ANALISIS PRAGMATIK LAKUAN BAHASA DALAM PERBICARAAN JENAYAH
PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF SPEECH ACTS IN CRIMINAL TRIALS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55197/qjssh.v7i5.1436Keywords:
analisis pragmatik, lakuan bahasa, perbicaraan jenayah, teori lakuan bahasa Searle, alasan penghakimanAbstract
Kajian ini menganalisis penggunaan lakuan bahasa dalam alasan penghakiman kes jenayah di Malaysia berdasarkan Teori Lakuan Bahasa Searle. Alasan penghakiman merupakan dokumen rasmi kehakiman yang penting, namun analisis dari sudut pragmatik dan linguistik forensik terhadap dokumen sedemikian masih terhad di Malaysia. Kajian ini bertujuan untuk mengenal pasti jenis-jenis lakuan bahasa dan menjelaskan fungsi komunikasinya dalam membina hujah serta keputusan perundangan. Pendekatan kualitatif interpretatif melalui kaedah analisis dokumen telah digunakan untuk meneliti teks alasan penghakiman Mahkamah Persekutuan bagi kes Muhammad Akmal Zuhairi bin Azmal dan rakan-rakan. Dapatan kajian menunjukkan bahawa kelima-lima kategori lakuan bahasa iaitu asertif, arahan, komisif, ekspresif, dan deklaratif digunakan secara sistematik dan berstruktur dalam dokumen tersebut. Lakuan asertif dominan dalam mengabsahkan fakta kes, manakala lakuan arahan dan komisif berfungsi membuktikan elemen persubahatan serta niat bersama para pelaku. Seterusnya, lakuan ekspresif digunakan untuk menyampaikan penilaian nilai mahkamah terhadap kesalahan, dan lakuan deklaratif bertindak sebagai instrumen mutlak yang menetapkan status sabitan serta hukuman penjara lapan belas tahun terhadap para perayu. Kesimpulannya, ketepatan penggunaan lakuan bahasa oleh hakim adalah sangat kritikal dalam menghasilkan keputusan mahkamah yang sah dari sudut perundangan dan diterima oleh masyarakat. Kajian ini memberi sumbangan kepada bidang linguistik forensik dan boleh dijadikan rujukan akademik bagi memahami fungsi komunikasi dalam wacana undang-undang di Malaysia.
This study analyzes the use of speech acts in the written judgments of criminal cases in Malaysia, based on Searle’s Speech Act Theory. Written judgments are crucial official judicial documents; however, analyses of such documents from pragmatic and forensic linguistic perspectives remain limited in Malaysia. This study aims to identify the types of speech acts present and explain their communicative functions in constructing legal arguments and decisions. An interpretive qualitative approach, utilizing document analysis, was employed to examine the Federal Court’s written judgment regarding the case of Muhammad Akmal Zuhairi bin Azmal and others. The findings reveal that all five categories of speech acts: assertives, directives, commissives, expressives, and declaratives; are employed systematically and structurally within the document. Assertives predominate in establishing the facts of the case, while directives and commissives serve to prove elements of abetment and the perpetrators' common intention. Furthermore, expressives are used to convey the court's value judgment regarding the offense, and declaratives act as the definitive instrument establishing the conviction status and the eighteen-year prison sentence imposed on the appellants. In conclusion, the precise use of speech acts by judges is critical in producing court decisions that are legally valid and socially accepted. This study contributes to the field of forensic linguistics and serves as an academic reference for understanding communicative functions within legal discourse in Malaysia.
References
[1] Ahmad, A., Ardi, N., Rashidin, R. (2021): Speech acts in trials of underage sexual criminal case. – Environment-Behaviour Proceedings Journal 6(SI5): 3-9.
[2] Austin, J.L. (1962): How to do things with words. – Clarendon Press, Oxford 166p.
[3] Bach, K., Harnish, R.M. (1979): Linguistic communication and speech acts. – MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts 327p.
[4] Cutting, J. (2002): Pragmatics and discourse: A resource book for students. – Routledge, London 224p.
[5] Fah, J.C.M., Osman, W.R.M., Hamid, N.F.A. (2023): Penggunaan bahasa dalam teks ucapan kehakiman dari sudut lakuan bahasa. – International Journal of the Malay World and Civilisation 11(3): 79-93.
[6] Ismail, H., Jalaluddin, N.H. (2016): Analisis lakuan bahasa dalam komunikasi Melayu: Pendekatan pragmatik. – Jurnal Bahasa 16(2): 201-220.
[7] Jalaluddin, N.H. (1992): Semantik dan pragmatik: Satu pengenalan. – Dewan Bahasa dan Pustaka, Kuala Lumpur 75p.
[8] Levinson, S.C. (1983): Pragmatics. – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 420p.
[9] Mohamad Shuhmy, S.S., Pelet, M.N.M., Rashidin, R. (2026): Lakuan bahasa dalam audio siar Keluar Sekejap: Satu kajian pragmatik. – Pendeta Journal of Malay Language, Education and Literature 17(1): 95-103.
[10] Searle, J.R. (1969): Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 203p.
[11] Searle, J.R. (1979): Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. – Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 187p.
[12] Simanjorang, R.A., Saragih, A. (2024): Speech acts used by the judge and the defendant at the verdict delivery of courtroom issued in YouTube. – Proceedings of the 9th Annual International Seminar on Transformative Education and Educational Leadership (AISTEEL 2024), EAI 8p.
[13] Thomas, J. (1995): Meaning in interaction: An introduction to pragmatics. – Longman, London. 224p.
[14] Yule, G. (1996): Pragmatics. – Oxford University Press, Oxford 138p.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 NOR ADWA ISRAQ NOR AZMAN, MOHAMAD NIK MAT PELET, NOOR SAADAH SALLEH
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
