JUDICIAL COMPLEX STRATEGIES IN HUNGARIAN COURTROOMINTERROGATION

Main Article Content

Marianna VARGA

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 (1) linguistics, because the main goal is to present effective interrogation strategies (2) law, because 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 to the courtroom interrogation strategies and the results may also have a significant role in legal practice.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
VARGA, M. (2019). JUDICIAL COMPLEX STRATEGIES IN HUNGARIAN COURTROOMINTERROGATION. Comparative Legilinguistics, 39, 47-70. https://doi.org/10.14746/cl.2019.39.3
Section
Articles

References

  1. Archer, Dawn. 2011. Cross-examining lawyers, facework and the adversarial courtroom. Journal of Pragmatics 43: 3216-3230.
  2. 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.
  3. Bednarek, Grazyna Anna (2014) Polish vs. American Courtroom Discourse. Inquisitorial and Adversarial Procedures of Witness Examination in Criminal Trials. New York, Palgrave Macmillan.
  4. Bolinger, Dwight L. 1957. Interrogative Structures of American English: The Direct Question. Alabama: University of Alabama Press.
  5. Bócz Endre (2008) Kriminalisztika a tárgyalóteremben [Criminalistics in the courtroom]. Budapest, Magyar Közlöny Lap- és Könyvkiadó.
  6. Bócz, Endre and Finszter Géza. 2008. Kriminalisztika joghallgatóknak [Criminalistics for law students]. Budapest: Magyar Közlöny Lap- és Könyvkiadó.
  7. Catoto, Jerson. 2017. On courtroom Questioning: A Forensic Linguistic Analysis. Journal of Humanities and Social Science 22(11): 65-97.
  8. Edenborough, Robert. 2002. Effective Interviewing: A Handbook of Skills and Techniques (2nd edition). London: Kogan Page.
  9. Farkas Ákos and Róth Erika. 2004. A büntetőeljárás [Criminal procedure]. Budapest: CompLex Kiadó.
  10. Gálig, Péter. 2011. A kihallgatás etikája és taktikája [The ethics and tactics of interrogation]. [http://www.jogiforum.hu/publikaciok/451]
  11. Groenendijk, Jeroen and Martin Stokhof. 1989. Type-shifting rules and the semantics of interrogatives, in Properties, types and meanings.
  12. Gyuris, Beáta. 2016. A magyar eldöntendő kérdő mondatok tipológiájához [To the typology of Hungarian yes-no questions. Jelentés és Nyelvhasználat 3: 169-190.
  13. Haijuan, Hu. 2019. Courtroom questioning Adapted to Legal Procedures. English Language Teaching 12(1): 7-17.
  14. Hayano, Kaoru. 2012. Question design in conversation. In Jack Sidnell – Tanya Stivers (szerk.) The Handbook of Conversation Analysis. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. 395–414.
  15. 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.
  16. Kenesei, István, Robert Michael Vago and Fenyvesi Anna. 1998. Hungarian. London: Routledge.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  22. 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.
  23. Nemesi, Attila László. 2011. Nyelv, nyelvhasználat, kommunikáció [Language, language use, communication]. Budapest: Loisir Kiadó.
  24. Ogle, Richard, Allen Parkman and James Porter. 1980. Questions: Leading and Otherwise. Judges Journal, 19: 42–5.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to Discourse Analysis London: Blackwell.
  29. 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.
  30. 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.
  31. 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.
  32. Tátrai, Szilárd. 2011. Bevezetés a pragmatikába. Funkcionális kognitív megközelítés [Introduction to pragmatics. Functional cognitive perspective]. Budapest: Tinta Könyvkiadó.
  33. 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.
  34. Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding Pragmatics. London: Arnold Publishers.
  35. 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.
  36. Walton, Douglas. 2008a. Informal Logic: A Pragmatic Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  37. Walton, Douglas. 2008b. Witness testimony evidence. Argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.