Oath in Oromia Courtrooms: A Critical Discourse Analysis

Abstract

This article analyzes the oath currently in use in the Oromia courtrooms. The analysis mainly aims at examining the oath from the language as a social practice view point which depicts what users do with their language, and what language use does for its users. Its specific objectives include describing the linguistic devices the oath employs, exploring the discursive strategies it comprises, and explaining the nexus between oath, ideology and power in the attempt to boost the presentation of facts about cases. To attain these objectives, descriptive-interpretive design and qualitative methods which are social constructivism in orientation were employed to collect and analyze oath used in the study. Non-participant observation was the sole instrument employed to attend and record the oath judges prescribed to witnesses before the specific provision of testimony about the cases they saw or heard. The data recorded were changed into written Afaan Oromoo, translated into the English language and analyzed thematically. Fairclough’s (1992) model of discourse analysis was used in the analysis. The findings show that abstract and concrete words, antonyms, repetitions, pronouns, conjunctions, parallel expressions, metaphors and speech acts (promising and self-cursing) are the dominant linguistic devices used in the oath. The main discursive strategies employed in the oath include authoring, associating, intensifying, self-mentioning and total submission. The devices and strategies used in the oath aims at impacting the mental spaces of witnesses by magnifying the negative consequences of perjury crime supposed to be happened on their livelihood source, offspring, dwelling and peace. They try to make witnesses accountable for the information they provide about cases. They also attached the values of telling truth and lie to the customary spiritual ideology and authority to which the witnesses are socialized their culture to provide truthful testimony.