Please take a moment to complete this survey below
Library's collection Library's IT development CancelThis study mainly dealt with forms of language used by the judges, the
solicitors, the prosecutors, the defendants, and the witnesses in Surabaya District
Courtroom. Forms of language in the courtroom stressed on the ways in which
disputant manipulated the contents of their case to their advantage. It concerned how
they packaged their argument linguistically. This study analysed the forms of
language used in five trials in Surabaya District Courtroom. Throughout this research,
I intended to know what forms of language were used in Surabaya District
Courtroom, what form of language was mostly used in Surabaya District Courtroom,
and who performs the most often used form of language, the judges, the solicitors, the
prosecutors, or the witnesses. In conducting the study, the data were obtained by
recording five trials in this courtroom. Next the data were analysed by using the
theory of Danet (1980) to find out forms of language used in this courtroom.
The finding on this study showed that there were 11 forms of language used
in Surabaya District Courtroom were similar to ones found in Danet?s study (1980) in
six Israely trials where there were no juries. However, there was one interesting thing
found, that none of the participants ever used the manipulation of the audience in
Surabaya District Courtroom. The second finding showed that in this courtroom the
most frequently used form of language was open-ended question. This form was used
by the judges, the solicitors, the prosecutors, and the defendants, but it was not used at
all by the witnesses. It seem that only people who has interest in trial used open-ended
question. For the witness they were the object of the questioned and they did not
have the right to ask about anything in trial court. It was also found out that the
participants who used the most often were the judges since they would be considered
as the most powerful speaker in this trial.