62 Discourse and Rape features of context, the more likely s/he is to be able to predict what is likely to be said. Analysis: Rape Trial Discourse This analysis explores how phrasal self-repetitions and reformulation, embedded in a cross-examining defense lawyer’s (DL’s) questions, are used as discourse strategies to proffer a dominant rape myth which is “rape is easily fabricated.” These repetitions and reformulation are strategically used by the crossexamining defense lawyer to emphasize his own version of an event, which is in contrast with the complainant’s (NM’s) version stated in her testimony during the direct examination. However, this kind of discourse strategy in question-answer sequences provides a site of resistance for the complainant. To illustrate these observations, the linguistic forms and the pragmatic functions of the phrasal self-repetitions and reformulation are described using Gricean theory of meaning (implicatures) and speech act theory in order to characterize events framed by both the lawyer and the complainant. This discourse strategy is analysed further using the features/aspects of context of situation, and evaluated in its socio-political context. The analysis attempts to substantiate the argument that through discursive practices of participants in the courtroom, a woman rape complainant experiences secondary victimization because she is said to have fabricated her testimony. Questions and Questioning Any discussion of questions and questioning needs to distinguish between questions as a linguistic form and the various social actions that are accomplished through this form (Koshik 2007). Questions are not only used to ask for new information. They are also used to initiate repair on someone else’s prior talk, and they likewise perform a variety of social actions such as invitations, offers, complaints, and requests. They are utterances that may solicit confirmation and even action. According to Freed and Ehrlich (2010), questions are delivered in such a way as to create a slot for