An attempt to approach the case texts in the context of discourse analysis: Yassıada case sample

In this study, it is argued that in certain contexts, similar discourses are produced around certain themes, and that individuals use similar structures to produce similar meanings. In this direction, the courtroom discourse, which is an institutional discourse, is suitable to be examined in terms of the "discourses" made by individuals according to their positions in a certain context. In this context, it is thought that the features of the language used by the defendants and witnesses in courtroom discourse in terms of vocabulary, structure and expression can be determined on the basis of discourse analysis. The aim of the study; in general terms, it is to show the language preferences of individuals according to their position in a certain context, around a theme. Specifically, in this study, it is aimed to describe the discourse of the defendant and the witness in the courtroom discourse. In this direction, a plan has been designed to examine the statements of the defendant and witnesses at the level of vocabulary, syntax and utterance from every angle and in a holistic way. In the study, the fields of rhetoric, pragmatics and conversation analysis were used on the basis of discourse analysis. In addition, where necessary, some word choices, language structures, expressions are shown with percentages and frequencies. In the study, three case texts selected from the trial records of the "Yassıada Cases" published by the Grand National Assembly of Turkey were examined. The review section has been prepared for each case under three main headings: "General Characteristics", "Grammatical Analysis / Grammatical Features" and "Rhetorical Analysis / Discursive Features". With the analysis carried out in three stages, the choice of words, language structures and expressions used by the defendant and the witnesses were tried to be determined.