Main Article Content

Abstract

The politeness, dignity, serenity, and tranquillity should be reflected by the investigator without violence during the interrogation process. This study aims to identify the Forensic Conversational Implicature (FCI) found in a police interrogation of a murder case. A qualitative method with a philosophical approach was used, and Forensic Discourse Analysis was used as an analytical framework. A documentation study method was used to collect the data in the form of an interrogation video obtained from the Explore with Us YouTube channel. Utterances that are indicated as implicature are the data taken from the interrogation video, particularly in murder cases that happened in the U.S. In analyzing the data, deductive content analysis was applied. The results show that two types of FCI are found in this study, with particularized conversational implicature as the most dominant since it requires certain background knowledge and context to understand the investigator’s utterances. Meanwhile, generalized took second place as it does not require specific context knowledge to determine the additional conveyed meaning of several investigators’ utterances. Moreover, the reasons behind the realization of CI are under two themes, namely, gaining trust and humanity.

Keywords

Case Interrogation Cooperative Principle Forensic conversational Implicature Forensic Discourse Analysis

Article Details

How to Cite
Muthi’ah, N., Setia, E., & Rangkuti, R. (2024). Is the FCI Effective as the Police Strategy in Interrogation?. JOALL (Journal of Applied Linguistics and Literature), 9(2), 579–594. https://doi.org/10.33369/joall.v9i2.33882

References

  1. Ade, F.S., Sumarsih., & Sri, M.M. (2021). Conversational Maxims of Operation
  2. Targets in Police Investigative Interviews. Proceedings of the 6th Annual International Seminar on Transformative Education and Educational Leadership (AISTEEL 2021).
  3. Baldwin, J. (1993). Police interview techniques. The British Journal of
  4. Criminology, 33, 325-352.
  5. Chapman, Siobhan. (2005). Paul Grice, Philosopher and Linguist.
  6. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
  7. Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & David, W. (2017). An Introduction to Forensic
  8. Linguistics Language in Evidence (Second Ed). Routledge.
  9. doi:10.31826/9781463209674-001
  10. Cristina, Vivian. (2021). Conversational Implicature Analysis in TV Show
  11. “F.R.I.E.N.D.S”: Pragmatic Approach. University Putera Batam.
  12. Gibbons, J. (2007). Forensic Linguistics an Introduction to Language in The
  13. Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
  14. Grice, H. (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Studies in the Way of Words
  15. (pp. 305–315). United Kingdom: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.1057/97802300058535
  16. Grice, H. Paul. (1989) Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge. MA:
  17. Harvard University Press.
  18. Ines & Natsir. (2023). An Analysis of Conversational Implicature in The
  19. Interview Movie. Indonesia.
  20. Korta, Kepa. (1997). Implicatures: Cancelability and Non-detachability.
  21. Research Gate report number: ILCLI-97-LIC-6.
  22. Leahy-Harland, S., & Bull, R. (2017). Police Strategies and Suspect Responses
  23. 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
  24. Leech, G. N. (1983). Pragmatics, discourse analysis, stylistics and “The
  25. Celebrated Letter.”
  26. Levinson, Stephen C. 2000. Presumptive Meanings the Theory of Generalized
  27. Conversational Implicature. Cambridge. MA: MFF Press.
  28. Moston, S., & Engelberg, T. (1993). Police questioning techniques in tape
  29. Recorded interviews with criminal suspects. Policing and Society,
  30. (July). https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.1993.9964670
  31. Praptomo, B. I. (2012). Bahasa, kekuasaan, dan kekerasan (2nd ed.).
  32. Yogyakarta: Sanata Dharma University Press.
  33. Safitri, E., & Ambalegin. (2023). Conversational Implicature Types Used in the
  34. Movie “Over the Moon”. E—Journal of English Language & Literature. Vol. 12 (2).
  35. Saletović, L. M., & Kišiček, G. (2012). Contribution to the analysis of witness
  36. Statements in the croatian language. Suvremena Lingvistika, 38(73), 73–
  37. Santoso, D.A.H., & Apriyanto, S. (2020) Pragmatic Implicature Analysis of
  38. Police Interrogation: Forensic Linguistics Analysis. International Journal of Psychosocial Rehabilitation. 24(6). DOI:10.37200/IJPR/V24I6/PR260009
  39. Satria, H., Darwis, M., & Kamsinah. (2022). Implikatur Percakapan Interogasi
  40. Terhadap saksi/Korban Penganiyaan: Kajian Linguistik Forensik. Jurnal
  41. Ilmu Budaya, Vol. X (2)
  42. Shuy, R. W. (2011). Applied Linguistics in the Legal Arena. Berlin: Mouton de
  43. Gruyter
  44. Verhoeven, W. J. (2016). The complex relationship between interrogation
  45. 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
  46. Ward, Horn. (2006). Implicature: The Handbook of Pragmatics, Laurence R.
  47. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  48. Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. New York: Oxford University Press.