<![CDATA[Courtroom communication plays a crucial role in the judicial process because legal facts are constructed through interactions among judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and witnesses. Question–answer exchanges in criminal trials are not merely information-seeking activities but also involve pragmatic strategies, speech acts, and conversational principles that influence the interpretation of testimony. This study aimed to analyze question types, speech acts, and violations of conversational maxims in courtroom question–answer exchanges at the Denpasar District Court. This research employed a descriptive qualitative approach with a case study design. Data were obtained from the transcript of a criminal corruption trial involving witness examinations and were analyzed using Gibbons’ courtroom question typology, Searle’s speech act theory, and Grice’s Cooperative Principle. The findings revealed that courtroom questioning was dominated by restrictive question forms, particularly wh-questions and yes/no questions, which functioned to control and structure witness testimony. The analysis also showed that directives were the dominant speech acts performed by questioning parties, while witnesses primarily produced assertive acts. Furthermore, violations and non-observance of conversational maxims occurred through limited responses, expressions of uncertainty, hedging, and knowledge disclaimers, which generated specific pragmatic implications in courtroom interactions. This study concluded that courtroom discourse represented a complex interaction among linguistic structures, institutional authority, and pragmatic strategies. The findings contributed to forensic linguistics by providing an integrated understanding of how questions, speech acts, and conversational principles shaped communication in Indonesian criminal trials.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
