DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v15i1.77-89

Questions in Trial in District Court (Cyanide Coffee Case)

1Universitas Bumi Persada, Indonesia

2Universitas Negeri Yogyakarta, Indonesia

Received: 10 Jun 2025; Revised: 24 Dec 2025; Accepted: 1 Jan 2026; Available online: 23 Jan 2026; Published: 23 Jan 2026.
Open Access Copyright (c) 2026 PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

This study aims to explore the types and objectives of questions in the trial of cyanide coffee cases. The method used is qualitative descriptive. The source of research data is the trial conversation of Jessica Wongso's case in the form of video recordings from the Kompas TV YouTube channel. The research corpus was drawn from four trial videos asked in 2016. Data was collected by observation techniques and recording techniques. The research instrument is a human instrument. The transcribed data was analyzed using matching and distribution data analysis techniques. The validity of the data is carried out by theoretical triangulation. Based on the results of the research, two conclusions can be drawn. First, 1585 data consisting of four types of questions were found. The four types of questions include 543 or 34.3% declarative questions, 501 or 31.66% wh questions, 397 or 25% polar questions, and 144 or 9.1% disjunctive questions. Second, when viewed by objective, these types of questions consist of three objectives, namely 713 or 45% of questions constructed for confirmation purposes, 603 or 38.1% of questions aimed at obtaining information, and 267 or 16.9% of questions for clarification. Thus, the process of analyzing the data of the question in the trial of the cyanide coffee case is interrelated between the type and purpose of the question.

Fulltext View|Download
Keywords: Legal Discourse; Question Types; Linguistics Forensics; Courtroom Questions; Purpose of Inquiry

