

Subsequently, when later questioned regarding the existence of the bike, the witness is 

likely to remember there being a bike even if there was not one. Similarly, verbs with 

different nuances may influence a witness's memory, as when "smash" is used instead of 

"hit", implying a more destructive action (p. 11). It should be emphasized that Loftus's study 

was not conducted in an actual court setting or with specific reference to legal implications, 

although later studies have followed which more directly relate (Maher & Rokosz, 1992). 

According to Gibbons (1999) discusses court interpreting internationally, as well as some of 

the on-going issues of interpreting culture. Language legislation encompasses a vast range 

of issues from language policy to bilingual education. Language policy revolves around 

which language or languages is/are given official or national language status, which minority 

languages are recognized and accommodated (i.e., translations provided in public settings 



 
 

18 
 

and interpreters provided in court), and which are ignored (for example, those consciously 

or unconsciously considered substandard. Therefore, as recognized by Austin (1962), 

language is used in this arena to either set free the defendants or send them to jail. It is also 

used to charge them of offences. 

In the courtroom setting, however, the words of the judge perform the actions of acquittal 

or conviction, which is the illocution (i.e. the action performed by saying). Finally, the per 

locution is the effect of the words of the judge which involves the accused person either 

going to serve a jail term or being set free. Thus, the setting of my data is able to create a 

clear distinction of the three acts as enumerated and explained by Austin (1962)    

Opeibi (2003) states that the dialogue acts that are embedded in the text further highlight 

how meaning is constructed and achieved in the course of the legal proceeding. Some 

utterances, apart from being propositional, they also carry conventional communicative 

force that simultaneously achieve the intended action. The ‘saying’ of those utterances is 

taken as the ‘doing’. 

According to Hlophe (2004), The importance of language rights is grounded in the essential 

role that language plays in human existence, development and dignity. It is through 

language that we are able to form concepts; to structure and order the world around us. 

Language bridges the gap between isolation and community, allowing humans to delineate 

the rights and duties they hold in respect of one another; and thus, to live in society.' He 

further  states   that language in the courts also needs to be seen within a broader context 

relating to transformational issues concerning the judiciary and the legal system. Because of 

the fundamental role of the courts in society, it is essential that they should be accessible to 

all. For too many years ordinary citizens have been subject to the terrifying ordeal of dealing 

with a court situation where judicial officers and public prosecutors neither understand nor 

speak African languages. The court environment is intimidating, and the language issue 

complicates matters. 

2.2 Theoretical framework 

Forensic Linguistics analysis will be applicable for this study. It is defined by McMenamin, 

(2000) as the language of the courtroom discourse, including analyses of the language of 

witnesses, lawyers and judges. Forensic linguistics is applied in these different areas: legal 



 
 

19 
 

language, judicial procedure language and linguistic evidence in judicial procedure. Although 

the application of forensic linguistics includes voice identification, interpretation of 

expressed meaning in law and legal writings and analysing of discourse in legal settings. 

Context, Schema, Frame and Script will be used in approaching the problem.  

 

According to Yule (2000), context is one of the most common and important elements in 

interpreting the text. Context usually refers to an environment in which utterances are 

produced. A schema is a pre-existing knowledge structure in memory. Whenever there is a 

fixed static pattern discerned in the schema, it is called a frame. 

 

Again, Liao (2003) explains the various types of schema of the court trial which an activity 

usually involves a macro and micro schema. These schemata are organically linked to each 

other. The macro schema of the court trial is comprising of physical schema of the 

courtroom; schema of court rules; schema of trial procedures; schema of oral interactions; 

schema of trial principles (Liao 2003: 50–54). 

 A frame shared by everyone within a social group would be like a proto- typical version. 

Schema, Frame and Script apply sequentially in the context and function like familiar 

patterns from previous experience that we use to interpret new experiences.   

 

However, this study falls under Sociolinguistics which is the study of language use within or 

among groups of speakers. Coulmas (2013) stated that Sociolinguistics is interested in 

investigating how we speak differently in varying social contexts, and how we may use of 

specific functions of language to convey social meaning.   

SUMMARY 

This chapter presented a review of literature from which the issues of concern for the 

present study have been expounded and grounded. The chapter has also presented the 

theoretical framework on which the study was based. Forensic Linguistics has been 

presented as the major theory within which the data were analysed and discussed. The 

other theories, Conversational Analysis, provided domains for identifying and coding various 

aspects of verbal interaction in the sampled courts.  



