66 Discourse and Rape his version of an event (event no. 2). However, NM is alert and on guard with this kind of trap during cross examination. She contests the lawyer’s version by attesting that the accused was not only “in front of her” but on “top of her” when she regained consciousness. In fact, she is being consistent during the cross examination as she wants to stand by her testimony during the direct examination, as shown in the extract below. 3 C4-TSN3: 10 (direct examination of the complainant) PL: NM: PL: NM: PL: NM: When you regained consciousness was RM still there? Yes, Ma’am, in front of me. What was he doing in front of you? He was on top of me. You mean to say you were lying down? Yes, Ma’am. Extract 4 below deserves further pragmatic description using the frameworks of implicatures and speech acts. It reveals an instance where NM seems to resist DL’s version of events. NM’s resistance is brought about by DL’s ability to reformulate his question and proffer his own version of an event. 4 C4-TSN4: 13 DL: So you were totally naked when you regained consciousness? NM: Yes, sir, I was naked. DL: And the accused was there in front of you? NM: He was in front of me and lying on top of me. DL’s meaning in this utterance - “And the accused was there in front of you?” signifies that the accused, RM, was just in front of her (i.e., in a standing position instead of a lying position) when NM regained consciousness, and not on top of her – violating her. The illocutionary act of “offering a version of event” depicts DL’s intention to provide an alternative way of understanding that RM did not do anything to NM, or at least if he did have sex with her, it