A Thematic Analysis of Lexical Polarity within the Jargons of Legal Drafting in Pakistan

Abstract

This present research aims to analyse the lexical polarity within the typical jargons of legal drafting in Pakistan using Clark and Braun’s (2016) thematic analysis and triangulation of data through interview and observation. The findings suggest the presence of social structures, politeness, modality, legal disparity, contradiction, and metaphorical language in legal judgments, exemplified through statements within the legal discourse. In cases reported by female litigants, lexical choices revealed dehumanizing experiences for females, with explicit details exposing their physicality. The judgments highlighted societal taboos and implications surrounding justice for rape victims, often defaming the victim instead of the perpetrator. Modality markers demonstrated the institutional power in judicial discourse. Legal disparity and contradictions were observed between shariah law and the norms of the Pakistan penal code, reflecting patriarchal superiority in judgments. Judges acknowledged the specialized jargon of legal language, emphasizing its necessity for accurate judgments. Despite the complexity, efforts were made to keep the language decipherable for laymen, ensuring comprehension without legal expertise. Lexical polarity, as explained by judges, revealed contextual variations in meaning between legal and common English.