 
 

20 
 

This chapter has also attempted to explain error analysis, the cause of errors as well as the 

significance of the errors   as outlined by various authors. It has also outlined interlanguage  

from its theoretical input that as the learner acquires a second language, he or she goes 

through various processes, and in the process a lot of errors are committed, and the way in 

which they are committed can be attributed to a variety of reasons as it has been shown in 

this chapter. Throughout this chapter, emphasis was placed on the purpose of the error 

analysis, which aims to ascertain the cause of the learners writing problems which is a huge 

challenge to them and determine the cause of the frequent occurrence year after year with 

different learners The value of this chapter has, among other things, been that, it has tried 

to shed some light on factors that contribute to the commitment of errors by the learners of 

the second language. Some factors, as they have been highlighted in the chapter are power 

relations, conversational analysis approach; context, schema and theory, the interrelation of 

sociolinguistics and forensic linguistics. The next chapter will describe the research 

methodology. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 



 
 

21 
 

CHAPTER 3 

Research methods and procedures 

3.1 Introduction 

The previous chapter gave an overview of literature on Forensic linguistic analysis studies 

and interpretations of these studies. This chapter outlines the methodology and research 

design used in this study. 

3.2 Research design 

Qualitative research design was used in this study. Creswell (2013) asserted that qualitative 

research is a system of inquiry which seeks to build a holistic, mostly narrative, description 

to inform the researcher's understanding of a social or cultural phenomenon. Qualitative 

research focuses on empowering people to tell their stories, listen to their cries, and reduce 

the power relationships that often occur between a researcher and the participants in a 

study (Creswell, 2013). Furthermore, qualitative research is an attempt to understand the 

world from the subjects' points of view, to uncover the meaning of their experiences 

(Brinkman & Kvale, 2008,). The research tools used were observation and audio tape 

recordings. . Using this method, the researchers in the present study observed the 

interlocutors’ linguistic behaviour in the courtroom.  

Robson (1997: 97) makes a crucial point that: “Observation enables phenomena to be 

observed in a more natural setting than using second-hand information”. Observation is 

perceived therefore as the appropriate technique of extracting real life’ from the ‘real 

world’. 

McLeod (1994) noted that observation can be employed from various dimensions, with 

observer roles varying from full participant to complete outsider, the latter extreme of 

which was used in this study. With full participation, the researcher is involved or takes part 

in the activities being observed. 

As complete outsider, the researcher satin the background, observing ‘from a distance’ the 

group under observation. Using this method, the researchers in the present study observed 

the interlocutors’ linguistic behaviour in the courtroom.  



 
 

22 
 

Robson (1997:97) makes a crucial point that: ‘Observation enables phenomena to be 

observed in a more natural setting than using second-hand information’. Observation was 

therefore seen as the appropriate technique of getting at ‘real life’ in the ‘real world’. 

On the other hand, the audio recordings used as data is the courtroom. In this arena, 

decisions are made about whether the defendants brought to the court are either guilty or 

not guilty. This is indeed the main agenda of the courtroom sessions. Therefore, as 

recognised by Austin (1962), language is used in this arena to either set free the defendants 

or send them to jail. It is also used to charge them of offences. 

3.3. Research Setting  

This research was conducted in Khomas region specifically at the Windhoek Magistrate 

courtrooms Court A, C, and D. The indicated courtrooms deal with criminal cases unlike the 

others like Court B deal with maintenance and E deals with traffic offences.  

3.4. Study Population  

This research was conducted in the magistrate courtrooms. The participants are the court 

officials. The study population may vary in various occasions; it was therefore determined 

by the court participants during the theft and burglary court proceedings. 

Due to the limited study population, the population of this research was made up of three 

(3) magistrates, six (6) public prosecutors, five (5) interpreters, (4) lawyers and five (4) 

witnesses. The participants will be exclusively court officials, excluding four selected 

witnesses. This will give a total of a population of 21. 

 

3.4 Sampling and sample size 

The study   applied the Purposive sampling method which is a non- probability sample based 

on the characteristics of a population and the objective of the study. The sample size of this 

study is 20. 

 

3.5 Data Analysis 

The data was analysed using Conversational Analysis approach. According to Fairclough, 

(2001), Conversational Analysis recognises the interaction dimension of language and 

attends to sequential phenomena in text and talk. This was conducted by analysing verbal 

cues accompanying talk such as the organisation of turn-taking and language structures. 



 
 

23 
 

The relation between Forensic and Conversational Analysis become related because of in 

each one’s spoken word ha iconic meaning (Kramsch,1998).Conversational Analysis(CA) is 

an approach which particularly concerned with structure, pattern and regularities of 

naturally occurring conversation and entirely with how language is used in context 

(Chappman,2011) 

While   according to McMenamin, (2000) Forensic linguistics is the theory applied in 

different areas such as legal language, judicial procedure language and linguistic evidence in 

judicial procedure. Conversational analysis represents spontaneous verbal interactions that 

take place in non-specialized settings, in this study, the courtroom. It recognises the 

interaction dimension of language and attends to sequential phenomena in text and talk 

(Fairclough, 2001:142). Considering this, conversational analysis will be adopted to analyse 

non-verbal cues accompanying talk such as the organisation of turn-taking, moves and move 

structures. The frequent occurrence of the linguistic features such as the use of legal 

language, understatements, and syntactic difficulty will be taken into consideration to 

indicate the importance of these features as part of the language used by court officials and 

the accused and/or witnesses and not something that was unexpected. The researcher 

selected all the potential structures for analysis which various studies have shown to convey 

important social meanings, in order to select only certain aspects   for closer scrutiny. 

 Apart from showing the linguistic features used by the interactants in the courtroom, this 

section also attempted to give the linguistic and socio-cultural factors that motivate the 

linguistic choices made. 

Data in the form of audio recording (voice) from the selected theft and burglary from 

Windhoek magistrate courtrooms proceedings were collected and analysed. The researcher 

applied conversational analysis. Conversational analysis represents spontaneous verbal 

interactions that take place in non-specialized settings, in this study, the courtroom. It 

recognises the interaction dimension of language and attends to sequential phenomena in 

text and talk (Fairclough, 2001:142). In light of this, conversational analysis was adopted to 

analyse non-verbal cues accompanying talk such as the organisation of turn-taking, moves 

and move structures 

 



 
 

24 
 

The researcher has conducted the analysis by transcribing the voice recordings into texts. 

The data for this study comprised transcriptions of a total of 30 hours of audio recorded 

court proceedings from three sampled courts. The data were divided into two sets to make 

the analysis easier. 

The other central methodological issue for discourse studies data analysis dealing with tape 

recorded data is transcription. Transcription, which is putting down in writing the audio-

recorded data, is considered a part of the process of analysis and a prerequisite in discourse 

studies that involve audio-recording. Cameron (2001) notes that it is necessary to put down 

discourse in writing before we can say anything about it given that spoken language, 

because of its ephemeral nature, is difficult to analyse. In addition, Gumperz and Berenz 

(1993, p. 94) assert that ‘transcription is an integral part of an overall process of interpretive 

analysis’ that reflects the theoretical framework informing a given analysis. This means that 

transcription is a means by which a researcher can bring into focus the characteristics of 

spoken discourse that are the object of study. In audio-recording courtroom proceedings, 

this study sought to capture the contributions of various discourse participants which could 

then be categorised into different subtypes. Collected data were transcribed according to 

notation rules which have become increasingly detailed in order to support an expanding range of 

analytic projects (see section 4). Data in the form of audio recording (voice) from the selected theft 

and burglary from Windhoek magistrate courtrooms proceedings    were collected and analysed. The 

researcher had applied conversational analysis. Conversational analysis represents spontaneous 

verbal interactions that take place in non-specialized settings, in this study, the courtroom. It 

recognises the interaction dimension of language and attends to sequential phenomena in text and 

talk (Fairclough, 2001:142). Considering this, conversational analysis was adopted to analyse non-

verbal cues accompanying talk such as the organisation of turn-taking, moves and move structures. 

The researcher had conducted the analysis by transcribing the voice recordings into texts. The data 

for this study comprised transcriptions of a total of 30 hours of audio recorded court proceedings 

from three sampled courts. The data were divided into two sets to make the analysis easier. 

Data analysis typically starts in data sessions (Antaki et al. 2008; Bushnell, 2012) where data 

segments are discussed in great detail after viewing and listening to them repeatedly.  

Typically, data segments are broken down into actions and close attention is given to how 

actions are packaged and turns designed. Following a data session, the researcher built up a 

collection of comparable instances and develop the precise description of the phenomenon. 



 
 

25 
 

In order to achieve analytic generalization (Have, 2007, p. 149-51), collections need to draw 

on a variety of data. The size of collections varies depending on the frequency of actions or 

practices in available corpora. CA transcriptions are principally different since they are 

equally concerned with how something is said (Hepburn & Bolden, 2013; Jenks, 2011). 

 

3.6 Ethical clearance 

The researcher obtained ethical clearance from Namibia University of Science and 

Technology Faculty Research and Publication Committee and adhere to the ethical 

clearance policy accordingly. 

 Permission to attend court proceedings will be obtained from the Chief magistrate at the 

Ministry of Justice.  Permission was similarly requested for observation and audio recording 

during court proceedings. 

 

3.7. Significance of the study 

This study will contribute to the improvement of the English language at the Windhoek 

Magistrate courtroom. It will also contribute towards restructuring the language of the law. 

It will benefit lay people and the lay audience, for instance, criminals, witnesses and the 

general public present during the court proceeding because they are the ones who might 

not understand court language. This research might also benefit the interpreters as 

translating from a legal language requires more than a literal, word for word matchup of 

two languages. 

