A Forensic-Pragmatic Study of Judicial Questioning Patterns: Interrogation Techniques and Semantic Negotiation in Saudi Courtrooms

Abstract This forensic-pragmatic study examines judicial interrogation and semantic negotiation within 12 authentic Saudi criminal court cases concerning murder and blood money (diya), drawn from Majmūʿat al-Aḥkām al-Qaḍāʾiyya. The analysis identifies five main types of judicial questions (polar, WH-, accusatory, oath-linked, and causality-based interrogatives) and elucidates their multifaceted functions. Integrating speech act theory, Gricean pragmatics, politeness theory, and Islamic legal epistemology, the research explores how Saudi judges strategically utilize concepts like niyya (intent), shubha (legal doubt), and qasama (oath). Judicial questions are revealed as potent, multilayered speech acts that are not only directive (guiding inquiry) and commissive (committing to legal procedures) but also performative, embodying the religious and ethical authority vested in the judge, particularly through the invocation of oaths. Defendants engage in culturally relevant negotiation tactics, including epistemic detachment, religious affirmations, and narrative reframing, primarily to seek leniency, assert their honour, or create interpretive space. The study highlights the profound epistemic weight and rhetorical power of oath-based queries. It proposes a "Saudi Forensic-Pragmatic Interrogation Model" to advance forensic linguistics, emphasizing the integration of Islamic legal logic and ethno-pragmatics, and calls for culturally attuned judicial training and legal translation. The findings underscore the distinctiveness of Saudi courtroom discourse compared to Western legal practices.