Forensic Linguistics : conversation analysis

Muhamad Sazali

1110026000005

B Class

English Language and Literature

Introduction

Language, both written and spoken, is the most important thing which is used in any activities, besides being a system of communication in the daily life (McManemin, 2002), is also used to find evidence as was done by linguists who utilize even the small part of a statement as a proof in the legal issues. The relation between forensic and Linguistics becomes related because of in each one’s spoken or written word has iconic meaning (Kramsch, 1998). As Kramsch (1998) study’s of Sapir-Whorf hypothesis which stated that the structure of the language one habitually uses influences the manner in which thinks and behaves, language that the suspect or the witness used will determine his/her involvement to the case (McManemin, 2002).

Forensic linguistics was first used in 1968 when Jan Svartvik revealed the statements by Timothy Evans towards the murder case of his wife (Malmkjӕr, 2002) which influencing the presence of some new studies such as the systematic study of courtroom language was begun by O’Barr (1982) and his colleagues, also Linguistic applications, especially in Discourse and Pragmatics were developed by Shuy (1984, 1986) (McManemin, 2002). Both Discourse and Pragmatics have an important part when the forensic linguist was analyzing the language of the suspect or witness.  Therefore, this essay will analyze the truth of Mindo Rosalina Manulang’s testimony in Angelina Sondakh’s trial on October 11^th 2012 in the corruption court, Jakarta. The corpus was retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3czbhtFP_U with duration of four minutes and was transcribed into text form by using transcription conventions (from Schegloff 2000) which is shown in the Conversation Analysis Comparative Perspective book.

Theoretical Framework

In Indonesia there are numerous groups of race; it is implicated there will be a great number of cultures and languages. A different culture will produce a different norm, habit and behavior as was disproved by Sidnell (2009), consequently it is difficult to interrogator to know precisely what the suspect or the witness mean. They cannot force the suspect to tell the truth, because as Shuy cites Inbau et al. (1998) the more the suspect tells lie the more difficult to get the truth and will lead them to make repeated denials of guilt.

Conversational Analysis (CA) which particularly concerned with the structure, pattern and regularities of naturally occurring conversation and entirely with how language is used in context (Chapman, 2011) is accordance to become the main theory of this analysis.  CA discuss about how social structures and social processes are regenerated through talk and is grounded in ethnomethodology which participants achieve social action through ‘talk in social interaction’ is the basic premise (May, 2000).  To respond Chapman’s study (as cite in Sack et al. 1974) of Sack and his researcher friends noticed that CA was influenced and encouraged by the insight of casual conversation, even though appears as a free-flowing and spontaneous form of human behavior, is far from random and is certainly far from chaotic. As Eggins and Slade (1997) claimed that Casual conversation is an informal interaction which is usually practiced by sustainable people, such as talking with friends, bargaining in traditional market, and promoting a product. It is written in Chapman’s book (as cite in Schiffrin, 1994:236) about Deborah Schiffrin’s explanation that ‘CA views the empirical conduct of speaker as the central resource out of which analysis must develop. Furthermore, “What is said” provides not only the data underlying analysis, but also the evidence for hypothesis and conclusion, it is participants’ conduct itself that must provides evidence for the presence of units, existence of pattern and formulation of rules’.

CA in which basically related to Pragmatics, since the data analysis formed into a conversation, is concerned with how the linguistics forms are structured into interactive sequences and how both Linguistics and other features of conversation are operated as mechanism of social behavior (Chapman, 2011), therefore as a secondary theory, the writer uses Pragmatics theory to supporting the analysis process which not only analyzing the pattern and the structure, but also analyzing the meaning of the spoken utterance or remark as communicated by speaker. Yule (1997) declared in his book that Pragmatics is the study of the relationship between linguistics form and the users of those forms and it is talking about the intended meaning of the speaker, the assumption of the listener, the purposes of the speaker and the kind of actions that they are performing when they speak. Pragmatics has four areas of study, those are Pragmatics is the study of speaker meaning, Pragmatics is the study of contextual meaning (to be polite or not), Pragmatics is the study of how more gets communicated than said, and Pragmatics is the study of the expression of relative distance (Yule, 1996).

Analyzing Conversation

This video snippets conversation is an interrogation from the jury towards Mindo Rosalina Manulang in the corruption court, Jakarta and the analysis is classified by the type of the question. In this part the jury asked about the relation between Mindo Rosalina Manulang or Rosa and Angelina Sondakh or Angie (the duration of 11 seconds).

1         The jury               :              

2                                                     (1.8)

3         Rosa                      :               Kalo komisi sepuluh i_:ya.

4         The jury               :              

5         Rosa                      :               iyah_:

6         The jury               :              

7                                                         ((iya))

8                                                         (0.5)

9          Rosa                     :               i_:ya.

Key to transcription symbols used in this excerpt <             used in the reverse order                                            .               falling or final intonation ?              rising intonation                                                               (( ))        transcriber’s description (1.8)       silence (counted by stopwatch)                                                _:            falling intonation

In this conversation Rosa did several restrictions, it is shown as Rosa tried to answer with a simple short word as such in number 5 and 9. She did the dispreferred to avoid her deeper involvement in this case as it is can be seen there are pauses which mean a dispreferred (Yule, 1998), however, she did not do any kind of communicate violation as such turn-taking, overlaps or backchannel which is indicated she does not want to answer the question . In the text number 3 we can see the illocution of her sentence is there is no one else in the “Komisi X” except Angelina Sondakh who get involves in this case.

