<![CDATA[Background: Courtroom interaction in Indonesia constitutes an institutionally regulated speech event in which legal authority is enacted through turn allocation, questioning, repair, ratification, and pragmatic control rather than through written procedure alone. Objective: This study examines how turn-taking practices, institutional authority, and pragmatic force organize participation in Indonesian courtroom interaction. Method: This study applies a qualitative corpus-assisted design combining ethnography of communication, conversation analysis, institutional discourse analysis, and legal pragmatics to coded public courtroom transcripts, audio-visual references, and contextual judicial documents. Results: Sequential analysis shows that judicial openings and speaker selection dominate courtroom interaction, indicating that participation is procedurally activated before it becomes legally meaningful. Authority analysis demonstrates that judges exercise power through procedural initiation, floor licensing, participation repair, and institutional ratification rather than only through explicit argumentative control. Pragmatic analysis reveals that directive framing, information elicitation, clarification, minimal confirmation, and record-oriented uptake transform courtroom speech into institutional action. Implication: This study clarifies how procedural fairness depends not only on formal rights but also on interactional access, sequencing, and recognition. Novelty: This study contributes a turn-level model of Indonesian courtroom discourse that integrates speech-event structure, institutional authority, and pragmatic force within one analytically traceable framework.]]>
Copyrights © 2026