 

SUMMARY 

In this chapter the researcher has attempted to give the details of the research methods 

used in conducting this study. This included the selection and description of the tools or 

instruments used, how the population was selected, what sampling procedure and 

administration was followed and why. It has also provided details about the tools or 

instruments used to collect the data. The next chapter will be present the Data Analysis and  

 

 

 

 



 
 

26 
 

Chapter 4: Data Analysis and Discussion of findings 

4.1 Introduction 

This chapter presents the findings of the study. The data presented here comes from 

specific trials which took place at the Windhoek magistrates’ courtroom. From a practical 

point of view, the choice to focus on these trial lies in a personal familiarity with the specific 

legal system, the accessibility of language, and the possibility of accessing data in a time- 

and cost-effective manner. The following linguistic features were discussed: pronunciation, 

than lexical(morphology) and than (syntax) syntactic errors. 

The first data set features criminal cases of theft and burglary during which some 

defendants were represented by lawyers. This means that whereas a public prosecutor or a 

state counsel (for criminal and theft cases) and a lawyer did the questioning during direct 

examination, cross examination was done by the counsel for the defence. In the second set, 

the accused person was not represented by a lawyer. In the third case, the accused was also 

charged for theft. He was not represented by a private lawyer neither by any representative 

from the legal assistance centre. There is another set where the accused person’s lawyer 

challenged the power of the magistrate. 

Audio recordings were first identified and classified accordingly in their categories where 

they appear per case. In order to analyse the spoken courtroom language, the researcher 

used tables where the voice -texts were recorded in order to be described.  

The concentration was more on the trial cases with frequent interaction between the 

magistrate, the prosecutors and the defendants per trial. The courtroom language was 

analysed according to the cross - questioning occurred to determine the occurrence of 

power relations and linguistic features used which may hamper lay people’s 

comprehensibility of the courtroom language. Forensic Linguistics has been presented as 

the major theory within which the data were analysed and discussed. The other approach, 

Conversational Analysis, provided domains for identifying and coding various aspects of 

verbal interaction in the sampled courts. 

 

 



 
 

27 
 

4.2 Findings and Discussion 

The following abbreviation will be used during the analysis:  

P: Prosecutor 

M: Magistrate 

A: Accused person  

W: Witness 

 

4.2.1 Morphology (lexical features) 

Finegan (2008) claimed that words have meaningful parts and principles that govern their 

composition and functions in sentences. In addition, Finegan (2008) further stressed that 

morphology shows three methods through which words can be expounded. First, people 

can make new words from existing words and different word parts. Second, people can 

borrow words from other languages. Various lexical features were analysed.  

Extract 1 

1. The accused is here for the charge of theft. The case is appearing for plea and trial. On the 

28 of September 2018, while she was on custody and came to court and appealed on both 

cases. However, she was arrested while she was on bail, I refused because she was already in 

custody. 

2. She appealed only for domestic violence court because she was expected to appear on 

both cases in the same day. The court made a mistake by placing her court cases on the 

same day. The witness was subpoenaed but the subpoena was not served. 

 

3. Thus your worship, receive this application case to be remanded to April. The complainant 

on that day he was not being ready and he is Ausenkar, he does not have money ,he 

indicated, he said he does not transport money, I told him that he must  apply for transport 

money or borrow money, but he said he does not have anyone to borrow money. Thus, the 

witness could not be present in the court today. 

 

4. She appealed only for domestic violence court because she was expected to appear on 

both cases in the same day. The court made a mistake by placing her court cases in the same 

day. The witness was subpoenaed but subpoena was not given to him on time. 



 
 

28 
 

She was arrested while she was on bail. I refused because she was already on custody  

The accused person to be put on warning as the bail money was forfeited. This matter be 

remanded on the 8th February. The accused person will remain in custody. 

 

Apart from the frequent use of any and must, there are some morphological words used 

whereby the suffixes are added to the root words. Words such as: 

Complainant – ‘the complainant is not here’ 

Remanded – ‘the case is remanded to next month’ 

Forfeited    - ‘the bail money was forfeited, and the accused person appealed in court’ 

Adjourned -The case is adjourned until next year 

It also sounds like a journey  

Postponed – The case is postponed to next month 

Acquitted – the accused has been acquitted 

 

The table below indicates how the meaning of words completely differs in different 

standpoints as used in the courtroom 

Root word  Meaning Affix  Legal Meaning 

Complain Dissatisfaction complainant  a plaintiff in certain lawsuit. 

Remand to place a defendant on 

bail or in custody, 

especially when the trial 

is adjourned 

remanded to return to the lower court for 

reconsideration 

Journey the act of travelling from 

one place to another  

Adjourned to suspend the court 

proceeding until a later stage 

Fine Much better than 

average, healthy and 

well 

Fined A punishment whereby the 

accused must pay a fee or an 

amount of money when you 



 
 

29 
 

break the law 

Feat Borrowed word from the 

Norwegian word ‘fiat’ 

meaning fat 

Forfeited to lose the right to do 

something because you have 

broken the law e.g failing to 

appear in court 

Table 1 (a) 

The meanings as indicated in the table   above   are clearly not the same but are it one word that is 

used metaphorically in and literally meaning. e.g. remanded, e.g. the case is remanded to next year’ 

and adjourned e.g. The case is adjourned, sentenced and fined; the accused is sentenced and fined. 