This interrogation is talk about other involvement of the house of representative (DPR) members (from 00:12 until 01:15)1The jury :               Saksi i::ng:at ada istilah ketua. Yang dimaksud siapa itu::

1                                                         ((sanwar)) ((°buka::n buka:::n°)) ((suara lu mirip anwar))

2                                                         (8.0)

3          Rosa                     :               a_:

pa::

4          The jury              :               ?

5                                                         (3.0) ((hendra yoswin))

6          Rosa                     :               i↑ya temen temen dari: em::::: DPR

7         The jury               :              

8                                                         (1.0)

9          Rosa                     :               kalau:::[

10      The jury              :                               a:

? Siapa itu?>

11      Rosa                     :               °ketua_:° (.) tunggu tunggu:, °em: ° (.) ketua komisimaksudnya,.

12      The jury              :               ketua komisi_: epulu

:h maksudnya:>

13     Rosa                      :               iya_:

14     The jury               :               Kalau ke::

?>

15      Rosa                     :               pimpinan bang:gar_:

16     The jury               :               pimpinan, bangar.

17      Rosa                     :               iyah_:

18     The jury               :               :

?>

19                                                     (5.0)

20      Rosa                     :               em::: nama aslinya nggak cumin nama sebutan aja_:h

21     The jury               :               apa sebutannya waktu itu?

22      Rosa                     :               bang ucok.

23      The jury              :               bang uco:k.

Key to transcription symbols used in this excerpt ::             stretching                                            <>/><                   more and less notatiom                :               rising intonation (vowel) °word°   softer than the talk around ↑            rise in pitch (.)           silence

                

In this conversation the jury tried to reveal the involvement of other members of the house of representative and he asked about the chief of the case “Ketua” and the big boss “Ketua Besar”. Rosa did not want to give a specific answer about who else is involved in this case? The more a suspect pausing when he/she was questioning the more possible to tell lie, because the suspect tries to make a fabricated answer when he/she paused it. In this conversation there is an overlapping from the jury towards Rosa’s answer as shown in number 10 and 11 and as Hancer was summarized (1978) Grice’s principle she also break the maxims of quality, because of that pause which is not give a quality answer. And there is a little lie from Rosa about the name of the head of the budgetary board, she said that she only knows the nickname of the head, but we can easily know the name of a person especially he/she is a state officials which certainly when we have a business and also need the autograph there will be a printed full name of the state officials.

 The third is a conversation about other involvement except Diknas (The National Education Department) and Menpora (The Ministry of Youth and Sport Affair). (01:49 until 02:09)

1         The jury               :               ketika: saksi mengurus proye::k proye:k lain diluar: diknas sama::          apah. Menpora.?[

2         Rosa                      :                                               (hh)[ ((nodding))

3         The jury               :                                               saksi ::n

?>

4         Rosa                      :               eem:::: iya[.

5         The jury               :                               <(penggiringan anggaran)> siapa:h?

6         Rosa                      :               :

> maaf yang mulia,, itu_: <-ada-> nggak ada hubungannya,:: dengan ini_:

Key to transcription symbols used in this excerpt (hh)       hearable aspiration [              overlaps ,               falling intonation

In this conversation the jury did several turn-takings and overlaps which can give Rosa time to think about the answer, the jury must be patient the more she got pressure the more she avoid to tell true as cited Shuy (1998), on the other hand the turn-taking and overlaps which is done by the jury is intended to give the straightforward questions and hope she can give the proper answer. Rosa here broke numerous of conversation rules as Grice’s principles by giving unqualified testimony by saying “:

> maaf yang mulia,, itu_: <-ada-> nggak ada hubungannya,:: dengan ini_:” which means  she did not want to answer that question because that is other chases whom  the investigator have not known yet. She paused the answer for several times and she prevented the jury to know further about penggiringan dana case (see number 5 and 6) and broke the adjacency pairs which if someone get the question by “siapa” (who) they need to answer by mention the name (Yule, 1998), therefore, there is a secret that she knows about the case.

This is the minutes of 02:37 until 03:03 which questioned about other suspects in this case.

1         The jury               :               tapi_: ini: sistem ini harus dirubah. Diperbaiki_: dengan mengung:kap siapa siapa ok:num yang melakukan itu? Ah sebutkan namanya:: siapa_:?

2                                                         (12.0)

3         Rosa                      :               :saya nggak bera::ni_: yang mulia_:

4         The jury               :               su

°oke° (.) tapi ada: yah?

