Cover not available

Article In: Pragmatics: Online-First Articles

Interrogation as domination

A forensic pragmatics inquiry of questioning strategies and Gricean violations in Philippine bilingual courtroom interactions

 | Pampanga State University
ORCiD logo with link | Central Luzon State University
This content is being prepared for publication; it may be subject to changes.
Abstract
This study examines the question types, witness responses, and Gricean maxim violations in Filipino and English courtrooms and analyzes how language mediates legal power and evidentiary control. Both languages employ open-ended questions in direct examination and closed-ended ones in cross-examination. Filipino transcripts exhibit five hybrid question forms absent in English, reflecting heightened institutional asymmetry, especially in courts with no interpreters. These structures exacerbate power asymmetry between the witness and interrogator. Witness responses include clarification, compliance, and two newly identified types: complete and incomplete. The maxim of quantity is most frequently violated in both languages, through open-ended questions, leading to overinformative responses. Violations of manner, relevance, and quality reflect cognitive strain and institutional pressure. Findings call for a forensic pragmatics lens to examine how courtroom discourse operates under institutional constraints and attest that the courtroom is not a neutral vehicle for truth but a discursive battleground that reflects linguistic asymmetries and institutional power.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
    • 1.1Theoretical framework
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Research design
    • 2.2The corpus
    • 2.3Data analysis technique
    • 2.4Ethical concerns
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Types of questions in Filipino and English
      • 3.1.1Open-ended questions
      • 3.1.2Close-ended yes/no questions
      • 3.1.3And-prefaced questions
      • 3.1.4Difference between English and Filipino question types
    • 3.2Types of responses in Filipino and English
      • 3.2.1Complete responses
      • 3.2.2Compliance responses
      • 3.2.3Responses that give clarification
    • 3.3Violations of maxims of conversation
      • 3.3.1Violation of the maxim of quantity
      • 3.3.2Violation of the maxim of manner
      • 3.3.3Violation of the maxim of relation
      • 3.3.4Violation of the maxim of quality
    • 3.4Question Types, witness responses, and Gricean violation in Philippine courtrooms
  • 4.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgments
  • Author queries
  • References
References (42)
References
Aldosari, Bader Nasser. 2024. “Questioning Strategies in Courtrooms.” World Journal of English Language 14 (2): 376–387. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Andrews, Samantha J., Michael E. Lamb, and Thomas D. Lyon. 2015. “Question Types, Responsiveness and Self-Contradictions When Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys Question Alleged Victims of Child Sexual Abuse.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 29 (2): 253–261. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ary, Donald, Lucy Jacobs, and Asghar Razavieh. 2002. Introduction to Research. 6th ed. Wadsworth.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ayunon, Chirbet. 2018. “Gricean Maxims Revisited in FB Conversation Posts: Its Pedagogical Implications.” TESOL International Journal 13 (4): 82–95.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barth, Richard P. 2015. “Commentary on the Report of the APSAC Task Force on Evidence-Based Service Planning Guidelines for Child Welfare.” Child Maltreatment 20 (1): 17–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beikian, Ali. 2024. “A Critical Analysis of Mirza Reza Kermani’s Interrogation through Grice’s Conversational Maxims with the Assistance of Artificial Intelligence (AI).” Critical Applied Linguistics Studies 1 (1): 161–182.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Catoto, Jerson S. 2017. “On Courtroom Questioning: A Forensic Linguistic Analysis.” IOSR Journal of Humanities and Social Science 11 (8): 65–97.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ceballos, Crystel T., and Rowena V. Sosas. 2018. “On Court Proceedings: A Forensic Linguistic Analysis on Maxim Violation.” Journal of Nusantara Studies (JONUS) 3 (2): 17–31. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and Power in Court: A Linguistic Analysis of the OJ Simpson Trial. 1st ed. Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulthard, Malcolm, and Alison Johnson. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. 1st ed. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
, eds. 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Drew, Paul, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 1997. “Institutional Dialogue.” Discourse as Social Interaction 21: 92–118.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Freedman, Daniel X. 1988. “The Meaning of Full Disclosure: Collegial Trust in Science.” Archives of General Psychiatry 45 (7): 689–691. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grice, Herbert Paul. 1975. “Logic and Conversation.” In Syntax and Semantics, edited by Peter Cole, and Jerry L. Morgan. Academic Press 31: 41–58.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heffer, Chris. 2005. The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heritage, John, and Marja-Leena Sorjonen. 1994. “Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design.” Language in Society 23 (1): 1–29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hutcheson, Graeme D., James S. Baxter, Karen Telfer, and David Warden. 