Looking at the example provided, the inflectional morphemes -ed is added to the base word to 

indicate the tense of the verb. The present perfect verb tenses are used when talking or writing 

about actions that are completed by the present or by a specific moment in the past or future. 

The sentences provided where the inflectional morpheme - ed is used, are in present 

prefect tense in order to indicate the action and time. Legal language does not follow the 

grammar and sentence structure of the English language but focus mainly is on the delivery 

of the message. These words might create difficulty in understanding because the meanings 

of the root words have a completely different meaning from words with affixes added.  

It is recommended that in order to sound professional, whenever the legal officials have to 

use a specific legal term and there is any question that the parties may not comprehend, 

he/she should provide a brief, clear explanation of the term.  

In addition to the use of - ed polysomic words were also prominent as can be seen in the 

table below. Polysemy words are the words with multiple meanings. Polysemy words can 

cause difficulty in contexts where the meaning is other than the primary meaning of the 

word. Primary refers to the sense of the word that the lay people or accused persons knew 

before. 

 

 



 
 

30 
 

 

The table below indicated the list of polysemous words used  

Word Example from the  Different meaning Legal meaning 

Custody ‘You remain in custody’ A legal right or duty to take 

care of someone or 

something 

To remain in jail while 

waiting for bail application 

Oppose ‘Why do you oppose 

this?’ 

To obstruct or play off or to 

provide resistance 

Disagree with something 

or against a sentence in 

courti 

Dawn ‘You are going down 

together’ 

Any beginning, from early 

morning until evening 

The two people are going 

to be charged and 

sentence together 

Stand What is your stand on 

this case’? ‘ 

to maintain an upright 

position 

What is his /her opinion in 

the case at hand? 

Charged ‘You are charged and 

fined’ 

-filled with excitement, 

tension or emotion. 

-to ask an amount of money 

for something especially for 

a service or activity. 

You are sentenced and 

punished to pay a certain 

amount of money 

Fined ‘You are fined’ 

‘Pay you fine’ 

thin, or become thin, or 

narrow 

Pay the amount of money 

instead of imprisonment 

Proceed ’You may now proceed’ To make progress to 

achieve something, or to 

move to a direction  

To move on with the court 

proceedings 

Matter The matter is remanded physical substance, or the The case is postponed to 



 
 

31 
 

to next year consequence, weight next year 

Appeared  She appeared in both 

theft and burglary and 

for domestic violence 

Come into sight, become 

visible or noticeable 

To present oneself in 

court to participate in the 

lawsuit 

Table 1 (b) 

There are many terminological polysemous used in legal English and requiring very 

accurate and precise choice of equivalents in the target language and legal system. 

This concerns mainly the figurative language and when words are used figuratively, not in 

their real sense.  

The example is illustrated in these sentences “What is you stand”. ‘Stand’ is used here not 

to say that a person should stand up but to refer to his/her opinion. Hence, figurative 

language may be metaphorical, indirect, and, sometimes, unclear. Another example is ‘You 

are charged’. The word charge here does not refer to electrical charged or charging 

something to receive energy, but the literal meaning here is referring to the sentence in the 

courtroom. Polysemous words can cause difficulty in contexts where the meaning is other 

than the primary meaning of the word. 

 

Apart from the use of polysemy, the court officials also used words that caused confusion, 

for instance, the homonyms - appeared – to show up, come into sight, or become visible 

-appealed – to apply to a high court for a reversal of the decision of law court 

The use of homonyms and polysemous words during the trial can result to 

miscommunication. Miscommunications in the courtroom occurs as the results of   various 

contributing factors which power relation linguistic features are among many, which may 

impede the lay person to misinterpret the content during the court proceeding most 

especially during cross – questioning. Technical terms are special vocabulary or terms of art 

used in every profession and occupation. Only the judicial officials which comprises of the 

magistrates, public prosecutors, lawyers and the police officers assisting during the court 

hearing understand these terms. 

The terms below are some examples of technical terms used during court proceedings. The 

following technical terms has no equivalent meaning in the language of the accused. 



 
 

32 
 

 

Subpoena: The witness was subpoenaed but subpoena was not served. 

Warrant of arrest: If you fail to be on court on time, the warrant of arrest will be issued to 

you and your bail will be forfeited 

Custody: You must come to court on time, if you have a funeral or whatever you have you 

must inform the court on time, if you don’t, your bail money will be forfeited and you will 

remain in custody. 

Custody here refer to remain in jail or in prison.  

