Description and analysis of ideological structures in family court discourse, divorce demanding women¸ based on Van Dijk (2006)

According to the important role of linguistic factors in reproducing social power and controlling the mind of the subjects by redistribution of ideologies, discovering the underlying levels of surface aspects related to the structural organization of the discourse can lead to the appearance of a new insight in this field. Knowing language through its discourse is an appropriate instrument for a realistic analysis of a group’s minds and ideologies. To succeed in all his discourses and to conquer the opposite, Man not only tries to hide his ideologies behind the words and linguistic elements, but also he makes his words ideological to satisfy the audiences. According to vandijk theory "Discourse- knowledge- Society" (2006), each human being, in order to reach the goal of persuasion of the audience, tries to magnify and emphasize on his own positive actions and minimize the opposing party's good attributes. And parallel to this efforts, he tries to mitigate negative qualities of himself and the other party's positive features. Strategies used to this end can be strategies such as actor description, categorization, comparison, euphemism, disclaimers, evidenltiality, example/illustration, generalization, number game, hyperbole, irony, populism, norm expression, national self-glorification, negative other representation, metaphor, implication, presupposition, lexicalization, victimization, vagueness, positive self-presentation, polarization/ us – them categorization,  burden, and authority. To achieve these four goals (magnifying his own positive actions and opposing party's negative attributes. mitigating negative qualities of himself and the positive features of the other party) which mentioned in ideological square vandijk (2006). Every human uses several linguistic strategies. Whit these linguistic strategies they enforce their message in order to convey the audience. Strategies that are used to reach above mentioned four goals can be strategies as: Actor description, Categorization, Comparison, Euphemism, Disclaimers, Evidenltiality, Example/Illustration, Generalization, Number game, Hyperbole, Irony, Populism, Norm expression, National self-glorification, Negative other representation, Metaphor, Implication, presupposition, Lexicalization, Victimization, Vagueness, Positive self-presentation, Polarization/ Us – them categorization,  Burden and Authority.
  This research aims to analyze divorce demanding woman’s discourse in family court rooms based on vandijk’s discourse - knowledge - society theory (2006). To do this, we attended 20 meetings of the General Court and family counseling centers of Zahedan- Iran and recorded the divorce demanding women’s statements. With regards to the prohibition of the use of audio and video equipment or any kind of electronic devices in the court, only a written record of women's statements has been collected.
This research studies the ways women employ to speak ideologically and to satisfy the judge to reach their goals. For this study, divorce demanding women's discourse were studied at the level of the word, local semantics, general semantics, syntax, and ultimately the level of rhetoric. In the study of the level of syntax, the following sections have been considered, negative constructs and emphasized structures.
 The results show that in order to convince the judge in the court, women like other human beings try to use all linguistic strategies such as syntactic¸ semantic¸ rhetoric and lexical to magnify their own accepted attributes and to mitigate their husbands and their relatives’ bad attributes. In this way their highest effort is to magnify their husbands’ bad and negative actions. They rarely speak about their own negative and bad behaviors¸ as well as their husbands’ positive actions. This is the way that women have chosen to express themselves and to convince the audience, so that the judge will vote in favor of this persuasion.