QUESTION CONSTRUCTION IN RELATION TO PRAGMATIC STRATEGIES IN COURTROOM CROSS-EXAMINATION IN MEDAN.
ABSTRACT
Wau, Senadaman, 2016, Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan. Thesis Advisors:
(1) Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd., (2) Dr. T. Tyrhaya Zein, M.A.
This study aims to identify the types of question construction in relation to
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan, how the questions
constructed, why the questions constructed in the way they are. This research is
designed in qualitative research design. The data are the utterances in terms of
question, and the source of data is the interaction between barristers and
witnesses. The data is analyzed by applying interactive model (Miles, Huberman,
& Saldana, 2014). The findings are: there are ten types of question construction in
relation to idea-targeted pragmatic strategies, and five types of question
construction in relation to person-targeted pragmatic strategies. The question
construction in relation to idea-targeted pragmatic strategies was constructed from
witness previous testimony it is being held, meanwhile the question construction
in relation to person-targeted pragmatic strategies was constructed from witness
previous testimony in chief examination. The question construction in relation to
idea-targeted pragmatic strategies was constructed in the way they are because of
the contradictions, meanwhile the question construction in relation to persontargeted pragmatic strategies was constructed in the way they are because of the
doubt on witness characteristics in that cross-examination. The researcher
suggests that the result of this research can be used as the guidance for the readers
and further researchers who are interested in forensic linguistic.
Key
words:
Question Construction,
Examination.
i
Pragmatic
Strategies,
Cross-
ABSTRAK
Wau, Senadaman, 2016, Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan. Thesis Advisors:
(1) Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd., (2) Dr. T. Tyrhaya Zein, M.A.
Studi ini bertujuan mengidentifkasi tipe-tipe konstruksi pertanyaan yang
berhubungan dengan strategi pragmatik, bagaimana pertanyaan-pertanyaan
tersebut dikonstruksikan, dan mengapa pertanyaan-pertanyaan tersebut
dikonstruksikan dengan cara yang demikian. Desain Penelitian ini adalah
kualitatif. Data pada penelitian ini adalah tindak tutur dalam bentuk pertanyaan,
dan sumbernya dari interaksi antara penasihat hukum dan saksi. Penelitian ini
dianalisis dengan menggunakan model interaktif oleh Miles, Huberman, dan
Saldana (2014). Adapun temuan penilitian ini adalah terdapat sepuluh tipe
pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan strategi pragmatik (idea-targeted),
sedangkan terdapat lima tipe konstruksi pertanyaan strategi pragmatik (persontargeted). Konstruksi pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan strategi pragmatik
(idea-targeted) dikontruksikan dari kesaksian sebelumnya ketika pemeriksaan
tersebut berlangsung, sedangkan konstruksi pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan
strategi pragmatik (person-targeted) dikontruksikan dari kesaksian sebelumnya
pada pemeriksaan oleh majelis hakim. Konstruksi pertanyaan yang berhubungan
dengan strategi pragmatik (idea-targeted) dikonstruksikan dengan cara yang
demikian karena adanya kontradiksi, sedangkan konstruksi pertanyaan yang
berhubungan dengan strategi pragmatik (person-targeted) dikonstruksikan dengan
cara yang demikian karena adanya keraguan pada saksi tentang karakteristiknya
sebagai saksi. Peniliti menyarankan agar hasil penelitian dapat digunakan sebagai
panduan kepada pembaca dan peniliti selanjutnya yang tertarik pada linguistik
forensik.
Kata kunci: Konstruksi Pertanyaan, Strategi Pragmatik, Pemeriksaan
Silang.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to praise and express the greatest
gratitude to Almighty God, Jesus Christ, for His wonderful grace and merciful
love during studying at English Applied Linguistics Study Program of
Postgraduate School, and especially for His blessing during writing this thesis
which entitled “Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic Strategies in
Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan”.
On this occasion, the writer also would like to give gratitude to those
people who have helped him to finish this thesis and involved during studying at
Postgraduate Program at State University of Medan.
1.
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., as the daily rector of State University of
Medan, for the opportunity, so the writer could study in that university.
2.
Prof. Dr. Bornok Sinaga, M.Pd., as the director of postgraduate program at
State Universiity of Medan for the opportunity and the participation on
character building university in Postgraduate School Program in State
University of Medan.
3.
Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., as the Head of English Applied Linguistics Study
Program, and also as the examiner in this thesis for his wonderful suggestion,
thought, and motivation.
4.
Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., as the Secretary of English Applied
Linguistics Study Program, and as the lecturer at postgraduate program, for
her wonderful thought and motivation.
5.
Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd., as the advisor I, and Dr. T. Tyrhaya Zein,
M.A., as the advisor II, for their wonderful thought, suggestion, motivation to
iii
finish this thesis, and for their much kindness which cannot be expressed by
words.
6.
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., and Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed., as the
examiners in this thesis for their wonderful suggestion, thought, and
contributions to make this thesis better.
7.
Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., and other
lecturers during following the lecturing from them, for their wonderful
teaching during studying at Postgraduate School Program.
8.
Mr. Bamböwö Laiya, M.A., as the founder of Yayasan Pendidikan Nias
Selatan, for his great help and support, so the writer could finish his magister
program at State University of Medan.
9.
Mrs. Sitasi Zagötö, M.A., as the Coordinator of STKIP Nias Selatan, STIE
Nias Selatan, and STIH Nias Selatan for her great motivation and support.
10. Beloved parents, daddy and mommy, brother and sisters for their prayer,
motivation, and support during studying at postgraduate program at State
University of Medan.
11. Saniago Dakhi, S.Pd.,M.Hum., and Restu Damai Laia, S.Pd., M.Pd., for their
motivation and supports during studying at Postgraduate Program at State
University of Medan.
12. His mates: Melisa Hutabarat, Anisa Panggabean, Winda Sinambela, Yusi
Panggabean, Riswan Zega, Selamat Husni, Evin Hutasoit, Herawati Bukit,
Orli Tumanggor, Kiky Wardhani, and other mates during studying at
Postgraduate Program at State University of Medan for their motivation and
togetherness during studying.
iv
13. To all people who have been involved during studying and writing this thesis
for their helps and kindness.
The writer believes that there are lots of weaknesses. Therefore, the
constructive suggestions are expected from the readers to make this writing better.