Object: I object the bail because she was already on custody 

Object here refer to the question whether the complainant has anything to oppose the 

sentence  

Sentence: You are sentenced you to one-year prison term  

Sentence here refer to be punished or to be sent to jail. 

The stand: What is your stand on this case? The literal meaning of this phrase is ‘What is 

your opinion in this case? Or ‘Is the accused guilty or not guilty according to your opinion?” 

 

This might impede comprehension of technical terms since only a legal person could 

understand it. 

The analysis has indicated that the certain linguistics terminology used by both court 

officials during legal proceedings such ad custody, subpoena, appeared and  subpoenaed, 

create difficulties to lay people present in the courtroom, to comprehend the language 

spoken in the courtroom because they do not have equivalent meaning in the accused ‘ 

language. Such lay suspects and witnesses may be lacking understanding in both legal 

language and knowledge of courtroom language and sensible resources employed in formal 

courtroom conversation. As mentioned above, these words have their basic or core 

meaning which is always there despite their different uses in different situational context. 

The accused persons who were involved in the plea and trial during the collection of data 

were from various indigenous groups in Namibia, and could only speak Khoekhoegab, 



 
 

33 
 

Oshiwambo and Herero language. Thus, they were communicating through the translators. 

These technical words pose problems for translators although they can be translated 

independently. 

The law can be confusing and scary at the same time, especially when the legal 

terminologies are technically complex. Much of the reason behind the confusion is the 

difference between how we use certain words like ‘What is your stand on this case’, 

‘charged and fined’. These words can be used colloquially but in the court of law mean 

something different. The lay person experience difficulties to comprehend the legal terms 

and most often used by the layman incorrectly during the court proceeding. 

4.2. Syntactic features  

Syntactic errors in word order and concord agreement and excessive use of prepositional 

phrases. Various sentences are analysed according. The focus is more given to concord 

agreement, word order and excessive use of prepositional phrases. The sentences 

construction of the sentences below which the prosecutor and the magistrate used are 

quite incorrect, they utter the English sentences the way the wish which could create a 

different perspective to the lay people and the witnesses. 

P: The magistrate is no more living here; she is going to be somewhere else. 

M: You must come to court on time, if you have a funeral or whatever you have you must 

inform the court on time, if you don’t, your bail money will be forfeited and you will remain 

in custody. 

 

 Another example from extract 1‘I did what? Instead of ‘What did I say?’ 

The above extracts illustrate the complexity of dealing with language in the courts of law in 

which there is  the language  used in the courtroom  does not follow linguistic features of 

concord agreement , the magistrate use a direct translation from his mother  tongue ,as  a 

result ,the witness  are forced to code-switch in order to be able to proceed with their 

presentation of evidence.  Instance such of this kind require an intervention of the forensic 

linguistics to assist the legal official in order to construct the sentence in English properly 

because this may results into the accused person or a witness to give an incorrect answer 

The magistrate should take into cognition that the sentences in English have a different 

meaning in other language e.g. “I did what? Means “What have I done in Oshiwambo”. 



 
 

34 
 

During the courtroom proceeding of that specific the magistrate meant to ask the accused 

person to repeat what she said. 

The data also reveals that the legal official apply excessive use of prepositional phrase 

during the court proceedings. 

      ‘Where is the other witness? You can stand up; the matter is remanded to next year.’ 

This statement indicated that the criminals in court are sometimes not allocated time to 

respond, they are bombarded with a lot of information at once and this could lead the 

accused person to consent to something they could hardly comprehend. 

The use of the word ‘tate’ and ‘meme’ which are Oshiwambo dialect by the state prosecutor 

when referring to the witness who are not Oshiwambo speaking is unacceptable, since the 

official medium of instruction in the courtroom is English.  

Data collected also shows that there is an excessive use of prepositional phrases   and poor 

usage of conjunctions by courtroom interlocutors. Prepositional phrases are formed by a 

preposition as a headword and a noun phrase. When excessively used in the courtroom, they 

have an effect of further complicating the syntax of a sentence.‘You must come to court on 

time, if you have a funeral or whatever you have, you must inform the court on time, if you 

don’t, your bail money will be forfeited and you will remain in custody.’ 

Examples of Frequency use of ‘any’ and ‘must ‘extracted from an extract above:  ‘Any charges 

against you’ 

‘If anyone of you fail to appear on that day’ 

‘Is there anything that you would to say? 

 ‘you must come to court on time’ 

‘you must stand up’ 

‘you must inform the court on time,’ 

Any is used in two ways , first it is used usually in negatives or questions or used instead of 

‘some’ for saying or asking whether there is a small amount of something or a small number 

of people or things. The use of ‘any ‘is also remarkable. Any means no matter which.   

https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/used
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/instead
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/saying
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/ask_1
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/small_1
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/small_1
https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/people_1


 
 

35 
 

It indicates that no item of the class is left out and therefore all items are considered. The 

importance of the accused person and witness to comprehend the meaning of any is crucial, 

because they might not take it into consideration because of simplicity but deeper meaning. 

