Judicial Complex Strategies in Hungarian Courtroom Interrogation

Open access

Abstract

Taking into consideration the characteristics of the Hungarian culture, language and legal system, this paper aims to study complex interrogation strategies used by Hungarian judges. This research is based on my corpus consisting of 10 Hungarian criminal trials recorded by a voice recorder, and written notes from direct observations. The analysis has a complex nature, since it relies on the results of different scientific disciplines: (1) linguistics – the main goal is to present effective interrogation strategies (2) law – it is crucial to start the research with understanding the function of the discourse type being analysed: the question strategies are intrinsically connected to the institutional role and the legal system by nature, and (3) psychology has also a great role in the investigation of interrogation in two main aspects: the testimony is based on memories and interrogation has an interpersonal part which should not be omitted in discovering the effective question strategies. This research offers rare data related to courtroom interrogation strategies and the results may also have a significant role in legal practice.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Archer Dawn. 2011. Cross-examining lawyers facework and the adversarial courtroom. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3216-3230.

  • Árvay Anett. 2003. A manipuláció és a meggyőzés pragmatikája a magyar reklámszövegekben [The pragmatics of manipulation and conviction in Hungarian commercials]. In Németh T. Enikő – Bibok Károly (Eds.) Általános Nyelvészeti Tanulmányok XX. Tanulmányok a pragmatika köréből. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó. 11–35.

  • Bednarek Grazyna Anna (2014) Polish vs. American Courtroom Discourse. Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedures of Witness Examination in Criminal Trials. New York Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Bolinger Dwight L. 1957. Interrogative Structures of American English: The Direct Question. Alabama: University of Alabama Press

  • Bócz Endre (2008) Kriminalisztika a tárgyalóteremben [Criminalistics in the courtroom]. Budapest Magyar Közlöny Lap- és Könyvkiadó.

  • Bócz Endre and Finszter Géza. 2008. Kriminalisztika joghallgatóknak [Criminalistics for law students]. Budapest: Magyar Közlöny Lap- és Könyvkiadó.

  • Catoto Jerson. 2017. On courtroom Questioning: A Forensic Linguistic Analysis. Journal of Humanities and Social Science 22(11): 65-97.

  • Edenborough Robert. 2002. Effective Interviewing: A Handbook of Skills and Techniques (2nd edition). London: Kogan Page.

  • Farkas Ákos and Róth Erika. 2004. A büntetőeljárás [Criminal procedure]. Budapest: CompLex Kiadó.

  • Gálig Péter. 2011. A kihallgatás etikája és taktikája [The ethics and tactics of interrogation]. [http://www.jogiforum.hu/publikaciok/451]

  • Groenendijk Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1989. Type-shifting rules and the semantics of interrogatives in Properties types and meanings.

  • Gyuris Beáta. 2016. A magyar eldöntendő kérdő mondatok tipológiájához [To the typology of Hungarian yes-no questions. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 3: 169-190.

  • Haijuan Hu. 2019. Courtroom questioning Adapted to Legal Procedures. English Language Teaching 12(1): 7-17.

  • Hayano Kaoru. 2012. Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell – Tanya Stivers (szerk.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 395–414.

  • Jefferson Gail. 1984. On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles. In J. Maxwell Atkinson – John Heritage (Eds.) Structures of Social Action. Studies in Conversation Analysis. Cambridge Cambridge University Press 346–369.

  • Kenesei István Robert Michael Vago and Fenyvesi Anna. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.

  • Kiefer Ferenc. 1983. A kérdő mondatok szemantikájáról és pragmatikájáról [About the semantics and spragmatics of interrogative sentences]. In Rácz Endre—Szathmári István (Eds.) Tanulmányok a mai magyar nyelv szövegtana köréből Budapest Tankönyvkiadó 203–30.

  • Kónya A. 2007. Sémaelméletek és az emlékek fogalmi kategorizációja [Schema theory and conceptual categorization of memories]. In: Csépe V. & Győri Miklós & Ragó A. (Eds.): Általános pszichológia 2. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó 330–347.

  • Ladd Robert D. 1981. A First Look at the Semantics and Pragmatics of Negative Questions and Tag Questions. Proceedings of Chicago Linguistic Soceity 17 164–171.

  • Laney Cara and Elisabeth Loftus. 2016. History of Forensic Interviewing. In O'Donohue W. T. & Fanetti M. (Eds.): Forensic Interviews Regarding Child Sexual Abuse. New York: Springer 1–17.

  • Levinson Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Maleczki Márta. 2007. Szemantika: Szerkezetek jelentése. [Semantics: the meaning of structures] In Alberti G. – Fóris Á. (Eds.) A mai magyar formális nyelvtudomány műhelye. Budapest: Nemzeti Tankönyvkiadó 124–138.

  • Nemesi Attila László. 2011. Nyelv nyelvhasználat kommunikáció [Language language use communication]. Budapest: Loisir Kiadó.

  • Ogle Richard Allen Parkman and James Porter. 1980. Questions: Leading and Otherwise. Judges Journal 19: 42–5.

  • Opeibi Tunde. 2008. A study of Interrogatives in a selected Nigerian Courtroom discourse. In (Frances Olsen-Alexander Lorz – Dieter SteinLanguage and Law: Theory and Society. Dusseldorf University Press.

  • Oxburgh Gavin Trond Myklebust Tim Grant and Rebecca Milne. 2016. Communication in Investigative and Legal Contexts: Integrated Approaches from Forensic Psychology Linguistics and Law Enforcement. Wiley Blackwell.

  • Reyna Valerie F. Corbin Jonathan C. Weldon Rebecca B. and Brainerd Charles J. 2016. How fuzzy-trace theory predicts true and false memories for words sentences and narratives. Journal od Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 5.1 1–9.

  • Schiffrin Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse Analysis London: Blackwell

  • Schirm Anita 2011: A diskurzusjelölők funkciói: a hát az –e és a vajon elemek története és jelenkori szinkrón státusa alapján. [The function of Hungarian discourse markers: The history and present synchronic status of the Hungarian elements hát -e and vajon]. Doctoral dissertation Szeged Hungary.

  • Semin Gün R. and Christianne J. De Poot (1997) The question– answer paradigm: You might regret not noticing how a question is worded. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73/3:472–480.

  • Sudo Yasutada (2013) Biased polar questions in English and Japanese. In D. Gutzmann – H-M. Gärtner (szerk.) Beyond Expressives. Explorations in Conventional Non-truthconditional Meaning. Leiden: Brill 277–297.

  • Tátrai Szilárd. 2011. Bevezetés a pragmatikába. Funkcionális kognitív megközelítés [Introduction to pragmatics. Functional cognitive perspective]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.

  • Varga Marianna. 2015. Bírói kérdésfeltevések a magyar tanú- és szakértői bizonyításokban. [Judges' questions in the Hungarian witness testimony and expert evidence] Jelentés és nyelvhasználat 2: 79–107.

  • Verschueren Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold Publishers.

  • Vrij Aldert Christian A. Meissner Ronald P. Fisher Saul M. Kassin Charles A. Morgan and Steven M. Kleinman. 2017. Psychological Perspectives on Interrogation. Perspectives on Psychological Science 1–29.

  • Walton Douglas. 2008a. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  • Walton Douglas. 2008b. Witness testimony evidence. Argumentation artificial intelligence and law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Search
Journal information
Metrics
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 8 8 4
PDF Downloads 7 7 4