May God always bless us.
Medan, June 2016
The researcher,
v
LIST OF CONTENT
Page
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………… i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……………………………………………………. iii
LIST OF CONTENT …………………………………………………………. vii
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………… viii
LIST OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………………… ix
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………. x
LIST OF MATRIXES ……………………………………………………….... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………… xii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION …………………………………….......... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ……………………………..……………….1
1.2 The Problems of the Study …….…….………..……………………… 6
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ……….………....……………………… 6
1.4 The Scope of the Study ……….……………………………………… 7
1.5 The Significances of the Study ……..………………………………... 7
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ……….…………………............ 8
2.1 Courtroom Discourse ……………………………..…………………. 8
2.2 Cross-Examination in Court …….…….………..…………………… 9
2.3 Questioning Types in Court ……….………....……………………… 9
2.3.1 Declaratives ………………………………………………..... 10
2.3.2 Tag Questions ……………………………………………….. 11
2.3.2.1 Modal Verb Tag Questions ………………………..... 12
2.3.2.2 Agreement Tag Questions …………………………... 12
2.3.2.3 Full Verb Tag Questions ……………………………. 13
2.3.2.4 Yes or No Tag ……………………………………….. 13
2.3.3 Amount of Information and Pressure ……………………….. 13
2.3.3.1 Polar Yes-No Questions …………………………….. 14
2.3.3.2 Choice Questions ……………………………………. 14
2.3.3.3 Who, Where and When Questions ………………….. 15
2.3.3.4 How and Why Questions ……………………………. 15
2.3.3.5 Projections Questions ……………………………….. 16
2.3.3.6 Special Formulas ……………………………………. 16
2.4 Pragmatic Strategies ……….………………………………………... 17
2.4.1 Person-targeted Pragmatic Strategies …………………………. 18
2.4.2 Idea-targeted Pragmatic Strategies ……………………………. 21
2.5 Relevant of Studies ……………..………………………………….... 23
2.6 Conceptual Framework ……………………………………………… 26
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ……….……………….................. 29
3.1 Research Design …………………………..…………………..……. 29
3.2 The Data and Source of Data ...…….…..…………………………... 29
3.3 The Research Instruments ……….………....………………………. 30
3.4 Techniques of Data Collection …………………………………...… 30
vi
3.5 Techniques of Data Analysis ……………..………………………… 31
3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study ………..…………………………. 34
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………... 37
4.1.1 Types of Question Construction in Relation to
Pragmatic Strategies ………………………………………….. 39
4.1.2 Description of Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic
Strategies ……………………………………………………… 53
4.1.3 The Reasons of Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic
Strategies ……………………………………………………… 65
4.2 Research Finding ……………………………………………………. 87
4.3 Discussion …………………………………………………………… 90
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion …………………………………………………………... 92
5.2 Suggestion …………………………………………………………... 93
REFERENCE ……………………………………………………………….... 94
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Page
1. Table of Utterance …………………………………………........................ 96
2. Interview ……. ……………………………………………………….......... 118
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
4.1
Question Construction in Relation to Idea-targeted
Pragmatic Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan
in Corruption Case ……………………………………………………….. 58
4.2 Question Construction in relation to Person-targeted
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
in Corruption Case ……………………………………………………….. 60
4.3 Question Construction in relation to Idea-targeted
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
in Narcotic Case ………………………………………………………….. 62
4.4 Question Construction in relation to Idea-targeted
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
in Oppression Case ………………………………………………………. 64
4.5. Question Construction in relation to Person-targeted
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
in Oppression Case ………………………………………………………. 65
x
LIST OF MATRIXES
Matrix
Page
4.1
Question Types in Relation to Idea-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Corruption Case ………………………………………………………….. 44
4.2 Question Types in Relation to Person-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Corruption Case ………………………………………………………….. 46
4.3 Question Types in Relation to Idea-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Narcotic Case …………………………………………………………….. 49
4.4. Question Types in Relation to Person-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Oppression Case …...…………………………………………………….. 51
4.5 Question Types in Relation to Person-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Oppression Case …………………………………………………………. 53
4.6 Question Types in Relation to Idea-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan …………….…... 87
4.7 Question Types in Relation to Person-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan …………………. 88
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation
B : Barrister
W : Witness
xii
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Language is the primary way of communication and a means of interaction
to each other. The interaction is done to express information to others, and from
the interaction, it is expected there will be an exchange of information to each
other for the purpose is to fulfill the needs of information. The needs are
successful when there are the questions from the addresser and the answers from
the addressee in their interaction as the interlocutor. The addresser usually
proposes several questions to the addressee to obtain answers in terms of
information needed by, and vice versa. This interaction may be seen in every
discourse of human interaction; it also may be found in the daily activities.
However, the interaction which has been explained above is different from the
interaction in courtroom.
Cross-examination is one of the interactions that are done in courtroom. In
term of courtroom interaction, the interaction is done between the lawyers or
barristers and witnesses. It is the interrogation of a witness called by one’s
opponent in court. In terms of interrogation, the several questions are proposed by
cross-examiner to witness for the purpose is to get the testimony and come to the
real event or fact. Testimony which is expressed by witness expected becoming as
the evidence for the case which is being discussed. Anyway, the main purposes of
cross-examination are to elicit favorable facts from the witness, or to impeach the
credibility of the testifying witness to lessen the weight of unfavorable testimony.
1
2
It frequently produces critical evidence in trials, especially if a witness contradicts
with previous testimony. In courtroom cross-examination interaction, the barrister
is expected using cross-examination strategy in which it is the skill to corner the
witness in court. The barristers use their personal thought or ideas in courtroom
cross-examination interaction with the witnesses. Furthermore, the interpretation
of cross-examination interaction between the barristers and witnesses should be
based on context of situation where it is being held. In other words, the meaning
of questions proposed by barrister interpreted based on what has been recognized
by witnesses.
Hale (2004: 31) asserts that the discourse and the pragmatic
function of cross-examination by lawyers has the main purpose not to elicit new
information
(information-seeking),
but
to
discredit
the
previously
elicited
examination- in-chief’s case.
Questions are usually discussed as syntactical forms to elicit information,
used to attract attention of listeners in conversation or interaction for sustaining
interest among interlocutors. The questions themselves are sentences, phrases, are
used show that the speaker or writer wants the reader or listener to supply them
with some information, perform a task or in some other way respond to request.
