Pragmatics Implicature Analysis of Police Interrogation: Forensic Linguistics Analysis
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.61841/aptgsg06Keywords:
Forensic linguistics, Implicature, Implied Meaning,, Pragmatic, Police InterrogationAbstract
Language is a means for speakers to express their opinions and ideas. In the legal context, communication made between investigators and witnesses or suspects is created in such a way that the message is conveyed properly. Elements of communication are needed, especially by witnesses or suspects who are being interrogated by the police. Interrogators will be able to convey their hearts and minds precisely when interrogators use humane methods, including conversational implicature. The purpose of this study is to conduct forensic interrogation to identify the implications of language conversation from the perspective of the symbolic meaning of legal language. The research population is the language used by the interrogators and those involved in the interrogation. The sample is a conversation during an interrogation in a case of fraud and traffic. Data collection is done by using transcription data obtained which is then analyzed. The principle of discourse analysis is used to analyze data based on conversational implicature. The formal method is used to describe the forms and patterns of interrogation languages, while the informal method is used to classify data based on the implications of the speaker's conversation. The results of this study indicate that the use of conversational implicature in the police interrogation process can create humanist communication without having to use violent techniques. Investigators need to know more about the implicature of the conversation.
Downloads
References
1. Anesa, P. (2013). Courtroom Discourses: An Analysis of the Westerfield Jury Trial. UNIVERSITA‘ DEGLI STUDI DI VERONA.
2. Ariani, M. G., Sajedi, F., & Sajedi, M. (2014). Forensic Linguistics: A Brief Overview of the Key Elements. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 222–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.12.078
3. Baldwin, J. (1993). POLICE INTERVIEW TECHNIQUES Establishing Truth or Proof? THE BRITISH JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY, 33(June), 66–72.
4. Benotti, L., & Blackburn, P. (2001). Conversational implicatures, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3115/1118078.1118102
5. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1983). Discourse Analysis (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Brown, G., & Yule, G. (1986). Discourse Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. Constable, M. (2014). Our Word is Our Bond: How Legal Speech Acts. (R. Conley, Ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002196
8. Correa, M. (2013). Forensic linguistics: An overview of the intersection and interaction of language and law. Studies About Languages, (23), 5–13. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.23.5020
9. Deeb, H., Vrij, A., Hope, L., Mann, S., Granhag, P. A., & Strömwall, L. A. (2018). Police Officers’ Perceptions of Statement Inconsistency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, XX(X), 009385481875880. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854818758808
10. Doringin, B. (2014). Kewajiban Penyidik dalam Menginterogasi Tersangka Menurut KUHAP. Lex Crimen, III(4), 84–92.
11. Evans, R. (2010). Policing and Society : An Police interrogations and the Royal commission on criminal Justice. International Journal of Research, 4:1(May), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.1994.9964683
12. Fielding, N. G. (2013). Lay people in court: The experience of defendants, eyewitnesses, and victims. British Journal of Sociology, 64(2), 287–307. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12018
13. Grice, H. . (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words (pp. 305–315). United Kingdom: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230005853_5
14. Halliday, M. A. . (1992). Bahasa, konteks, dan teks: aspek-aspek bahasa dalam pandangan semiotik sosial. Yogyakarta: Gadjah University Press.
15. Kassin, S. M. (2014). False Confessions: Causes, Consequences, and Implications for Reform. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1(1), 112–121. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732214548678
16. Kassin, S. M., Goldstein, C. C., & Savitsky, K. (2003). Behavioral confirmation in the interrogation room: On the dangers of presuming guilt. Law and Human Behavior, 27(2), 187–203. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022599230598
17. Kredens, K. (2016). Conflict or convergence?: Interpreters’ and police officers’ perceptions of the role of the public service interpreter. Language and Law= Linguagem e Direito, 3(2), 65–77.
18. Kridalaksana, H. (2013). Kamus Linguistik (4th ed.). Jakarta: PT. Gramedia Pustaka Umum.
19. Leahy-Harland, S., & Bull, R. (2017). Police Strategies and Suspect Responses in Real-Life Serious Crime Interviews. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 32(2), 138–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016- 9207-8
20. Levinson, S. C. (1983). Pragmatics (1st ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.
21. Lisina, N. (2013). Stylistic Features of Legal Discourse. University of Oslo. Retrieved from http://www.duo.uio.no/
22. Määttä, S. K. (2015). Interpreting the discourse of reporting: The case of screening interviews with asylum seekers and police interviews in Finland. Translation and Interpreting, 7(3), 21–35. https://doi.org/10.12807/ti.107203.2015.a02
23. MacKeith, G. H. G. and J. (2006). Disputed confessions and the Criminal Justice System. MAUDSLEY DISCUSSION PAPER, (2), 1–20.
24. Mey, J. L. (2001). Pragmatics: An Introduction (2nd ed) (2nd ed.). United States: Blackwell Publishing. Retrieved from
https://books.google.co.id/books/about/Pragmatics.html?id=TT_TF4sM6lcC&redir_esc=y%0Ahttp://dlx.b- ok.org/genesis/615000/65cf48ea94750adac474d87f5994986b/_as/%5BJacob_Mey%5D_Pragmatics_An_Intr oduction_(2nd_ed)(b-ok.org).pdf
25. Moston, S., & Engelberg, T. (1993). Police questioning techniques in tape recorded interviews with criminal suspects. Policing and Society, 3(July). https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.1993.9964670
26. Mulyana, D. (2005). Human Communication: Konteks-Konteks Komunikasi. Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya.
27. Office, T. H., & Court, U. K. S. (2015). Forensic Language Analysis. Science and Technology, (509), 1–6. Retrieved from www.parliament.uk/post
28. Pearse, J., & Gudjonsson, G. (1996). Police interviewing techniques at two south london police stations. Psychology, Crime & Law, 3(1), 63–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10683169608409795
29. Potts, C. (2015). Presupposition and Implicature. The Handbook of Contemporary Semantic Theory, (June), 168–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118882139.ch6
30. Pratomo, B. I. (2012). Bahasa, kekuasaan, dan kekerasan (2nd ed.). Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University Press.
31. Rajamanickam, R., & Rahim, A. A. (2013). Forensic Linguistic Evidence and its Admissibility in Malaysia. International Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences IJBAS-IJENS, 13(04), 51–56.
32. Ramezani, F., Sani, A. K., & Moghadam, K. (2016). Forensic linguistics in the light of crime investigation. Pertanika Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities, 24(1), 375–384.
33. Shuy, R. W. (2011). Applied Linguistics in the Legal Arena. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
34. Sobur, A. (2001). Analisis Teks Media: Suatu Pengantar Untuk Analisis Wacana, Analisis Semiotik, dan Analisis Framing. Bandung: Remaja Rosda Karya.
35. Sudaryanto. (2015). Metode dan aneka teknik analisis bahasa : pengantar penelitian wahana kebudayaan secara linguistis. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University Press.
36. Verhoeven, W. J. (2016). The complex relationship between interrogation techniques, suspects changing their statement and legal assistance. Evidence from a Dutch sample of police interviews. Policing and Society, 28(3), 308–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2016.1157594
37. Wijana, I. D. P. (1996). Dasa-dasar Pragmatik. Yogyakarta: Andi Offset.
38. Zarirruddin, M., & Nordin, F. (2016). Forensic Linguistics and the Detecting of Deviant Teaching in.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
- The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit , provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made . You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements of the material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation .
No warranties are given. The license may not give you all of the permissions necessary for your intended use. For example, other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may limit how you use the material.