5         Rosa                      :               °ada

The jury advised to Rosa not to avoid the jury’s question about other suspects in this case by pausing until 12 seconds, she said that she was afraid to mention the name, but she confessed that there are still other suspects who was not been caught and she has given a proper information to the jury, however, from that information especially in number 3 “:saya nggak bera::ni_: yang mulia_:” implies another meaning which allowed the pressure that she gave from other suspects is very forceful also her tone and pitch level drastically becomes softer it is can be proved by look at the transcription symbol. The jury did the right thing to turn-taking the conversation towards Rosa’s fear and not to push her to give the wanted answer. When the suspect and the witness get pressure from other authority, the jury should convinced them that they are under the protection of the law, so do not be afraid to tell the truth in the courtroom.

The last part of interrogation is asking about the jargon which they usually use. (the minutes of 03:04 until 03:31)

1         The jury               :               kemu::dian saudara:: saksi_: yah.  Tadi ada selain istila_:h apel wasington apel malang ada: istilah semang::ka itu apa itu?

2         Rosa                      :               uang juga: yang mulia.

3         The jury               :               -uang::- mata uang:: Negara mana?

4         Rosa                      :               Indonesiah_:

5         The jury               :               Indonesia juga_:?

6         Rosa                      :               iya_:h

7         The jury               :               em:: apa bedanya semangka dengan malang? –apel malang?-

8          Rosa                     :               iya:: pa nazar punya:: sandi sendiri_:

In the last minutes of the video the conversation went smoothly there is no turn-taking of each other, no overlapping within the two persons and pausing from Mindo Rosalina Manulang. This is high considerateness style, because the non-interrupting and non-imposing style is not appear in the conversation, whether the jury or Mindo Rosalina Manulang did not disturb the investigation process, it is might be due to the questions which given by the judge is not too important it is about the jargon that is they usually used to mention about money as for now almost Indonesia know about it, consequently Rosa wants to share the answer clearly.  

Conclusion

It is becomes a common thing where the conversation between two or more persons does not always give a good result, moreover it is done it the courtroom which identically the suspect or the witness who give the testimony is related to the case was been tried and possibly they get pressure from the stronger authority. Harmonize and follow the rule (overlaps, backchannel, turn-taking, pause and turn floor) in communicating are precisely important to create a good feedback either from the communicator or the communicant (Yule, 1998). The truth of the conversation which occurs in the courtroom is difficult to trust, in consequence the study which concerned and related to the court will be helpful to the judge to reveal the truth, as appears in the case above Mindo Rosalina Manulang is rather difficult to be asked about the other suspects of the athlete homestead and Hambalang cases.  Rosa often gives ambiguous answer which is intended to avoid tell the truth There are numerous pauses in the interrogation which shows that she answered lie or prevented some keywords. Therefore, the investigators must to find other ways to measure whether the suspect or the witness to give the wanted information about the case in order to finish it.

In my opinion, the regulation that exist in Indonesian and its courtroom is not well operated and even tend to be weaker, as they still did not use the Linguists expert to help in the process of interrogation to the suspect. In the developed countries such as America and England, linguists expert specially, Forensic linguists has been become the tools of the legal issues. Indonesia can solve all the problem of the legal issues which have been taken a long time, if the government is willing to have forensic linguists when they were solving the lie testimony problem as such in Gayus Tambunan’s case which no ending and also Nunun Nurbaeti who confessed that she has amnesia. The conversation in the courtroom should be as such in the last past of analysis the suspect must give the truth answer to ease the investigation process.

References:

Sidnell, Jack. (Eds). (2009). Conversation Analysis: comparative perspectives. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Chapman, Siobhan. (2011). Pragmatics. New York, NY: PALGRAVE MCMILLAN.

Yule, George. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Kramsch, Claire. (1998). Language and Culture. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

Shuy, Roger W. (1998). The Language of the Confession, Interrogation, And Deception. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

May, Marion. Conversation Analysis: other social research methods (pp. 1 – 7).

Tannen, Deborah. (1984). Conversational Style: Analyzing Talks Among Friends. Norwood, New Jersey. Georgetown University.

J. Liddicoat, Anthony. (2007). An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. British Library Catalouging-in-Publication Data.

Ariel, Mira. (2010). Defining Pragmatics. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Hancer, Michael. (1978). Grice's "Implicature" and Literary Interpretation: Background and Preface. University of Minnesota

H. Lerner, Gene. (Eds). (2004). Conversation Analysis: Study from the first generation. Santa Barbara, CA: John Benjamin Publishing Company.

R. Mcmanemin, Gerald. (2002). Forensic Linguistics : advances in forensic stylistics. Boca Raton, Florida: CRC Press.

Coulthard, Malcolm., & Johnson, Alison. (Eds). (2010). The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Madison Ave, NY: Routledge.

Appendix

1.       The analyzing conversation

1.1   the video of Mindo Rosalina Manulang Testimony

1.2   transcription

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3czbhtFP_U

1.3   Kompas

Mafia Anggaran di Semua Komisis, October 11^th 2012