QUESTION CONSTRUCTION IN RELATION TO PRAGMATIC STRATEGIES IN COURTROOM CROSS-EXAMINATION IN MEDAN

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.