The Pragmatics of Defendants’ Refusal Strategies in Saudi Courtroom Discourse

This study investigates the refusal strategies employed by defendants in Saudi judicial discourse, drawing upon a corpus of official legal rulings issued by the Saudi Ministry of Justice. While previous pragmatic research has explored refusal strategies in educational and social contexts, little att...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Corpus pragmatics : international journal of corpus linguistics and pragmatics Vol. 10; no. 1
Main Authors: Alshammari, Bunder Sebail, Karam, Khaled Mostafa, Eissa, Mohamed
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Cham Springer International Publishing 19.11.2025
Subjects:
Computational Linguistics
Computer Appl. in Arts and Humanities
Linguistics
Original Paper
Pragmatics
Semantics
Social Sciences
Speech acts
Saudi legal system
Judicial discourse
Courtroom interaction
Refusal strategies
Pragmatics
ISSN:2509-9507, 2509-9515
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study investigates the refusal strategies employed by defendants in Saudi judicial discourse, drawing upon a corpus of official legal rulings issued by the Saudi Ministry of Justice. While previous pragmatic research has explored refusal strategies in educational and social contexts, little attention has been paid to their occurrence within legal settings, particularly in Arabic courtroom discourse. This study fills that gap by examining defendants’ responses to legal allegations through the lens of speech act theory and Beebe et al.’s (in: Scarcella, Andersen, Krashen (eds) Developing communicative competence in a second language, Newbury House, New York, pp 55–73, 1990) taxonomy of refusal strategies. A qualitative-quantitative analysis was conducted to categorize responses into direct performative, non-performative, and indirect strategies. The findings reveal that non-performative direct refusals were the most prevalent, followed by indirect strategies involving justification and rationalization. Performative refusals using explicit expressions were rare but significant in intent-driven contexts. This study contributes to legal pragmatics by demonstrating how defendants manage face-threatening acts through culturally and situationally adapted strategies. It highlights the role of performativity in legal discourse, where refusal operates as both a denial and a persuasive defense strategy. This underscores the importance of contextualized speech act analysis in judicial communication, offering implications for forensic linguistics, legal interpretation, and cross-cultural pragmatics.
ISSN:2509-9507
2509-9515
DOI:10.1007/s41701-025-00217-1