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Research Article
Language : EN
Recent articles
A Multimodal and Critical Discourse Analysis of Gender Representation in an Indonesian Grade 4 Science Textbook A Diglossia Study of Sundanese Varieties among Sundanese Students: A Case Study of the Use of Sundanese Variety among University Students in the City of Bandung Questions in Trial in District Court (Cyanide Coffee Case) More recent articles
Most cited articles
Frontmatter Illocution on Speech Acts of Foreign Students in Indonesian Learning Frontmatter A Critical Evaluation of Qualitative Reports and Their Contributions to Educational Research COGNITIVISM AND ITS IMPLICATION IN THE SECOND LANGUAGE LEARNING More cited articles
  1. Aldosari, B. N. (2024). Questioning strategies in courtrooms. World Journal of English Language, 14(2), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n2p376
  2. Aldosari, B. N., & Khafaga, A. (2020). The language of persuasion in courtroom discourse: A computer-aided text analysis. International Journal of Advanced Computer Science and Applications, 11(7), 332–340. https://doi.org/10.14569/IJACSA.2020.0110744
  3. Alkabiri, M. A. (2024). Argumentation strategies in courtroom discourse. World Journal of English Language, 14(2), 366–375. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v14n2p366
  4. Bachari, A. D., Sudana, Dadang & Gunawan, W. (2013). Jenis pertanyaan penyidik dalam pemeriksaan perkara pidana anak yang berkonflik dengan hukum. Konferensi Linguistik Tahunan Atma Jaya 16, 68–73
  5. Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interview techniques: Establishing truth or proof. British Journal of Criminology, 33(3), 325-352. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048329
  6. Bongelli, R., Riccioni, I., Vincze, L., & Zuczkowski, A. (2018). Questions and epistemic stance: Some examples from Italian conversations. Ampersand, 5(November), 29–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amper.2018.11.001
  7. Bruer, K. C., Williams, S., & Evans, A. D. (2022). Lawyers’ experience questioning children in Canadian Court. Child Abuse & Neglect, 134(June), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105930
  8. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: language in evidence. Abingdon: London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203969717
  9. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). The routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 1–702). ndon: Routledge Taylor & Francis. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607
  10. Creswell, J. W. (2015). Penelitian kualitatif & desain riset (memilih di antara lima pendekatan) (3rd ed.). Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar
  11. Creswell, J. W. (2018). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (Fifth Edit). SAGE Publications Inc. https://spada.uns.ac.id/pluginfile.php/510378/mod_resource/content/1/1creswell.pdf
  12. Danet, B., & Bogoch, B. (1980). Fixed fight or free-for-all? An empirical study of combativenss in adversary system of justice. British Journal of Law and Society, 7(1), 36–60. https://doi.org/10.2307/1409753
  13. Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the mixed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2(3), 270–283. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689808316807
  14. Enfield, N., Brown, P., & Ruiter, J. D. (2012). Epistemic dimensions of polar questions: Sen tence-final particles in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press
  15. Fairclough, N. (2013). Language and power (2nd ed.). London & New York: Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315838250
  16. Flowerdew, J. (2002). Globalization discourse: A view from the East. Discourse & Society, 13(2), 209–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926502013002407
  17. Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Malden: Blackwell Publishers
  18. Gobber, G. (2015). Interrogativität im deutschen und im italienischen: Ein vergleich in funktionaler perspektive (D. Meola, C & D. Puato (eds.)). Temporalität und Pragmatik
  19. Hadiyani, T. (2014). Tipe pertanyaan, respon dan praanggapan yang muncul pada interview investigatif kepolisian. Parole: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 4(1), 38–53. https://doi.org/10.14710/parole.v4i1%20April.38-53
  20. Haijuan, H. (2019). Courtroom questioning adapted to legal procedures. English Language Teaching, 12(1), 7–17. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v12n1p7
  21. Hale, S. B. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting. John Benjamins
  22. Harris, S. (1984). Questions as a mode of control in Magistrate‟s Courts. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 49, 5–28. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1984.49.5
  23. Khafaga, A. (2021). Exploring ideologies of function words in George Orwell"s Animal Farm. Pertanika Journal of Social Science and Humanities, 29(3), 2089–2111. https://doi.org/10.47836/pjssh.29.3.30
  24. Khafaga, A. (2022). Caught on page! Micro and macro Pragmatics of stage directions parentheticals in Tom Stoppard’s Professional Foul. Journal of Pragmatics, 193, 27–42. https://doi.org//10.1016/j.pragma.2022.03.005
  25. Khafaga, A. (2023). Beyond relational work: A Psycho-pragmatic analysis of impoliteness in Shakespeare’s King Lear. Humanities & Social Sciences Communications, 10(539). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-023-02039-5
  26. Loftus, E. (1980). Language and memories in the judicial system. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press
  27. Luchjenbroers, J. (1997). ’In your own words ... ’: Questions and answers in a supreme court trial. Journal of Pragmatics, 27(4), 477–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(96)00033-1
  28. Maykut, P & Morehouse, R. (1994). Beginning qualitative research: A philosophic and practical guide. New York: RoutledgeFalmer
  29. Milne, B., & Bull, R. (2008). Interviewing victims of crime, including children and people with intellectual disabilities. Practical Psychology for Forensic Investigations and Prosecutions, May 2008, 7–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470713389.ch1
  30. Moleong, L. J. (2013). Metodologi penelitian kualitatif (Edisi Revi). Bandung: Remaja Rosdakarya
  31. Ndatyapo, N. N. (2022). A forensic linguistic investigation of witness statements on murder cases at Windhoek Police Station [Namibia University of Science and Technology]. In Namibia University of Science and Technology. http:ir.nust.na:8080/jspui/handle/10628/895
  32. Oxburgh, G. E., Myklebust, T., & Grant, T. (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 and the Law, 17(1), 45–66. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v17i1.45
  33. Pinto, D. (2004). Indoctrinating the youth of post-war Spain: A discourse analysis of a fascist civics textbook. Discourse & Society, 15(5), 649–667. https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926504045036
  34. Place, C. J. (2021). Sociolinguistic impacts of reactance in law enforcement investigative interviews: A systematic literature review. University of Arizona Global Campus
  35. Rossano, F. (2010). Questioning and responding in Italian. Journal Pragmat, 42(10), 2756–2771
  36. Sari, A. W., Satini, R., & Sartika, R. (2024). Types of judges’ questions in evidentiary hearings at the district court. Jurnal Kata: Penelitian Tentang Ilmu Bahasa Dan Sastra, 8(1), 26–40. https://doi.org/10.22216/kata.v8i1.2701
  37. Shodell, M. (1995). The question-driven classroom: Student questions as course curriculum in Biology. The American Biology Teacher, 57(5), 278–281. https://online.ucpress.edu/abt/article/57/5/278/15378/ The-Question-Driven-Classroom_Student-Questions-as
  38. Sudaryanto. (2015). Metode dan aneka teknik analisis bahasa. Yogyakarta: Duta Wacana University Press
  39. Sugiyono. (2019). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan R & D. Bandung: Alfabeta
  40. Sugiyono. (2020). Metode penelitian kuantitatif, kualitatif, dan kombinasi (mixed methods) (Edisi II). Bandung: Alfabeta
  41. Thornborrow, J. (2002). Power talk: Language and interaction in institutional discourse. Edinburgh: Pearson Education Limited
  42. Widodo, A. (2019). Model komunikasi penegak hukum dalam ruang persidangan di Pengadilan Negeri Jakarta Pusat. Jurnal Penelitian Komunikasi, 22(2), 139–154. https://doi.org/10.20422/jpk.v22i2.660
  43. Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica, 48(3–4), 197–228. https://doi.org/10.1515/semi.1984.48.3-4.197
  44. Wylie, B. E., Bruer, K. C., Williams, S., & Evans, A. D. (2024). Lawyer questioning practices in Canadian Courtrooms. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, April. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000413
  45. Zydervelt, S., Zajac, R., Kaladelfos, A., & Westera, N. (2017). Lawyers’ strategies for cross-examining rape complainants: Have we moved beyond the 1950s? British Journal of Criminology, 57(3), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw023

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-01-23 13:32:23

No citation recorded.