i 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 person-targeted 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.
ii 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 (person-targeted). 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.
iii
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.
iv
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.
v
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.
vi
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
1.2The Problems of the Study …….…….………..……… 6
1.3The Objectives of the Study ……….………....……… 6
1.4The Scope of the Study ……….……… 7
1.5The 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
2.3.2.1Modal Verb Tag Questions ………... 12
2.3.2.2 Agreement Tag Questions ………... 12
2.3.2.3Full Verb Tag Questions ………. 13
2.3.2.4Yes or No Tag ……….. 13
2.3.3 Amount of Information and Pressure ……….. 13
2.3.3.1Polar Yes-No Questions ……….. 14
2.3.3.2Choice Questions ………. 14
2.3.3.3Who, Where and When Questions ……….. 15
2.3.3.4How and Why Questions ………. 15
2.3.3.5Projections 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
vii
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
ix
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
x
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
xi
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
xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
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.
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.
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 cross-examination session in terms of interrogation.
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 person-targeted pragmatic strategies. Idea-person-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?
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.
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 cross-examination is being held.
The barrister or lawyer uses many kinds of tactics or strategies in cross-examination 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
7
1. The types of question in relation to pragmatic strategies in Courtroom Cross-Examination 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, wh-question, 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
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.
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 construction in chief’s examination, prosecutor’s
examination, and cross-examination, so there can be measured the significances question constructions between the three.
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 Cross-Examinations. (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.
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 Cross-Examined 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.