Thus, various types of questions are delivered to the listener. However, the
question asked by the speaker determines the response from the listener.
Questions can be seen as syntactical forms with pragmatic functions. In discourse,
questions are sometimes used strategically by interlocutors of greater authority
against those without power (Fairclough, 2001). It means that more powerful
persons tend to ask question than the powerless persons in which the powerless
persons are required to provide answers to the questions asked. Similar with the
3
courtroom interaction in which the jury or lawyer tends to ask questions to
witness. Thus, courtroom questioning differs markedly, in that lawyers usually
have a particular version of events in mind that they are attempting to confirm
with the witness. Usually the witnesses are compelled to answer, and do not have
the right to ask questions (Gibbons, 2008: 115). In clear, he adds that these
differences mean that courtroom questions are different from everyday questions
along a range of linguistic parameters.
The cross-examination which is done by lawyers or barristers in court to
witness has a particular purpose that is to discredit the witness’s testimony or
examination in chief. State Courtroom of Medan is one of the places that applying
the interrogation to the witnesses by barrister or lawyer by questioning. Several
questions are asked to witness in cross-examination session. The questions asked
have their own particular function and are related to what context of case being
examined. Purba (2009) states that question are most dominant type of speech
function in court session. This is due to the fact that the judge as well as the
prosecutor, and the lawyer are the seeker of information through probing or
investigation. It is clear that the questions are dominant in courtroom crossexamination session in terms of interrogation.
As the cross-examiners, the lawyers or barristers have a multiple task:
discredit the witness, propose an alternative approach to the events, and persuade
the audience. This task is achieved purely by means of questioning, until they
come to closing speeches. The syntactic form of questions helps to define the
response boundaries and elicit type-conforming replies (Tkačukovă, 2010: 339). It
means that one of the ways coming to the fact or true event is by questioning to
4
witness and syntactical form of questions helps and determines the response from
the witness. All of the tasks of barrister in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
are expected done effectually. In fact, the barristers are not consistent of their
tasks.
Barrister : Pencairan uang itu langsung bapak kasih sendiri pada saat itu kepada
terdakwa dan tidak ada tanda bukti pembayaran. Benarkah demikian?
Witness : Ya, benar.
The phenomenon as drawn above displays that the barrister questions the
witness in courtroom cross-examination in Medan. However, the function of the
question constructed is not to discredit the witness, but only confirms about the
event. It can be said that the barrister does not use the cross-examination strategy
as stated by Cotterill (2004) that cross-examination strategy covers a wide range
of tactics including lexical means (particular choices of words used in questions),
whereas the task is to discredit the witness and to propose an alternative approach
to events.
The way to achieve the task of barrister by the means of questioning to
witness, Gibbons (2003: 112) differentiates between idea-targeted and persontargeted pragmatic strategies. Idea-targeted pragmatic strategies challenge the
testimony, whereas person-targeted pragmatic strategies cast doubt on the
personal characteristics of witness.
Example 1:
Barrister : Pencairan uang itu langsung bapak kasih sendiri pada saat itu kepada
terdakwa dan tidak ada tanda bukti pembayaran. Bagaimana anda bisa
memberikan uang itu sedangkan tanda bukti tidak ada?
Witness : Saya hanya memberikan uang itu kepada saudara terdakwa tanpa
menghitungnya karena uangnya barusan saya ambil dari bank. Gak
ada kwitansi juga pada saat itu. Itu saja pak.
5
The example 1 as drawn above displays that the barrister elicits more information
by challenging the witness about the event. It can be seen from the question
constructed and particular choice of words “Bagaimana anda bisa memberikan
uang itu sedangkan tanda bukti tidak ada?”. This question is very helpful to
challenge the witness and sounds to trap the witness that he is involved in the
case.
Example 2:
Barrister:
I just want to remind you and confirm that in this courtroom;
previously you said that the defendant slapped the victim on her left
cheek. You watched directly. But just now you said that the doctor
cured her right cheek. Did you?
The example 2 which is drawn above using the reverse polarity tag question, or
modal verb tag question, where it challenges the witness’s claim about the slap
cheek.
Example 3:
Barrister: I want to clarify. Tell me if I am mistaken. The money was sent into
your account. And you say you didn’t know how to earn money into
bank. Did you?
The example 3 which is drawn above using full verb tag question, displays how
the barrister discredits the personality of witness of his or her testimony. From
those examples which are illustrated above display that the barrister fulfills the
tasks: to discredit the witness, to propose alternative approaches to the events, and
to persuade audience. Anyway, the syntactical form of questions constructed helps
to elicit testimony and is functional.
Those phenomena as drawn above show that barristers have different point
of view to question the witnesses, because, in fact, some of the questions
6
constructed not to corner the witness. The phenomena indicate that the barristers
have their own reasons of why constructing the questions so. However, it is
expected that the barristers should keep focus on their tasks when the crossexamination is being held.
The barrister or lawyer uses many kinds of tactics or strategies in crossexamination particularly in questions in which encompass syntactical forms or
grammatical forms of questions which are functional and helpful to elicit replies
from the witness. Thus, in line with the theory which is proposed about questions
by Tkačukovă (2010) in relation to pragmatic strategies (Gibbon’s theory), the
researcher would like to research how question(s) constructed in courtroom in
relation to pragmatic strategies in cross-examination in Medan. The researcher
would like to research the question construction on criminal act.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study which is explained above, the
research problems are formulated as the following:
1. What are the types of questions in relation to pragmatic strategies in
Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan?
2. How are the question constructed in relation to pragmatic strategies in
Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan?
3. Why are the questions constructed in the way they are?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In relation to the problems of the study, the objectives of this research are
to describe:
7
1. The types of question in relation to pragmatic strategies in Courtroom CrossExamination in Medan.
2. The question construction in relation to pragmatic strategies in Courtroom
Cross-Examination in Medan.
3. The reason of subject constructs the question in the way they are.
1.4 The Scope of Study
This research will be focused on question in courtroom cross-examination
in Medan. The focus of questions is on the declarative question, tag question, and
amount information and pressure (polar yes-no question, choice question, whquestion, projection questions, and special formulas) in which related to pragmatic
strategies. The analysis of this study is based on Tkačukovă’s theory about
questions in Courtroom Cross-Examination in which it is related to pragmatic
strategies (Gibbon’s theory).
