The construction of women's identity in a court decision on domestic violence

Abstract

In this paper we propose to demonstrate the analytical and critical potential of Discourse Studies for understanding identity constructs in a judicial decision on domestic violence. Taking as reference the concept of ideology in the sociocognitive framework (Van Dijk, 1995), that allows linking ideology and discourse, and using enunciative-pragmatic analytical categories, we will analyse certain aspects of a judicial decision, which demonstrate how the discourse structures favour a stigmatising and blaming representation of the woman victim of domestic violence and the consequent excuse and legitimisation of violence against her. The object of analysis will be a decision of the Court of Appeal of Porto, Portugal, issued on October 11, 2017, concerning a domestic violence lawsuit, in which the adultery of the assaulted woman is an argument for excusing the violence exerted by the aggressors. To implement our study, we will detach and analyse the linguistic means used to represent the actors involved; the predications attributed to them and the verbal processes in which they participate (Reisigl & Wodak, 2009). We will also detach and analyse instances of doxa invocation and evidentiality, occurrences of strong evaluative modality and mechanisms of illocutionary reinforcement, as strategies for argumentation and legitimisation.