<![CDATA[This study examines presuppositions embedded in investigators’ questions in a police interview concerning a child sexual abuse case. Using a qualitative descriptive approach within forensic linguistics, the study analyzed one official police interview report (Berita Acara Pemeriksaan [BAP]), comprising 19 investigator questions and 19 corresponding witness responses. Data were analyzed using Yule’s (1996) presupposition theory by identifying and classifying presupposition triggers. The findings identified four types: existential, structural, lexical, and factive. Structural presupposition was dominant, accounting for 9 of 19 occurrences (47.37%), followed by existential (26.32%), lexical (15.79%), and factive (10.53%). Investigators predominantly used WH-question constructions that presented aspects of the alleged event, participants, chronology, and circumstances as given. Non-factive and counterfactual presuppositions were not identified based on Yule’s (1996) criteria. The findings demonstrate that presupposition analysis reveals how linguistic structures organize and frame information in police interview questions and contribute to legal narrative construction. The study highlights the importance of neutral question formulation to minimize unnecessary linguistic assumptions and support fair and reliable investigations involving vulnerable witnesses.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
