INTERROGATION of Quran means to ask question in presence of Quran and asking of it to utterance and answer. This word first time has been brought up by Imam Ali (peace be upon him). Religious scholars have used it generally to exegesis of Quran to Quran, paraphrase, subjective exegesis and deduction from Quran. All of these applications consists one of the several aspects of INTERROGATION.INTERROGATION of Quran has stable and clear bases such as universality of Quran, eternity of Quran and system of Quran, but from the point that: questions could be in which fields and who can interrogate Quran, there are some disagreements between scholars. The deliberation in the phrases of them shows that the disagreements have been caused by the difference of point of views. Spread capability of Quran has prepared this possibility that not only the expanse of questions from Quran is very widespread, but also even non-innocents after obtaining the necessary abilities can perform some degrees of Quranic INTERROGATION.

1. Introduction The discourse in the INTERROGATION process is one of the most interesting and valuable areas of language research. What creates the discourse of an INTERROGATION is the sequence of questions and answers among the participants in an INTERROGATION interaction. The interrogator, including the police, the interrogator, the judge, etc., uses the Q&A strategy to control the conversation and interact with respondents, including witnesses, defendants, informants, etc. This study sought to answer the following questions: 1. How many questions can be used in the INTERROGATION process? What is the degree of control and the pragmatic role of each question? Among the studies on the use of language in the judicial system, it seems that the discourse of INTERROGATION and verbal interaction in this area has not been seriously discussed, and in this respect, the present study may provide insights into the INTERROGATION process and the participants in the interaction which has not been investigated so far. . .

Certain institutes act to deal with crimes in all criminal justice systems. Police is one of the most important of these institutes. The police need certain authorities given from the related governments to perform their mission in this respect which should in turn be correctly monitored.The present study tries to elaborate on the criteria for preliminary INTERROGATION of the accused by the police according to the international documents and the internal rights and laws of U.K and France. The legal status of our country Iran are being explored in this respect and the related shortcomings are being clarified and are being presented with appropriate suggestions and working procedures.

One of the arguments in rhetoric is to examine the use of interrogative sentences in secondary purposes. The main purpose of the INTERROGATION is to obtain information; but up to 32 secondary purposes have been written for INTERROGATIONs in some rhetoric books. In this descriptive-analytical study, the secondary purposes of the interrogative sentences in Saadi's Bustan have been analyzed. The purpose of this research is to determine what concepts Saadi has intended to present through rhetorical questions. The fundamental question in this research is to identify, to what extent did Saadi use the interrogative sentence in presenting his themes and concepts? The research is based on the assumption that due to Saadi's mastery in rhetoric criteria of language, he has taken great advantage of the secondary capacities of the interrogative sentences, especially in conveying themes of reproach and denial. In Saadi's Bustan, in total, 379 cases of rhetorical INTERROGATIONs have been used. Out of which, in 289 cases, the poet used one type of interrogative tools to ask questions, which included a variety of 19 questions. Of these 19 cases, only the Arabic word "kaifa" serves as a question mark. The word "Che" has been used 129 times, accounting for about 47% of all query words in Bustan. In many cases of rhetorical questions, he begins the INTERROGATIONs by the word "no". The poet's intention in this way of expression is to draw the reader's attention and emphasis on the theme. In total, 379 cases of rhetorical INTERROGATION have been utilized in the Saadi's Bustan. These questions have raised 32 different themes. What is important in terms of the style and understanding of the poet's thinking is that in 241 of these questions, directly or indirectly, ethical themes are presented.

Rhetoric – which means correspondence of discourse to the conditions of the audience – has always been considered as the manifestation of the Quran’ s inimitability and matchlessness. Accordingly, semantics has been invented to obtain an exact understanding of the different dimensions of rhetoric in discourse in general, and in the Divine Word in particular. This science sets out to inspect discourse since it conveys a connotative and implicational meaning. To this end, it addresses different kinds of discourse, including statement and composition. The latter can be divided into purposive and non-purposive branches, based on the point that if it is uttered to attain a purpose or not. The purposive compositions are highly important in semantics since they convey connotative meanings. INTERROGATION is one of the most useful types of this composition, which can be frequently found in the Quran, and examination of its connotative meaning is certainly effective on illumination of the Quran’ s rhetoric and inimitability. Investigation of the interrogative sentences of the Quran reveals that only 19 Quranic INTERROGATIONs have been used in their real meanings, i. e. to know the answer. The remaining majority of the interrogative sentences have been intended to convey figurative meanings like refutation, admonitory denial, tacit approval, rejection, surprise, persuasion, and equalization.