Thus, might results to the accused person not to appear in court or to continue commit 

crime.  

‘Any’ is also used when it is not important to say which person or a thing that you are 

referring to, because what you are saying applies to everyone or everything. 

The modal verb ‘must’ is used in expressions of obligation and necessity. It also used to 

emphasise when we want to say that it is necessary or very important that something 

happens in the present or future. The use of ‘must’ infinitives to talk about obligation, things 

that are necessary to do, or to give advice about things that are a good idea to do. The 

accused person is obligated to obey what the magistrate is passing on to him/her. A lay 

person without English language background will not consider it as an obligatory due to 

poor understanding of English language. Using the modal verb in the courtroom also have a 

sense of power relation, as the magistrate obligate the accused person to do what he is told 

without fail. 

A prepositional phrase can string out one after another, and she further claimed that 

prepositional.  There is evidence from the data collected that complainants and witnesses, 

often use prepositional phrases when recounting their experiences. Apart from witnesses, 

court officials, notably magistrates and public prosecutors, demand   full explanations and to 

make intense narratives of theft encounters. As a result, the theft encounters strived to 

provide sufficient and accurate information by uttering a lengthy statement which could 

hinder the justice to take place. Prepositional phrases consist of a preposition and the words 

which follow it (a complement) 

 These prepositional phrases have lasting effects on the views of court officials about the 

deeds and acts under consideration 

a) You must come to court on time, if you have a funeral or whatever you have you must 

inform the court on time, if you don’t, your bail money will be forfeited and you will 

remain in custody. 



 
 

36 
 

 

The paragraph above contains a lot of prepositional phrases used as follows; 

- to court (preposition + noun phrase) 

- on time- (preposition + noun phrase) 

- in custody (preposition + noun phrase) 

b) She was arrested while she was on bail. I refused because she was already in custody  

The accused person to be put on warning as the bail money was forfeited. This matter be 

remanded until the 8th February. The accused person will remain in the custody. 

There is a string of prepositional phrase as well as the repetition of some prepositional noun 

phrase e.g   

- She was already in custody ((preposition + noun phrase) 

 
- The accused person to be put on warning ((preposition + noun phrase) 

 
- This matter be remanded until the 8thFebruary (preposition+ adverb). 

- The accused person will remain in the custody. (preposition + noun phrase) 

 

Although a preposition is still the head word in a prepositional phrase, it must be 

accompanied by another element- or prepositional complement - if the phrase is to be 

complete. Most typically, the prepositional complement will be a noun phrase. 

c)  The complainant was not in the region ,she was not in Windhoek as she is  not staying in   

Windhoek, she has also indicated that she does not have transport money I inform him to  

borrow money ,he said  he does  not have transport money or anyone to borrow money 

from. The case will be remanded to next year. 

Example of noun prepositional phrase used; 

- ‘The case will be remanded to next year.’ (preposition + adverbial phrase) 

- ‘The complainant was in the region. (preposition + noun phrase) 

- ‘she was not in Windhoek in Windhoek’. (preposition + noun phrase) 

 - ‘She is not staying in   Windhoek, (preposition + noun phrase) 

 - I inform him to borrow money, (preposition + verb phrase) 



 
 

37 
 

- ‘anyone to borrow money from’ (. (preposition + noun phrase)  

 - to borrow money from’ (noun +preposition)  

There is a cumbersome string of noun prepositional phrases in one sentence which make 

the sentence verbose and irregular. The excessive use of prepositional phrase may impede 

the comprehension of the whole statement. As most of the theft and burglary offenders are 

ordinary lay people from the community without any background knowledge of English and 

the only means of understanding English was through the interpreter in order hear what is 

being said in the courtroom. Thus, the forensic linguist should then analyse the language 

spoken in the courtroom in order to identify the words used with the possibility of resulting 

into miscommunication. 

Extract 2 

M: Accused where were you on 14 of December? You did not appear in court on time. 

Why did not come on time? the court require a full explanation. 

A: I did 

M: I did what? 

 Why didn’t you make it on time? Because if you don’t give proper explanation your bail will 

be forfeited. 

A: I went to the funeral and the car broke down. 

M: Where is the proof that the car has broken down? 

M: You were supposed to go to Botswana on the 27 Dec your passport does not have that 

show it 

M: I do what? 

M: You must come to court on time, if you have a funeral or something, you must inform the 

court. If you fail to be on court on time, the warrant of arrest will be issued to you and your 

bail will be forfeited. 

 

The above examples show extensive redundancy, repetition and re-wording that is 

characteristic of courtroom discourse used by court officials.  

