Analyzing language in high-profile judicial verdicts of Pakistan: A corpus-forensic perspective

Abstract

Law is language. It is not solely language, since it is a social institution manifested also in non-linguistic ways, but is profoundly linguistic institution (Gibbons, 2003). Surprisingly enough, little research has examined the use of complex language during these culturally significant trial outcomes especially in the South-Asian context. The analysis of language in judicial verdicts has become a substantial area of inquiry within forensic linguistics and discourse studies, especially where legal decisions coalesce with political interplay. Therefore, the language of verdicts, provides theoretical understanding into how legal institutions express neutrality, assert legitimacy and authority, and represent political participants. Pakistan, having a socio-politically charged context, high-profile judicial verdicts often carry ideological significance and have been a source of sparking immense interest in public. This has created a need for scholarly work that examines judicial discourse through corpus-based, forensic, and critical lenses. The study employs Critical discourse analysis (CDA), Corpus Linguistics (CL) and Appraisal Framework methods for the exploration of hidden linguistics elements in the significant judicial verdicts of Panama Papers Scandal (2017) and Cypher Case (2024), with employment of corpus-assisted tools, Voyant and UAM corpus tool.