During the INTERROGATION process and its discourse language contains certain characteristics that can be the source of many linguistic researches and studies. One of the most important issues that can be mentioned in the INTERROGATION process is how to evolve the verbal communication by the interrogator in order to obtain the truth of the interrogee’ s statements. In this regard, the interrogator uses strategies to advance the discourse in his/her own way. In analyzing the data, the participants in the INTERROGATION interaction were divided into two groups of specialist and non-specialist. The first category are the people who are familiar with the law and the legal language and include the police, judge, lawyer, etc. On the other hand, the second group are people who are not familiar with the law (or at least have little familiarity), including the accused, the plaintiff. In the present essay, based on the corpus of ten litigation files and based on the analysis of the verbal interaction between the expert (judge) and the non-expert (the accused, the plaintiff), we attempted to extract the various strategies used by the interrogator. The strategies include question formulation, use of repeated questions, quotation clauses, contrast, the use of the phrase "khob" as a discourse maker and interruption. 1. Introduction: In a simple definition forensic linguistics is an attempt to explore the way relationships between people in legal contexts are constructed through language. What we are dealing with in forensic linguistics in general is the analysis of legal writing or legal talk. The present study focuses on legal talk in INTERROGATION, specifically questioning in trial. In the present study we examined the INTERROGATION process, which includes the strategies that the interrogator uses during the INTERROGATION process to obtain answers to his questions and to discover the truth. Based on the issues raised, the present study seeks to answer the following questions: 1. What strategies does the interrogator use to obtain the truth in the INTERROGATION process? 2. What is the formal and pragmatic representation of the questions during the INTERROGATION process? 2. Literature Review: Holt and Johnson (2010) study the socio-pragmatic aspects of legal talk: police interviews and trial discourse. They believe that reporting, contrasting, formulating and repeating are at the heart of the process of formulating the facts of the legal story in trials and police interviews. Their use produces important fact-making moments that distil and encode a version of reality, which play an important part in the legal case: an authorized-authoritative version. Momeni (2012) show how linguistic analysis can help to identify language crime especially when there are no clear available proofs or documents. As she points out language crime is accompanied with speech acts like lying, threatening bribery. After observing numerous cases in courts and police stations (Bureau of Police Investigation), the author chose data which included “ lies” and analyzed it in two ways. First, “ defendants’ statements” and second “ power relation” are analyzed. The author draws this conclusion that linguistics strategies like semantic tools (schema, frame, verb meaning), syntactic tools (mood of verb), discoursal tools (power relation) … can be effective to identify and analyze language crimes. Perjury/lie is considered as a crime in both courts and Bureau of Police Investigation. Analyzing all language crimes in one article is not possible; therefore, the author analyzes just one which is perjury/lie. Momeni and Azizi (2015) study the role of topic shift and violence of Grice Principles in INTERROGATION. They show the role of changing the subject and violation of Grice cooperative principles in INTERROGATIONs. That is, the accused seeks to prolong the duration of the investigation or provide incomplete information to the interrogator officer which consistently violates these strategies. On the other hand, the legal context and power relations do not allow the accused to change the subject according to his own desire or give irrelevant answers constantly. If this happens, it can be concluded that the accused tried to mislead the interrogator in linguistic terms. This research is a fieldwork study. After tens of observations of INTERROGATIONs recorded in Tehran Police Bureau, the real samples were selected, classified and studied. The authors introduce these principles and demonstrate their use in INTERROGATIONs. Razavian and Jalil, (2018) study the “ spoken features of the robbery defendants in court” . They try to obtain spoken features of robbery defendants in order to provide a unique conversation of thieves in detection of crimes. The authors are trying to describe and explain speech of robbery defendants in Semnan province judicial system from the perspective of Forensic Linguistics. The results show that the robbery defendants by using many linguistic principles such as high modality, activism deletion, infelicitous utterance, illocutionary act try to gain interrogators confidence. Investigation of lawsuits details show that robbery defendants in their defenses use linguistic principles differently. In particular, they use in their speech modality for 29%, contradictions for 16%, activism deletion for 14%, presupposition for 10%, speech acts for 3%, implicature for 1% and middle voice construction for 0/5%. Results suggest that attention to features and elegances of language like low modality, contradiction in speech, activism deletion, presupposition, implicature; middle voice construction and Gricean Cooperative Principles can help investigators and judges at crime detection. The other researches that concerns language in legal discourse in Iran are as follows: Rowshan & Behboudi (2009), Momeni (2011), Momeni & Azizi (2011). 3. Methodology: This research is a fieldwork study. The present study is based on a speech record of a total of 189 minutes of conversation recording of the INTERROGATION process of ten cases in two branches of the Shiraz Public Prosecutor's Office. After tens of observations of INTERROGATIONs recorded, the real samples were selected, classified and studied. 4. Results and Discussion: By analyzing the data we found that the interrogator uses specific and repetitive strategies, and this pattern is present in all cases. Accordingly, we extract and categorize the strategies which include question formulation, use of repeated questions, quotation clauses, contrast, the use of the phrase "khob" as a discourse maker marker and interruption. The results show that all four strategies proposed in the views of Holt and Johnson (2010) included the formulation, repetition of the question, quotation, and contrast palys central role in the INTERROGATION discourse. Also, the authors have found three strategies: "khob" as a discourse maker marker, interruption, and the second type of question repetition to these strategies. 6. Conclusion: While the formal approaches to the study of language pay attention to the formal aspects of language, the functional-oriented theories focus on language use as a means of communication and its application in different contexts. In the present article, an attempt was made to study another practical aspect of language in the (specifically) judicial and legal context. To achieve this, the authors chose the INTERROGATION process in the prosecutor's office and explored the strategies used in the INTERROGATION process by the expert (interrogator) and non-expert (defendant, plaintiff, etc. ). One of the main strategies in this process is “ the questions” both in formal and pragmatic aspects. Based on the body of the INTERROGATION process of ten cases in two branches of the Public Prosecutor's Office, the authors evaluated the questions raised by the judge and concluded that all four strategies proposed in the views of Holt and Johnson (2010) are used by interrogator. They are question formulation, repeated questions, quotation clauses and contrast, and also, the authors have added three strategies of "khob" as a discourse maker marker, interruption. It should be noted that the discourse of INTERROGATION has many different dimensions and aspects, both in terms of form and function, which requires deeper and broader research in the field of justice.