Repetition - You must come to court on time 



 
 

38 
 

                       If you fail to be on court on time 

This is a clear indication that, forensic linguists’ professional opinions are required, in all 

these areas thus concretising the expertise of forensic linguistics in resolving or amending 

complicated issues in the purview of the law where language is implicated. 

Formal connections between sentences in the above extracts are achieved by the use of 

logical connectors such as ‘if, ‘which mark various logical relationships between sentences.  

 These local connectors, however, make the sentences unnecessarily long for the ordinary 

person and therefore more difficult to understand. According to Stubbs (1996), most 

sentences in English have the main verb early, followed (immediately) by qualifying clauses.  

Sentences like the above which violate this order are more difficult to understand. 

i. All the two of your 

ii. yeh? 

iii. What is your name meme? 

iv. Where is the other witness? You can stand up, the matter is remanded to next year 

v. Give your full name, stand up, all of you, 

The word order used, the language used in the courtroom might cause confusion to the 

interpreter and witness due to the sentence construction. This might results to the 

confusion and misinterpretation of context. 

Examples below is drawn from the very first extract, help illustrate the misappropriate use 

of conjunctions in cases of alleged theft. 

‘Thus, your worship, receive this application case to be remanded to April. The complainant on that 

day he was not being ready and he is Ausekar, he does not have money ,he indicated, he said he does 

not transport money, I told him that he must  apply  for  transport money or borrow money ,but he 

said he does not have anyone to borrow money. Thus, the witness could not be present in the court 

today.’ 

Apart from this sentence above being a compound - complex sentence, the syntactic 

structure of this sentence is completely incorrect, the is no conjunction used to join 

sentences together, wrong word order and incorrect prepositional phrase used. 

The process is prolonged by the courtroom routine whereby the prosecutor must announce 

the next accused person, enter the information into system while the accused person is 



 
 

39 
 

standing and hand over the file to the police officer who will hand it over to the magistrate. 

The magistrate then again has to repeat the same process by entering the information into 

the system, the gap is about 15 to 20 minutes after, to proceed to the next case. The court 

proceedings are quite exhausting for the lay person sitting in the gallery including the 

witnesses. 

Offering suggestions on how forensic linguistics can be used to avoid miscommunication 

during the court proceedings. Miscommunications in the courtroom occurs as the results of   

various contributing factors which power relation linguistic features are among many, which 

may impede the lay person to misinterpret the content during the court proceeding most 

especially during cross - questioning. 

The examples below show extensive redundancy, repetition and re-wording that is 

characteristic of courtroom discourse used by court officials in cases of alleged theft. 

            “We don’t have dates now, the magistrate is no longer staying   here,” 

           “From where you are coming tate?” 

Questioning has often been the focus of institutional legal discourse research across the 

domains of police interviews and courtroom interaction both in terms of the institutional 

participants and the lay respondents for example. Drew et al mention that questioning of 

the laymen, Archer 2005; Newbury and Johnson 2006; Tracy and Parks 2012) 

 An analysis of these contribution types and subtypes was done with the aim of 

characterising the power unevenness among the participants in courtroom interaction as 

revealed by the questioning and conversational   strategies the participants employ to 

achieve their ends. To achieve these objectives, the present study adopted the transcription 

techniques developed by Jefferson (cited in Atkinson & Heritage, 1984).For example, the 

public prosecutor addresses the magistrate as ‘’your worship’’ and they give their 

submissions in a humble way with words like ‘’respectfully’, ‘’ I humbly’’ as can be seen in 

the table above and this is due to the position the magistrate occupies, the prosecutor on 

the other hand addresses one another ‘’my learned senior colleagues and my learned junior 

colleague” as the case may be. 

 



 
 

40 
 

An analysis of these contribution types and subtypes was done with the aim of 

characterising the power asymmetry among the participants in courtroom interaction as 

revealed by the questioning and conversational strategies the participants employ to 

achieve their ends. To achieve these objectives, extract below shows that only the 

magistrate has the power to decide the verdict. 

 

Magistrate: You are charged for theft and sentences to pay the fine of 1000.00 or 9 nine 

months of imprisonment. The accused is sentence to 1000 or 9months in prison (final). 

 

In addition, another example of power relation is when the prosecutor will announce, for 

example the next case: Theft of goods of the value 800 Namibian dollars 

The state prosecutor, who a male person speaking with the very low voice which lacks 

authority. He introduced the case by calling the suspect to stand in the dock and the 

prosecutor resume the court hearing by reading the details out for court hearing. 

The prosecutor will only proceed with court proceeding provided that the magistrate 

authorises him/her to do so. The Magistrate will then authorize him to proceed.  For 

instance, ’You may now proceed’ in the word ‘proceed ‘is symbolic of the magistrate’s 

influence in court. It shows his/ her ability to direct the talk by encouraging as she is 

requiring it. Thereafter the court will respond: ‘As y worship pleases’.  

 

Power is the ability of an individual or a group