1.5 The Significances of the Study
The findings of this study offer theoretical and practical significance.
Theoretically, it is expected that the findings of this research will give much
contribution and insight to applied linguistics, particularly to forensic linguistics
about question in courtroom cross-examination in relation to pragmatic strategies.
In addition, the findings will add up more horizons to linguistic theory.
Practically, it is also expected that the findings of this research will give more
information to the readers, and particularly the lawyers or barrister in proposing or
in constructing the question to witnesses in courtroom cross-examination in order
that the case which is going on can be finished more effectively.
92
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the data analysis in the previous chapter, it is concluded that
there are some question constructions in relation to pragmatic strategies which
delivered by the barristers to the witnesses in courtroom cross-examination in
Medan.
1. The types of question construction in relation to idea-targeted pragmatic
strategies consist of informative question: from whom, choice question, after
that, why, conjunction, prepositional phrase, which, where, and who, and tag
queston: full verb tag question. While, the types of question construction in
relation to person-targeted pragmatic strategies consist of tag question: full
verb tag question, and agreement tag question, and informative question: how
far, what, and choice question.
2. The questions construction in relation to idea-targeted pragmatic strategies in
courtroom cross-examination in Medan appeared and based on witness
previous testimonies or responses, and from the responses themselves the
barrister questioned again with type of particular challenging question. While
the question construction in relation to person targeted pragmatic strategies in
courtroom cross-examination in Medan also appeared and based on witness
previous testimony in chief’s case and in that cross-examination when it was
being held, in which the response from the witness unbelievable, and casted
doubt.
92
93
3. The question construction in relation to idea-targeted pragmatic strategies was
constructed in the way they are because there are contradiction with previous
testimonies in that cross-examination,
between previous testimonies and
current ones, no clarity from the witness responses, uncertainty testimony, and
no affirmation from the witness.
While question construction in relation to
person-targeted pragmatic strategies was constructed in the way they are
because there are doubt on witness testimony characteristics, and unbelievable
testimony.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the research findings, the researcher suggests that:
1.
For further researcher who is interested in researching and discussing forensic
linguistics and
especially discussing question construction in courtroom
cross-examination, it will also be better to measure the interrelatedness
between
question
examination,
and
construction
in
cross-examination,
chief’s
so
there
examination,
can
be
prosecutor’s
measured
the
significances question constructions between the three.
2.
It is suggested to the readers that the result of this research may become as the
guidance for further research especially for the students who are interested in
forensic linguistics will have much basic source and insight about the
question construction which delivered in the courtroom cross-examination.
94
REFERENCES
Aldridge, M. & Luchjenbroers, J. 2007. Linguistic Manipulations in Legal
Discourse: Framing Questions and Smuggling Information. (Online).
International Journal of Speech Language and Law, vol.14, no. 1.
Bloomaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bogdan, R, C., & Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research foe Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Methods (2nd .Ed). Sydney: Allyn and Bacon.
Balcha, E.B. 2015. An Analysis of Legal Discourse in Cross-Examination
Questionings: Adama City Criminal courtrooms. Oromia Regional State,
Ethiopia, (Online), vol. 3, No. 2. p.269-274.
Cotterill, J. 2003. Language and Power in Court: A linguistic Analysis of the O.J.
Simpson Trial. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Cotterill, J. 2004. Collocation, connotation, and courtroom semantics: Lawyer’s
control of witness testimony through lexical negations. Applied
Linguistics, 25(4): 513-37.
Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics;
Language in Evidence. London & New York: Routledge.
Denzim, N. K. 2001. The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldina.
Dong, J. 2013. Interpersonal Metaphor in Legal Discourse: Modality in CrossExaminations. (Online). Journal of Language Teaching and Research, vol.
4, no. 6.
Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power. 2nd Edition. London: Longman.
Gibbons, J. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the
Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibbons, J. & Turell, M. T. (Eds). 2008. Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hale, S., B. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse practices of the
law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry, California: Sage.
95
Longacre, R. E. 1996. The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd Ed. New York: Springer.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. California:
Sage.
Ogunaiji, Y. & Farinde, R. O. 2012. Pragmatics in Forensic Linguistic
Development for National Re-orientation and Transformation in Nigeria.
(Online). British Journal of Arts and Science, vol. 7, no. 2.
Purba, L. 2009. Interpersonal Meanings: Speech Functions in Court Text.
Unpublished Thesis. Medan: Postgraduate School, State University of
Medan.
Satia, E. 2013. Strategies of Controlling the Linguistic Response from CrossExamined Witnesses: Lay Defendants as Cross-Examiners in a Kenyan
Resident Magistrate’s Court. (Online). The University Nairobi Journal of
Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, 28-51.
Schegloff, E. & Sachs, H. 1973. Semiotica: Opening up closings. p. 289–327.
Stolzenberg, S. N. & Lyon, T. D. 2014. How Attorneys Question Children About
the Dynamic of Sexual Abuse and Diclosure in Criminal Trials, (Online),
Jan,1st ; 20 (1): 19-30. doi: 10.1037/a0035000.
Tkačukovă, T. 2010. Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. (Eds).
Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A. London & Newyork: Routledge.
Wagner, A. & Cheng, L. (Eds). 2011. Exploring Courtroom Discourse: The
Language of Power and Control. British: Ashgate.
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
(http://www.espeap.junis.ni.ac.rs/index.php/espeap/article/view/238
Wau, Senadaman, 2016, Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan. Thesis Advisors:
(1) Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd., (2) Dr. T. Tyrhaya Zein, M.A.
This study aims to identify the types of question construction in relation to
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan, how the questions
constructed, why the questions constructed in the way they are. This research is
designed in qualitative research design. The data are the utterances in terms of
question, and the source of data is the interaction between barristers and
witnesses. The data is analyzed by applying interactive model (Miles, Huberman,
& Saldana, 2014). The findings are: there are ten types of question construction in
relation to idea-targeted pragmatic strategies, and five types of question
construction in relation to person-targeted pragmatic strategies. The question
construction in relation to idea-targeted pragmatic strategies was constructed from
witness previous testimony it is being held, meanwhile the question construction
in relation to person-targeted pragmatic strategies was constructed from witness
previous testimony in chief examination. The question construction in relation to
idea-targeted pragmatic strategies was constructed in the way they are because of
the contradictions, meanwhile the question construction in relation to persontargeted pragmatic strategies was constructed in the way they are because of the
doubt on witness characteristics in that cross-examination. The researcher
suggests that the result of this research can be used as the guidance for the readers
and further researchers who are interested in forensic linguistic.
