The Humanist Expressive Speech Acts of the Judicial Panel at the State Court

Abstract

Language in a court context is interesting to be explored. The speech acts of the Judicial Panel in a trial is unique than others. This study aims to analyze the humanist expressive speech acts of the judicial panel in a court. The design of this study used a sociopragmatics study. The data in this study are forms of the Judicial Panel's speech acts that are alleged containing the humanist expressive speech acts. The sources of data of this study are the speech acts of the Judicial Panel in the trial. The technique of collecting data in this study uses free non-participatory technique, note-taking technique and recording technique. The data analysis method uses sociopragmatics comparative techniques and dividing-keyfactors technique. The validity of data in this study uses triangulation with stages: discussion, re-checking, and consultation with the experts. The results show that the humanist expressive speech acts of the Judicial Panel in the trials at the Semarang State Court includes direct speech acts (TT-L/ Tindak Tutur Langsung) and indirect speech acts (TT-TL / Timdak Tutur Tidak Langsung).

Illocutionary Acts in Courtroom Proceedings: The Contexts of Local Courts in the Philippines

“…It may refer to statements, descriptions, classifications, explanations, clarifications, suggestions, boasting, complains and claims. In the same manner, the results obtained from this study explicitly present the use and purpose served by assertives inside the court in any cases in which they are necessary so as to deliver various propositions (Ahmad et al, 2021;Zulaeha et al, 2021). When talking about assertives, one has to determine the truth value of such proposition (Fitriana et al, 2014).…”

“…It is a future action because it determines what has to do in the future. And inside the court, it can also be observed especially on the setting of time and date for the continuation of the trial (Ahmad et al, 2021;Zulaeha et al, 2021)…”

“…Conversely, inside the court, this study discloses that the expressives being performed are mostly in analogous with the witnesses' and complainants' emotional attitude towards an incident or a person who commits a crime. There are even times that they intend to cry and shout as a reaction to the crime or incident being discussed inside the court (Zulaeha et al, 2021;Firmansyah, 2022).…”

“…In the legal parlance, this is also most often used such as in giving final verdicts, dismissing the case or appointing a new prosecutor of the case. In this manner, the presiding judge has the sole authority to declare a proposition (Arif, 2018;Zulaeha et al, 2021).…”