PRESUPPOSITIONS IN POLICE INTERVIEW QUESTIONS IN CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE CASES: A FORENSIC LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS
Abstract
This study examines presuppositions embedded in investigators’ questions in a police interview concerning a child sexual abuse case. Using a qualitative descriptive approach within forensic linguistics, the study analyzed one official police interview report (Berita Acara Pemeriksaan [BAP]), comprising 19 investigator questions and 19 corresponding witness responses. Data were analyzed using Yule’s (1996) presupposition theory by identifying and classifying presupposition triggers. The findings identified four types: existential, structural, lexical, and factive. Structural presupposition was dominant, accounting for 9 of 19 occurrences (47.37%), followed by existential (26.32%), lexical (15.79%), and factive (10.53%). Investigators predominantly used WH-question constructions that presented aspects of the alleged event, participants, chronology, and circumstances as given. Non-factive and counterfactual presuppositions were not identified based on Yule’s (1996) criteria. The findings demonstrate that presupposition analysis reveals how linguistic structures organize and frame information in police interview questions and contribute to legal narrative construction. The study highlights the importance of neutral question formulation to minimize unnecessary linguistic assumptions and support fair and reliable investigations involving vulnerable witnesses.
References
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Danby, M. C., & Sharman, S. J. (2024). An exploration of interview breaks in child forensic interviews. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 18, Article paae081. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paae081
Elliott, P. D., Nicolae, A. C., & Sauerland, U. (2022). Who and what do who and what range over cross-linguistically? Journal of Semantics, 39(3), 551–579. https://doi.org/10.1093/jos/ffac008
Fernandes, D., Gomes, J. P., Albuquerque, P. B., & Matos, M. (2024). Forensic interview techniques in child sexual abuse cases: A scoping review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 25(2), 1382–1396. https://doi.org/10.1177/15248380231177317
Friend, O. W., Henderson, H. M., & Lyon, T. D. (2022). 4- to 15-year-old children’s misinterpretation of invitations asking “about the time” as requests for temporal information in forensic interviews. Child Abuse & Neglect, 129, Article 105675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105675
Gerryts, D. D., Deck, S. L., & Powell, M. B. (2025). Expert interviewers’ approach to navigating forensic interviews with adolescents who are reluctant to disclose sexual abuse. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 32(6), 879–897. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2024.2362134
Hadiyani, T. (2014). Tipe pertanyaan, respon dan praanggapan yang muncul pada interview investigatif kepolisian. PAROLE: Journal of Linguistics and Education, 4(1), 38–53.
Henderson, H. M., Lundon, G., & Lyon, T. D. (2023). Suppositional wh-questions about perceptions, conversations, and actions are more productive than paired yes-no questions when questioning maltreated children. Child Maltreatment, 28(1), 55–65. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595211067208
Korkman, J., Otgaar, H., Geven, L. M., Bull, R., Cyr, M., Hershkowitz, I., Mäkelä, J.-M., Mattison, M., Milne, R., Santtila, P., van Koppen, P., Memon, A., Danby, M., Filipovic, L., Garcia, F. J., Gewehr, E., Gomes Bell, O., Järvilehto, L., Kask, K., … Volbert, R. (2025). White paper on forensic child interviewing: Research-based recommendations by the European Association of Psychology and Law. Psychology, Crime & Law, 31(8), 987–1030. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2024.2324098
Lavoie, J., Wyman, J., Crossman, A. M., & Talwar, V. (2021). Meta-analysis of the effects of two interviewing practices on children’s disclosures of sensitive information: Rapport practices and question type. Child Abuse & Neglect, 113, Article 104930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.104930
Liang, S. (2020). An analysis of police interrogation from the perspective of presupposition: A case study of Jodi Arias case. International Journal of Linguistics, Literature and Translation, 3(9), 184–193. https://doi.org/10.32996/ijllt.2020.3.9.19
Macleod, E., Hobbs, L., Admiraal, A., La Rooy, D., & Patterson, T. (2022). The use and impact of repeated questions in diagnostic child abuse assessment interviews. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 29(3), 364–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2021.1910586
Magnusson, M., Joleby, M., Luke, T. J., Ask, K., & Lefsaker Sakrisvold, M. (2021). Swedish and Norwegian police interviewers’ goals, tactics, and emotions when interviewing suspects of child sexual abuse. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 606774. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.606774
McWilliams, K., Williams, S., Henderson, H. M., Evans, A. D., & Lyon, T. D. (2023). Pseudotemporal invitations: 6- to 9-year-old maltreated children’s tendency to misinterpret invitations referencing “time” as solely requesting conventional temporal information. Child Maltreatment, 28(2), 265–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595221104829
Powell, M. B., Brubacher, S. P., & Baugerud, G. A. (2022). An overview of mock interviews as a training tool for interviewers of children. Child Abuse & Neglect, 129, Article 105685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105685
Segal, A., Bakaitytė, A., Kaniušonytė, G., Ustinavičiūtė-Klenauskė, L., Haginoya, S., Zhang, Y., Pompedda, F., Žukauskienė, R., & Santtila, P. (2023). Associations between emotions and psychophysiological states and confirmation bias in question formulation in ongoing simulated investigative interviews of child sexual abuse. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1085567. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1085567
Sholihatin, E., Sukirmiyadi, & Haryono, N. (2024). Analysis of police investigation interviews in defamation cases: A forensic linguistics perspective. JOLLT Journal of Languages and Language Teaching, 12(3), 1137–1154. https://doi.org/10.33394/jollt.v12i3.12064
Szojka, Z. A., Henderson, H. M., Hur, J., Siepmann, H., & Lyon, T. D. (2023). Elaborations and denials in children’s responses to yes–no any/some questions in forensic interviews. Child Maltreatment, 28(3), 407–416. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775595231154552
Sumampouw, N. E. J., Otgaar, H., La Rooy, D., & de Ruiter, C. (2020). The quality of forensic child interviewing in child sexual abuse cases in Indonesia. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 35(2), 170–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-019-09342-5
Tuzet, G. (2021). The pragmatics of evidence discourse. In C. Dahlman, A. Stein, & G. Tuzet (Eds.), Philosophical foundations of evidence law (pp. 169–182). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198859307.003.0013
Vidhiasi, D. M. (2025). Uncovering the investigator’s assumptions in sexual violence crime investigative interviews: A forensic linguistic analysis. Al-Lisan: Jurnal Bahasa, 10(1), 30–42. https://doi.org/10.30603/al.v10i1.5918
Wylie, B. E., Henderson, H. M., Lundon, G. M., & Lyon, T. D. (2024). Forensic interviewers’ difficulty with the birthday narrative. Child Abuse & Neglect, 152, Article 106752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2024.106752
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License (CC BY-SA 4.0) that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgment of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgment of its initial publication in this journal.
Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