Key
words:
Question Construction,
Examination.
i
Pragmatic
Strategies,
Cross-
ABSTRAK
Wau, Senadaman, 2016, Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan. Thesis Advisors:
(1) Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd., (2) Dr. T. Tyrhaya Zein, M.A.
Studi ini bertujuan mengidentifkasi tipe-tipe konstruksi pertanyaan yang
berhubungan dengan strategi pragmatik, bagaimana pertanyaan-pertanyaan
tersebut dikonstruksikan, dan mengapa pertanyaan-pertanyaan tersebut
dikonstruksikan dengan cara yang demikian. Desain Penelitian ini adalah
kualitatif. Data pada penelitian ini adalah tindak tutur dalam bentuk pertanyaan,
dan sumbernya dari interaksi antara penasihat hukum dan saksi. Penelitian ini
dianalisis dengan menggunakan model interaktif oleh Miles, Huberman, dan
Saldana (2014). Adapun temuan penilitian ini adalah terdapat sepuluh tipe
pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan strategi pragmatik (idea-targeted),
sedangkan terdapat lima tipe konstruksi pertanyaan strategi pragmatik (persontargeted). Konstruksi pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan strategi pragmatik
(idea-targeted) dikontruksikan dari kesaksian sebelumnya ketika pemeriksaan
tersebut berlangsung, sedangkan konstruksi pertanyaan yang berhubungan dengan
strategi pragmatik (person-targeted) dikontruksikan dari kesaksian sebelumnya
pada pemeriksaan oleh majelis hakim. Konstruksi pertanyaan yang berhubungan
dengan strategi pragmatik (idea-targeted) dikonstruksikan dengan cara yang
demikian karena adanya kontradiksi, sedangkan konstruksi pertanyaan yang
berhubungan dengan strategi pragmatik (person-targeted) dikonstruksikan dengan
cara yang demikian karena adanya keraguan pada saksi tentang karakteristiknya
sebagai saksi. Peniliti menyarankan agar hasil penelitian dapat digunakan sebagai
panduan kepada pembaca dan peniliti selanjutnya yang tertarik pada linguistik
forensik.
Kata kunci: Konstruksi Pertanyaan, Strategi Pragmatik, Pemeriksaan
Silang.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First of all, the writer would like to praise and express the greatest
gratitude to Almighty God, Jesus Christ, for His wonderful grace and merciful
love during studying at English Applied Linguistics Study Program of
Postgraduate School, and especially for His blessing during writing this thesis
which entitled “Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic Strategies in
Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan”.
On this occasion, the writer also would like to give gratitude to those
people who have helped him to finish this thesis and involved during studying at
Postgraduate Program at State University of Medan.
1.
Prof. Dr. Syawal Gultom, M.Pd., as the daily rector of State University of
Medan, for the opportunity, so the writer could study in that university.
2.
Prof. Dr. Bornok Sinaga, M.Pd., as the director of postgraduate program at
State Universiity of Medan for the opportunity and the participation on
character building university in Postgraduate School Program in State
University of Medan.
3.
Dr. Rahmad Husein, M.Ed., as the Head of English Applied Linguistics Study
Program, and also as the examiner in this thesis for his wonderful suggestion,
thought, and motivation.
4.
Dr. Anni Holila Pulungan, M.Hum., as the Secretary of English Applied
Linguistics Study Program, and as the lecturer at postgraduate program, for
her wonderful thought and motivation.
5.
Dr. Siti Aisyah Ginting, M.Pd., as the advisor I, and Dr. T. Tyrhaya Zein,
M.A., as the advisor II, for their wonderful thought, suggestion, motivation to
iii
finish this thesis, and for their much kindness which cannot be expressed by
words.
6.
Prof. Amrin Saragih, M.A., Ph.D., and Dr. Eddy Setia, M.Ed., as the
examiners in this thesis for their wonderful suggestion, thought, and
contributions to make this thesis better.
7.
Prof. Dr. Busmin Gurning, M.Pd., Prof. Dr. Berlin Sibarani, M.Pd., and other
lecturers during following the lecturing from them, for their wonderful
teaching during studying at Postgraduate School Program.
8.
Mr. Bamböwö Laiya, M.A., as the founder of Yayasan Pendidikan Nias
Selatan, for his great help and support, so the writer could finish his magister
program at State University of Medan.
9.
Mrs. Sitasi Zagötö, M.A., as the Coordinator of STKIP Nias Selatan, STIE
Nias Selatan, and STIH Nias Selatan for her great motivation and support.
10. Beloved parents, daddy and mommy, brother and sisters for their prayer,
motivation, and support during studying at postgraduate program at State
University of Medan.
11. Saniago Dakhi, S.Pd.,M.Hum., and Restu Damai Laia, S.Pd., M.Pd., for their
motivation and supports during studying at Postgraduate Program at State
University of Medan.
12. His mates: Melisa Hutabarat, Anisa Panggabean, Winda Sinambela, Yusi
Panggabean, Riswan Zega, Selamat Husni, Evin Hutasoit, Herawati Bukit,
Orli Tumanggor, Kiky Wardhani, and other mates during studying at
Postgraduate Program at State University of Medan for their motivation and
togetherness during studying.
iv
13. To all people who have been involved during studying and writing this thesis
for their helps and kindness.
The writer believes that there are lots of weaknesses. Therefore, the
constructive suggestions are expected from the readers to make this writing better.
May God always bless us.
