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.
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.
When submitting a paper the author agrees to the following publishing agreement and processing personal data.
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT, COPYRIGHT LICENSE, PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING CONSENT
This is a publication agreement and copyright license (“Agreement”) regarding a written manuscript currently submitted via Pressto platform
(“Article”) to be published in Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Journal”).
The parties to this Agreement are:
the Author or Authors of the submitted article (individually, or if more than one author, collectively, “Author”) and Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Publisher”), address al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, represented by its editor in chief Aleksandra Matulewska.
§1. LICENSE OF COPYRIGHT
a) The Author and the Publisher agree that the Author grants a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is incorporated herein by reference and is further specified at Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 copyright license in the Article to the general public.
b) The Author grants to the Publisher a royalty-free, worldwide nonexclusive license to publish, reproduce, display, distribute, translate and use the Article in any form, either separately or as part of a collective work, including but not limited to a nonexclusive license to publish the Article in an issue of the Journal, copy and distribute individual reprints of the Article, authorize reproduction of the entire Article in another publication, and authorize reproduction and distribution of the Article or an abstract thereof by means of computerized retrieval systems (such as Westlaw, Lexis and SSRN). The Author retains ownership of all rights under copyright in the Article, and all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author grants to the Publisher the power to assign, sublicense or otherwise transfer any and all licenses expressly granted to the Publisher under this Agreement.
d) Republication. The Author agrees to require that the Publisher be given credit as the original publisher in any republication of the Article authorized by the Author. If the Publisher authorizes any other party to republish the Article under the terms of paragraphs 1c and 1 of this Agreement, the Publisher shall require such party to ensure that the Author is credited as the Author.
§2. EDITING OF THE ARTICLE
a) The Author agrees that the Publisher may edit the Article as suitable for publication in the Journal. To the extent that the Publisher’s edits amount to copyrightable works of authorship, the Publisher hereby assigns all right, title, and interest in such edits to the Author.
a) The Author represents and warrants that to the best of the Author’s knowledge the Article does not defame any person, does not invade the privacy of any person, and does not in any other manner infringe upon the rights of any person. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher against all such claims.
b) The Author represents and warrants that the Author has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to grant the licenses granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author represents and warrants that the Article furnished to the Publisher has not been published previously. For purposes of this paragraph, making a copy of the Article accessible over the Internet, including, but not limited to, posting the Article to a database accessible over the Internet, does not constitute prior publication so long as the as such copy indicates that the Article is not in final form, such as by designating such copy to be a “draft,” a “working paper,” or “work-in-progress”. The Author agrees to hold harmless the Publisher, its licensees and distributees, from any claim, action, or proceeding alleging facts that constitute a breach of any warranty enumerated in this paragraph.
a) The agreement was concluded for an unspecified time.
a) The Author agrees and acknowledges that the Author will receive no payment from the Publisher for use of the Article or the licenses granted in this Agreement.
b) The Publisher agrees and acknowledges that the Publisher will not receive any payment from the Author for publication by the Publisher.
§6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
a) This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Author and the Publisher with respect to the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the warranties and agreements between the parties with respect to the Article, and each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements have been made by or on behalf of any party except those warranties and agreements embodied in this Agreement.
b) In all cases not regulated by this Agreement, legal provisions of Polish Copyright Act and Polish Civil Code shall apply.
c) Any disputes arising from the enforcement of obligations connected with this Agreement shall be resolved by a court competent for the headquarters of the Publisher.
d) Any amendments or additions to the Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorised representative of both parties, otherwise being ineffective.
e) This Agreement is signed electronically and the submission of the article via the PRESSto platform is considered as the conclusion of the Agreement by the Author and the Publisher.
f) Clause for consent to the processing of personal data - general
g) The Author shall give his or her consent to the processing of their personal data in accordance with the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of persons physical in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation) for the purpose and in connection with making publications available on the PRESSto scientific journals platform and DeGruyter platform, guaranteeing the security of services rendered, and improving them.
I HAVE READ AND AGREE FULLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
The Author The Publisher