Rhetoric is the science which surveys sentences and their figurative meanings. One of the important issues in rhetoric is “INTERROGATION” and its secondary meanings. Interrogative sentences abound in literary works and are used for presenting a variety of concepts. Most often interrogative sentences do not seek to make the unknown understand, which is their main purpose. In spite of the importance of interrogative sentences, there are problems and deficiencies in Persian rhetoric works dealing with these sentences.Considering the definitions and examples of interrogative sentences proposed in rhetoric works, this study will survey the subject of INTERROGATION through the examination of some of the important Persian rhetoric works. Survey of these definitions and examples reveals that some is sues need to be revised in these works. Some difficulties and deficiencies of these works include: mere imitation of Arab Rhetoric, inattention to changes in the meaning of some titles in Arabic and Persian languages, inconsistencies between secondary meanings and their examples, inattention to selecting a proper title, incorrect reading of poems and lack of knowledge of rhetoric researchers about the meaning of poems.

In an experiment, nonverbal indicators of deception in police INTERROGATIONs of mock crimes wereexamined. Both vocal and nonvocal behaviours were scored. Thirty participants were subjected tolong INTERROGATIONs (over 9 minutes) conducted by 30 experienced police officers, asked to interrogateas they normally do. Although the liars reported being significantly more nervous, and found the taskmore strenuous than the truth tellers, no differences in the nonverbal behaviours scored were found. In an analysis of the strategies employed, both truth tellers and liars were found to try to not makeexcess movements. The principal verbal content strategy for the liars was to keep the story simple, andfor truth tellers to keep the story real. The reasons why, in this demanding situation, the truth tellersand liars could not be distinguished by their nonverbal behaviour are discussed.

The purpose of this article, within the framework of an interpretive study, was to study the semantics of a universitychr('39')s classrooms to create a critical awareness of the meanings of the symptoms and their functions at the context of physical artifacts, besides their managerial implications. To accomplish this goal, after taking pictures of the structural elements of the studied classrooms of the university, 8 photographs were selected as samples for analysis. The screening criterion for pictures was the ability to learning more from visual texts. Subsequently, the data were analyzed using Saussure and Barthchr('39')s semantic methods. The findings of our research imply the discovery of six myths: the myth of the teacher-student (the necessity of the studentchr('39')s strict adherence to the teacher as teaching and relying on the ideas put forward by him instead of a critical or deconstructive confrontation with those ideas, or co-learning), the myth of order (instilling good sense of order in the organization to organize things), the myth of larger-smaller or master-slave (inevitable creation of class system in the organization), the myth of ownership-merit (inadequate attention to the use and maintenance of the organizationchr('39')s public property and facilities), the myth of Pat-Mat (lack of comprehensive insight into the planning and mobilization of resources and facilities of the organization).

Background and objectives: The importance of crime detection is due to the fact that a large part of people in society and all coercive and social control institutions are affected by this phenomenon. In some way, the peace and social security of society is intertwined with this phenomenon, but such importance depends on having agents with proper INTERROGATION skills. Therefore, the present research was conducted with the aim of identifying interviewing and INTERROGATION skills in law enforcement and theft.Methodology: In this research, qualitative approach and thematic analysis method have been used. The statistical population of this research is 15 detectives and crime detection specialists who work in specialized police forces, and among them, a targeted approach and a theoretical saturation criterion were used to select the statistical sample. The data collection tool was a semi-structured interview, which was used to determine its reliability and validity using the four criteria of credibility, transferability, verifiability and reliability. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the data.Findings: The interpretation of the main and secondary concepts in the interview text showed that interviewing and INTERROGATION skills in police affairs and criminal investigation of theft cases include 96 secondary concepts and 4 main concepts, including technical and informational skills, professional and detective skills, verbal and communication skills and psychological and perceptive skills that are mentioned in the text of the article.Results: One of the most important issues that should be considered by specialized police in the process of criminalizing theft is the use of existing capacities and training and having such four skills for interrogators.