Medan, June 2016
The researcher,
v
LIST OF CONTENT
Page
ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………………… i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ……………………………………………………. iii
LIST OF CONTENT …………………………………………………………. vii
LIST OF FIGURES …………………………………………………………… viii
LIST OF APPENDICES ……………………………………………………… ix
LIST OF TABLES ……………………………………………………………. x
LIST OF MATRIXES ……………………………………………………….... xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ………………………………………………… xii
CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION …………………………………….......... 1
1.1 Background of the Study ……………………………..……………….1
1.2 The Problems of the Study …….…….………..……………………… 6
1.3 The Objectives of the Study ……….………....……………………… 6
1.4 The Scope of the Study ……….……………………………………… 7
1.5 The Significances of the Study ……..………………………………... 7
CHAPTER II LITERATURE REVIEW ……….…………………............ 8
2.1 Courtroom Discourse ……………………………..…………………. 8
2.2 Cross-Examination in Court …….…….………..…………………… 9
2.3 Questioning Types in Court ……….………....……………………… 9
2.3.1 Declaratives ………………………………………………..... 10
2.3.2 Tag Questions ……………………………………………….. 11
2.3.2.1 Modal Verb Tag Questions ………………………..... 12
2.3.2.2 Agreement Tag Questions …………………………... 12
2.3.2.3 Full Verb Tag Questions ……………………………. 13
2.3.2.4 Yes or No Tag ……………………………………….. 13
2.3.3 Amount of Information and Pressure ……………………….. 13
2.3.3.1 Polar Yes-No Questions …………………………….. 14
2.3.3.2 Choice Questions ……………………………………. 14
2.3.3.3 Who, Where and When Questions ………………….. 15
2.3.3.4 How and Why Questions ……………………………. 15
2.3.3.5 Projections Questions ……………………………….. 16
2.3.3.6 Special Formulas ……………………………………. 16
2.4 Pragmatic Strategies ……….………………………………………... 17
2.4.1 Person-targeted Pragmatic Strategies …………………………. 18
2.4.2 Idea-targeted Pragmatic Strategies ……………………………. 21
2.5 Relevant of Studies ……………..………………………………….... 23
2.6 Conceptual Framework ……………………………………………… 26
CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHOD ……….……………….................. 29
3.1 Research Design …………………………..…………………..……. 29
3.2 The Data and Source of Data ...…….…..…………………………... 29
3.3 The Research Instruments ……….………....………………………. 30
3.4 Techniques of Data Collection …………………………………...… 30
vi
3.5 Techniques of Data Analysis ……………..………………………… 31
3.6 The Trustworthiness of the Study ………..…………………………. 34
CHAPTER IV: DATA ANALYSIS, FINDINGS, AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Data Analysis ………………………………………………………... 37
4.1.1 Types of Question Construction in Relation to
Pragmatic Strategies ………………………………………….. 39
4.1.2 Description of Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic
Strategies ……………………………………………………… 53
4.1.3 The Reasons of Question Construction in Relation to Pragmatic
Strategies ……………………………………………………… 65
4.2 Research Finding ……………………………………………………. 87
4.3 Discussion …………………………………………………………… 90
CHAPTER V: CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion …………………………………………………………... 92
5.2 Suggestion …………………………………………………………... 93
REFERENCE ……………………………………………………………….... 94
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix
Page
1. Table of Utterance …………………………………………........................ 96
2. Interview ……. ……………………………………………………….......... 118
ix
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
4.1
Question Construction in Relation to Idea-targeted
Pragmatic Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan
in Corruption Case ……………………………………………………….. 58
4.2 Question Construction in relation to Person-targeted
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
in Corruption Case ……………………………………………………….. 60
4.3 Question Construction in relation to Idea-targeted
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
in Narcotic Case ………………………………………………………….. 62
4.4 Question Construction in relation to Idea-targeted
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
in Oppression Case ………………………………………………………. 64
4.5. Question Construction in relation to Person-targeted
pragmatic strategies in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
in Oppression Case ………………………………………………………. 65
x
LIST OF MATRIXES
Matrix
Page
4.1
Question Types in Relation to Idea-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Corruption Case ………………………………………………………….. 44
4.2 Question Types in Relation to Person-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Corruption Case ………………………………………………………….. 46
4.3 Question Types in Relation to Idea-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Narcotic Case …………………………………………………………….. 49
4.4. Question Types in Relation to Person-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Oppression Case …...…………………………………………………….. 51
4.5 Question Types in Relation to Person-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan in
Oppression Case …………………………………………………………. 53
4.6 Question Types in Relation to Idea-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan …………….…... 87
4.7 Question Types in Relation to Person-targeted Pragmatic
Strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan …………………. 88
xi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation
B : Barrister
W : Witness
xii
1
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the Study
Language is the primary way of communication and a means of interaction
to each other. The interaction is done to express information to others, and from
the interaction, it is expected there will be an exchange of information to each
other for the purpose is to fulfill the needs of information. The needs are
successful when there are the questions from the addresser and the answers from
the addressee in their interaction as the interlocutor. The addresser usually
proposes several questions to the addressee to obtain answers in terms of
information needed by, and vice versa. This interaction may be seen in every
discourse of human interaction; it also may be found in the daily activities.
However, the interaction which has been explained above is different from the
interaction in courtroom.
Cross-examination is one of the interactions that are done in courtroom. In
term of courtroom interaction, the interaction is done between the lawyers or
barristers and witnesses. It is the interrogation of a witness called by one’s
opponent in court. In terms of interrogation, the several questions are proposed by
cross-examiner to witness for the purpose is to get the testimony and come to the
real event or fact. Testimony which is expressed by witness expected becoming as
the evidence for the case which is being discussed. Anyway, the main purposes of
cross-examination are to elicit favorable facts from the witness, or to impeach the
credibility of the testifying witness to lessen the weight of unfavorable testimony.
1
2
It frequently produces critical evidence in trials, especially if a witness contradicts
with previous testimony. In courtroom cross-examination interaction, the barrister
is expected using cross-examination strategy in which it is the skill to corner the
witness in court. The barristers use their personal thought or ideas in courtroom
cross-examination interaction with the witnesses. Furthermore, the interpretation
of cross-examination interaction between the barristers and witnesses should be
based on context of situation where it is being held. In other words, the meaning
of questions proposed by barrister interpreted based on what has been recognized
by witnesses.
Hale (2004: 31) asserts that the discourse and the pragmatic
function of cross-examination by lawyers has the main purpose not to elicit new
information
(information-seeking),
but
to
discredit
the
previously
elicited
examination- in-chief’s case.