1995. “Child Witness Statement Quality: Question Type and Errors of Omission.” Law and Human Behavior 19 (6): 631–648. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Jimenez, Raquel R., and Rachelle Ballesteros-Lintao. 2020. “A Norm-Based Analysis of Court Interpretation in Selected Philippine Criminal Cases.” Asian Journal of English Language Studies (AJELS) 81: 127–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khoyi, Amin Mohammadzadegan, and Behnam, Biook. 2014. “Discourse of Law: Analysis of Cooperative Principles and Speech Acts in Iranian Law Courts.” Asian Journal of Education and e-Learning 2 (4): 312–322.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lubis, Y. Basri Saktyus, T. Silvana Sinar, and Masdiana Lubis. 2023. “Question and Respond Types in Courtroom: A Forensic Linguistics Analysis.” LingPoet: Journal of Linguistics and Literary Research 4 (2): 127–138.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madrunio, Marilu R. 2013. “The Interrogator and the Interrogated: The Questioning Process in Philippine Courtroom Discourse.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics 431: 43–60.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Madrunio, Marilu R., and Isabel Pefianco Martin. 2023. Forensic Linguistics in the Philippines: Origins, Developments, and Directions. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Martin, Isabel P. 2012. “Expanding the Role of Philippine Languages in the Legal System: The Dim Prospects.” Asian Perspectives in the Arts and Humanities 2 (1): 1–14. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Matsumoto, Kazuko. 1999. “And-Prefaced Questions in Institutional Discourse.” Linguistics 37 (2): 251–74. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Milne, Rebecca, Isabel C. H. Clare, and Ray Bull. 1999. “Using the Cognitive Interview with Adults with Mild Learning Disabilities.” Psychology, Crime and Law 5 (1–2): 81–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oxburgh, Gavin E., Trond Myklebust, and Tim Grant. 2010. “The Question of Question Types in Police Interviews: A Review of the Literature from a Psychological and Linguistic Perspective.” International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 17 (1): 45–66. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Powell, Richard. 2018. “Language Planning and Legal Systems.” Handbook of Communication in the Legal Sphere, edited by Jacqueline Visconti, 83–108. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prasetyo, Dito, Ahmad Bukhori Muslim, and Ernie D. A. Imperiani. 2018. “I Have Never Touched It: Flouting and Violation of Maxims in a Court Testimony.” Passage 6 (2): 32–42.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ravago, Joan C., John Arvin V. De Roxas, Joel M. Torres, Daisy O. Casipit, and Mercedita M. Reyes. 2024. “Cross-Cultural Gender-Based Investigation of Filipino and Chinese Facebook Users’ Disagreement Strategies.” Qubahan Academic Journal 4 (2): 297–323. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rigney, Azucena C. 1999. “Questioning in Interpreted Testimony.” Forensic Linguistics 6 (1): 83–108. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rushing, Don G., and Christopher Hendricks. 2020. “Direct and Cross Examination: The Art of Asking Questions.” Daily Journal Corporation, November 25. [URL]
Seuren, Lucas M. 2019. “Questioning in Court: The Construction of Direct Examinations.” Discourse Studies 21 (3): 340–357. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Seyari, Abdoreza, and Mohamad Sadegh Bagheri. 2020. “Towards Teaching Forensic Linguistics: An Iranian Perspective.” Journal of Studies in Learning and Teaching English 9 (2): 101–123.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Siregar, Ade Fitriani, Sumarsi and Murni, Sri Minda. 2021. “Conversational Maxims of Operation Targets in Police Investigative Interviews.” In 6th Annual International Seminar on Transformative Education and Educational Leadership (AISTEEL 2021) Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research 5911, 165–172. Atlantis Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Smith, Kevin. 2024. “Twenty-Five Years of Achieving Best Evidence: Investigative Interviews with Victims and Witnesses in England and Wales.” International Journal of Police Science & Management 26 (4): 421–428. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Snook, Brent, Kirk Luther, Heather Quinlan, and Rebecca Milne. 2012. “Let’em Talk! A Field Study of Police Questioning Practices of Suspects and Accused Persons.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 39 (10): 1328–1339. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tajabadi, Azar, Hamidreza Dowlatabadi, and Ehsan Mehri. 2014. “Grice’s Cooperative Maxims in Oral Arguments: The Case of Dispute Settlement Councils in Iran.” Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences 981: 1859–1865. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Udina, Natalia. 2017. “Forensic Linguistics Implications for Legal Education: Creating the E-Textbook on Language and Law.” Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences 2371: 1337–1340. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Villanueva, Virna, and Marilu R. Madrunio. 2016. “Examining the Language in the Courtroom Interrogation of Vulnerable and Non-Vulnerable Witnesses.” Philippine Journal of Linguistics 471: 28–45.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Zajac, Rachel, and Paula Cannan. 2009. “Cross-Examination of Sexual Assault Complainants: A Developmental Comparison.” Psychiatry, Psychology and Law 161: 36–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue