A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF DECEPTIVE SPEECH ACTS IN CROSS-EXAMINATION: A FORENSIC LINGUISTIC STUDY OF PAKISTANI COURTROOM TRIALS

Abstract

This study explores deceptive speech acts in Pakistani courtroom trials, focusing on cross-examination discourse through the lens of forensic linguistics. Using Searle’s Speech Act Theory as the analytical framework, the research examines how witnesses employ linguistic strategies to manipulate, obscure, or distort truth during testimony. The data were collected from twenty criminal cases through purposive and critical case sampling from the Session Court and High Court of Pattoki and Lahore. A qualitative content analysis was conducted to identify and interpret patterns of deceptive speech acts. The findings reveal that deception in courtroom language operates at both pragmatic and socio-cultural levels, where witnesses exploit ambiguity, politeness, and emotional tone to achieve specific legal or social aims. The study contributes to forensic linguistics by emphasizing the role of pragmatics in uncovering concealed meanings within legal discourse.