Questions are usually discussed as syntactical forms to elicit information,
used to attract attention of listeners in conversation or interaction for sustaining
interest among interlocutors. The questions themselves are sentences, phrases, are
used show that the speaker or writer wants the reader or listener to supply them
with some information, perform a task or in some other way respond to request.
Thus, various types of questions are delivered to the listener. However, the
question asked by the speaker determines the response from the listener.
Questions can be seen as syntactical forms with pragmatic functions. In discourse,
questions are sometimes used strategically by interlocutors of greater authority
against those without power (Fairclough, 2001). It means that more powerful
persons tend to ask question than the powerless persons in which the powerless
persons are required to provide answers to the questions asked. Similar with the
3
courtroom interaction in which the jury or lawyer tends to ask questions to
witness. Thus, courtroom questioning differs markedly, in that lawyers usually
have a particular version of events in mind that they are attempting to confirm
with the witness. Usually the witnesses are compelled to answer, and do not have
the right to ask questions (Gibbons, 2008: 115). In clear, he adds that these
differences mean that courtroom questions are different from everyday questions
along a range of linguistic parameters.
The cross-examination which is done by lawyers or barristers in court to
witness has a particular purpose that is to discredit the witness’s testimony or
examination in chief. State Courtroom of Medan is one of the places that applying
the interrogation to the witnesses by barrister or lawyer by questioning. Several
questions are asked to witness in cross-examination session. The questions asked
have their own particular function and are related to what context of case being
examined. Purba (2009) states that question are most dominant type of speech
function in court session. This is due to the fact that the judge as well as the
prosecutor, and the lawyer are the seeker of information through probing or
investigation. It is clear that the questions are dominant in courtroom crossexamination session in terms of interrogation.
As the cross-examiners, the lawyers or barristers have a multiple task:
discredit the witness, propose an alternative approach to the events, and persuade
the audience. This task is achieved purely by means of questioning, until they
come to closing speeches. The syntactic form of questions helps to define the
response boundaries and elicit type-conforming replies (Tkačukovă, 2010: 339). It
means that one of the ways coming to the fact or true event is by questioning to
4
witness and syntactical form of questions helps and determines the response from
the witness. All of the tasks of barrister in courtroom cross-examination in Medan
are expected done effectually. In fact, the barristers are not consistent of their
tasks.
Barrister : Pencairan uang itu langsung bapak kasih sendiri pada saat itu kepada
terdakwa dan tidak ada tanda bukti pembayaran. Benarkah demikian?
Witness : Ya, benar.
The phenomenon as drawn above displays that the barrister questions the
witness in courtroom cross-examination in Medan. However, the function of the
question constructed is not to discredit the witness, but only confirms about the
event. It can be said that the barrister does not use the cross-examination strategy
as stated by Cotterill (2004) that cross-examination strategy covers a wide range
of tactics including lexical means (particular choices of words used in questions),
whereas the task is to discredit the witness and to propose an alternative approach
to events.
The way to achieve the task of barrister by the means of questioning to
witness, Gibbons (2003: 112) differentiates between idea-targeted and persontargeted pragmatic strategies. Idea-targeted pragmatic strategies challenge the
testimony, whereas person-targeted pragmatic strategies cast doubt on the
personal characteristics of witness.
Example 1:
Barrister : Pencairan uang itu langsung bapak kasih sendiri pada saat itu kepada
terdakwa dan tidak ada tanda bukti pembayaran. Bagaimana anda bisa
memberikan uang itu sedangkan tanda bukti tidak ada?
Witness : Saya hanya memberikan uang itu kepada saudara terdakwa tanpa
menghitungnya karena uangnya barusan saya ambil dari bank. Gak
ada kwitansi juga pada saat itu. Itu saja pak.
5
The example 1 as drawn above displays that the barrister elicits more information
by challenging the witness about the event. It can be seen from the question
constructed and particular choice of words “Bagaimana anda bisa memberikan
uang itu sedangkan tanda bukti tidak ada?”. This question is very helpful to
challenge the witness and sounds to trap the witness that he is involved in the
case.
Example 2:
Barrister:
I just want to remind you and confirm that in this courtroom;
previously you said that the defendant slapped the victim on her left
cheek. You watched directly. But just now you said that the doctor
cured her right cheek. Did you?
The example 2 which is drawn above using the reverse polarity tag question, or
modal verb tag question, where it challenges the witness’s claim about the slap
cheek.
Example 3:
Barrister: I want to clarify. Tell me if I am mistaken. The money was sent into
your account. And you say you didn’t know how to earn money into
bank. Did you?
The example 3 which is drawn above using full verb tag question, displays how
the barrister discredits the personality of witness of his or her testimony. From
those examples which are illustrated above display that the barrister fulfills the
tasks: to discredit the witness, to propose alternative approaches to the events, and
to persuade audience. Anyway, the syntactical form of questions constructed helps
to elicit testimony and is functional.
Those phenomena as drawn above show that barristers have different point
of view to question the witnesses, because, in fact, some of the questions
6
constructed not to corner the witness. The phenomena indicate that the barristers
have their own reasons of why constructing the questions so. However, it is
expected that the barristers should keep focus on their tasks when the crossexamination is being held.
The barrister or lawyer uses many kinds of tactics or strategies in crossexamination particularly in questions in which encompass syntactical forms or
grammatical forms of questions which are functional and helpful to elicit replies
from the witness. Thus, in line with the theory which is proposed about questions
by Tkačukovă (2010) in relation to pragmatic strategies (Gibbon’s theory), the
researcher would like to research how question(s) constructed in courtroom in
relation to pragmatic strategies in cross-examination in Medan. The researcher
would like to research the question construction on criminal act.
1.2 The Problems of the Study
Based on the background of the study which is explained above, the
research problems are formulated as the following:
1. What are the types of questions in relation to pragmatic strategies in
Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan?
2. How are the question constructed in relation to pragmatic strategies in
Courtroom Cross-Examination in Medan?
3. Why are the questions constructed in the way they are?
1.3 The Objectives of the Study
In relation to the problems of the study, the objectives of this research are
to describe:
7
1. The types of question in relation to pragmatic strategies in Courtroom CrossExamination in Medan.
2. The question construction in relation to pragmatic strategies in Courtroom
Cross-Examination in Medan.
