Interrogation as domination: A forensic pragmatics inquiry of questioning strategies and Gricean violations in Philippine bilingual courtroom interactions

Danica P. Francisco and John Arvin V. De Roxas
Pampanga State University | Central Luzon State University

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.

Publication history

Date received: 3 August 2025

Date accepted: 5 December 2025

Published online: 26 May 2026

Table of contents

The opaque and formulaic nature of legal discourse alienates lay participants and reinforces hierarchies in the judicial system. This complexity is exacerbated by the public’s unfamiliarity with trial protocols, making even basic participation in legal processes daunting. As Coulthard and Johnson (2007, 36) observed, legal language is “grammatically complex, sparsely punctuated, over-lexicalized, [and] opaque,” a view evident in judicial environments where linguistic inaccessibility can effectively exclude those without legal training. Villanueva and Madrunio (2016) underscored the bifocal functions of courtroom discourse: intelligible and routinized for judicial actors; however, obscure and anxiety-inducing for commoners and vulnerable participants.

Full-text access is restricted to subscribers. Log in to obtain additional credentials. For subscription information see Subscription & Price. Direct PDF access to this article can be purchased through our e-platform.

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 2: 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 3: 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) 8: 127–158. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Khoyi, Amin Mohammadzadegan, and Biook Behnam
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 43: 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. https://​www​.dailyjournal​.com​/mcle​/811​-direct​-and​-cross​-examination​-the​-art​-of​-asking​-questions
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, Sumarsih, and Sri Minda Murni
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 591, 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 98: 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 237: 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 47: 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 16: 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