3. The reason of subject constructs the question in the way they are.
1.4 The Scope of Study
This research will be focused on question in courtroom cross-examination
in Medan. The focus of questions is on the declarative question, tag question, and
amount information and pressure (polar yes-no question, choice question, whquestion, projection questions, and special formulas) in which related to pragmatic
strategies. The analysis of this study is based on Tkačukovă’s theory about
questions in Courtroom Cross-Examination in which it is related to pragmatic
strategies (Gibbon’s theory).
1.5 The Significances of the Study
The findings of this study offer theoretical and practical significance.
Theoretically, it is expected that the findings of this research will give much
contribution and insight to applied linguistics, particularly to forensic linguistics
about question in courtroom cross-examination in relation to pragmatic strategies.
In addition, the findings will add up more horizons to linguistic theory.
Practically, it is also expected that the findings of this research will give more
information to the readers, and particularly the lawyers or barrister in proposing or
in constructing the question to witnesses in courtroom cross-examination in order
that the case which is going on can be finished more effectively.
92
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSION AND SUGGESTION
5.1 Conclusion
Based on the data analysis in the previous chapter, it is concluded that
there are some question constructions in relation to pragmatic strategies which
delivered by the barristers to the witnesses in courtroom cross-examination in
Medan.
1. The types of question construction in relation to idea-targeted pragmatic
strategies consist of informative question: from whom, choice question, after
that, why, conjunction, prepositional phrase, which, where, and who, and tag
queston: full verb tag question. While, the types of question construction in
relation to person-targeted pragmatic strategies consist of tag question: full
verb tag question, and agreement tag question, and informative question: how
far, what, and choice question.
2. The questions construction in relation to idea-targeted pragmatic strategies in
courtroom cross-examination in Medan appeared and based on witness
previous testimonies or responses, and from the responses themselves the
barrister questioned again with type of particular challenging question. While
the question construction in relation to person targeted pragmatic strategies in
courtroom cross-examination in Medan also appeared and based on witness
previous testimony in chief’s case and in that cross-examination when it was
being held, in which the response from the witness unbelievable, and casted
doubt.
92
93
3. The question construction in relation to idea-targeted pragmatic strategies was
constructed in the way they are because there are contradiction with previous
testimonies in that cross-examination,
between previous testimonies and
current ones, no clarity from the witness responses, uncertainty testimony, and
no affirmation from the witness.
While question construction in relation to
person-targeted pragmatic strategies was constructed in the way they are
because there are doubt on witness testimony characteristics, and unbelievable
testimony.
5.2 Suggestions
Based on the research findings, the researcher suggests that:
1.
For further researcher who is interested in researching and discussing forensic
linguistics and
especially discussing question construction in courtroom
cross-examination, it will also be better to measure the interrelatedness
between
question
examination,
and
construction
in
cross-examination,
chief’s
so
there
examination,
can
be
prosecutor’s
measured
the
significances question constructions between the three.
2.
It is suggested to the readers that the result of this research may become as the
guidance for further research especially for the students who are interested in
forensic linguistics will have much basic source and insight about the
question construction which delivered in the courtroom cross-examination.
94
REFERENCES
Aldridge, M. & Luchjenbroers, J. 2007. Linguistic Manipulations in Legal
Discourse: Framing Questions and Smuggling Information. (Online).
International Journal of Speech Language and Law, vol.14, no. 1.
Bloomaert, J. 2005. Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Bogdan, R, C., & Biklen, S. K. 1992. Qualitative Research foe Education: An
Introduction to Theory and Methods (2nd .Ed). Sydney: Allyn and Bacon.
Balcha, E.B. 2015. An Analysis of Legal Discourse in Cross-Examination
Questionings: Adama City Criminal courtrooms. Oromia Regional State,
Ethiopia, (Online), vol. 3, No. 2. p.269-274.
Cotterill, J. 2003. Language and Power in Court: A linguistic Analysis of the O.J.
Simpson Trial. Palgrave: Macmillan.
Cotterill, J. 2004. Collocation, connotation, and courtroom semantics: Lawyer’s
control of witness testimony through lexical negations. Applied
Linguistics, 25(4): 513-37.
Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics;
Language in Evidence. London & New York: Routledge.
Denzim, N. K. 2001. The Research Act in Sociology. Chicago: Aldina.
Dong, J. 2013. Interpersonal Metaphor in Legal Discourse: Modality in CrossExaminations. (Online). Journal of Language Teaching and Research, vol.
4, no. 6.
Fairclough, N. 2001. Language and Power. 2nd Edition. London: Longman.
Gibbons, J. 2003. Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the
Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell.
Gibbons, J. & Turell, M. T. (Eds). 2008. Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics.
Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Hale, S., B. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse practices of the
law, the witness and the interpreter. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins.
Leech, G. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. 1985. Naturalistic Inquiry, California: Sage.
95
Longacre, R. E. 1996. The Grammar of Discourse. 2nd Ed. New York: Springer.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1984. Qualitative Data Analysis. California:
Sage.
Ogunaiji, Y. & Farinde, R. O. 2012. Pragmatics in Forensic Linguistic
Development for National Re-orientation and Transformation in Nigeria.
(Online). British Journal of Arts and Science, vol. 7, no. 2.
Purba, L. 2009. Interpersonal Meanings: Speech Functions in Court Text.
Unpublished Thesis. Medan: Postgraduate School, State University of
Medan.
Satia, E. 2013. Strategies of Controlling the Linguistic Response from CrossExamined Witnesses: Lay Defendants as Cross-Examiners in a Kenyan
Resident Magistrate’s Court. (Online). The University Nairobi Journal of
Language and Linguistics, vol. 3, 28-51.
Schegloff, E. & Sachs, H. 1973. Semiotica: Opening up closings. p. 289–327.
Stolzenberg, S. N. & Lyon, T. D. 2014. How Attorneys Question Children About
the Dynamic of Sexual Abuse and Diclosure in Criminal Trials, (Online),
Jan,1st ; 20 (1): 19-30. doi: 10.1037/a0035000.
Tkačukovă, T. 2010. Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. (Eds).
Coulthard, M. & Johnson, A. London & Newyork: Routledge.
Wagner, A. & Cheng, L. (Eds). 2011. Exploring Courtroom Discourse: The
Language of Power and Control. British: Ashgate.
Yule, G. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press
(http://www.espeap.junis.ni.ac.rs/index.php/espeap/article/view/238