A FORENSIC LINGUISTIC STUDY THROUGH PRAGMATIC APPROACH: IMPLICATURE OF DISCOURSE IMPACTING DIVORCE

Trini Handayani

Abstract


According to data from the Central Statistics Agency, the divorce rate in Indonesia from 2017 to 2022 was the highest in Asia-Africa. West Java Province ranked first in divorce cases, with the majority of divorces caused by disputes and arguments, accounting for 60.6% (sixtypoint six percent) of cases. The next leading causes of divorce were economic factors, abandonment, and domestic violence (DV). Forensic linguistics can be defined as the application of linguistic science in the field of law. The application of linguistic science in law continues to evolve, for instance, in resolving cases related to defamation, threats, extortion, murder, disputes, plagiarism, corruption, and others. Besides assisting in legal cases, forensic linguistics is also utilized in counter-terrorism and intelligence efforts, such as the identification and verification of intercepted voice data. The purpose of this research is to investigate Speech Implicatures through a pragmatic approach by conducting implicature analysis on family speech (husband/wife/parents-in-law) that leads to divorce. A Mixed Method is used in this research, where data is gathered qualitatively and then analyzed quantitatively. The inclusion criteria for this study are women who have experienced divorce and are domiciled in West Java Province. The respondents consisted of 30 individuals who were interviewed using the Accidental Sampling technique. The results of this research show that 4 speeches were evaluative, 1 speech expressed dissatisfaction, 1 speech was a command, 1 speech was deemed untrustworthy (a lie, irresponsible), 1 speech questioned the partner's ability, and 2 speeches involved clarification and emphasis from the partner. Some of these speeches constitute illegal acts according to Law No. 40 of 2008 concerning the Elimination of Racial and Ethnic Discrimination, as well as Circular Letter from the Chief of Police No: SE/06/X/2015 concerning Hate Speech.

Full Text:

PDF 148-164

References


Abdurrahman, Abdurrahman. 2011. “Sosiolinguistik: Teori, Peran, Dan Fungsinya Terhadap Kajian Bahasa Sastra.†LiNGUA: Jurnal Ilmu Bahasa dan Sastra 3(1):18–37. doi: 10.18860/ling.v3i1.571.

Altikriti, S. F. 2011. “Speech Act Analysis to Short Stories.†Finland: Academy Publisher 2(6):1374–75.

Arifianti, Ika. 2018. “Conventional and Non Conventional implications.†Jurnal Pena 32(1):44–52.

Aziz, E. Aminudin. 2021. “Linguistik Forensik: Sebuah Sumbangsih Linguistik Untuk Penegakan Hukum Dan Keadilan.†Jurnal Forensik Kebahasaab 1(1):1–22.

Badan Pengembangan dan Pembinaan Bahasa. 2016. “Arti kata ‘Perceraian.’†KBBI Daring.

Benedet, M. J., J. A. Christiansen, dan H. Goodglass. 1998. “A Cross-linguistic Study of Grammatical Morphology in Spanish-and English-speaking Agrammatic Patients.†Cortex 34(3):309–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70758-5.

Bloomfield, Leonard. 1933. Language. London: Compton Printing Ltd.

Booij, Geert, dan Rochelle Lieber. 1993. “On The Simultaneity of Morphological and Prosodic Structure.†Hal. 23–44 in Phonetics and Phonology. Vol. 4, diedit oleh S. Hargus dan E. M. B. T.-S. in L. P. Kaisse. Boston: Academic Press.

Correa, Maite. 2013. “Forensic Linguistics: An Overview of the Intersection and Interaction of Language and Law.†Studies About Languages (23):5–13. doi: 10.5755/j01.sal.0.23.5020.

Coulthard, M., dan A. Johnson. 2007. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.

Coulthard, M., dan A. Johnson. 2010. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge.

English, S. M. 1997. “A Social Exchange Analysis of Early and Late Divorce.†Texas Tech University.

Fraser, Bruce. 1998. “Threatening Revisited.†International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 5(2):159–73. doi: https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.1998.5.2.159.

Hasanah, N. 2017. “SINONIM DALAM MEDAN MAKNA ’MENYAKITI’DALAM BAHASA SASAK DIALEK NGENO-NGENE.†LINGUA: Jurnal Bahasa, Sastra, dan ….

Ibrahim, A. S. 1993. Kajian Tindak Tutur. Surabaya: Usaha Nasional.

Khumas, Asniar, Johana E. Prawitasari, dan Sofia Retnowati. 2015. “Model Penjelasan Intensi Cerai Perempuan Muslim di Sulawesi Selatan.†Jurnal Psikologi 42(3):189. doi: 10.22146/jpsi.9908.

Kumar, Srijan, dan Neil Shah. 2018. “False Information on Web and Social Media: A Survey.†1(1):1–35.

Kusmardani, Alex, Abdulah Syafe’i, Usep Saifulah, dan Nurrohman Syarif. 2022. “Faktor-faktor Penyebab Perceraian Dalam Perspektif Hukum Keluarga Antar Madzhab Islam Dan Realita Sosial.†JURNAL SYNTAX IMPERATIF : Jurnal Ilmu Sosial dan Pendidikan 3(3):176. doi: 10.36418/syntax-imperatif.v3i3.168.

Lasswell, Harold D. 2007. “The structure and function of communication in society.†The Communication of Ideas 24:215–28.

Leech, Geoffrey. 1980. Exploration in Semantics and Pragmatics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins B.V.

Leech, Geoffrey N. 1983. Principles of Pragmatics. New York: Longman Inc.

Lubis. 2011. Analisis Wacana Pragmatik. Bandung: Angkasa.

Manna, Nibras Syafriani, Shinta Doriza, dan Maya Oktaviani. 2021. “Cerai Gugat: Telaah Penyebab Perceraian Pada Keluarga di Indonesia.†JURNAL Al-AZHAR INDONESIA SERI HUMANIORA 6(1):11. doi: 10.36722/sh.v6i1.443.

Milo, Dario. 2008. Defamation and Freedom of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mintowati, Mintowati. 2016. “Pencemaran Nama Baik: Kajian Linguistik Forensik.†Paramasastra 3(2). doi: 10.26740/parama.v3i2.1525.

Mulyana. 2005. Kajian Wacana Teori, Metode, dan Aplikasi Prinsip-prinsip Analisis. Yogyakarta: Tiara Wacana.

Patriana, Eva. 2014. “Komunikasi Interpersonal Yang Berlangsung Antara Pembimbing Kemasyarakatan Dan Keluarga Anak Pelaku Pidana Di Bapas Surakarta.†Journal of Rural and Development V(2):203.

Presiden Republik Indonesia. 1974. “Undang-undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 1 Tahun 1974 tentang Perkawinan.â€

Rahardi, Kunjana. 2005. Pragmatik. Jakarta: Erlangga.

Rustono. 1999. Pokok-pokok Pragmatik. Semarang: IKIP Semarang Press.

Sagita, Veranita Ragil, dan Teguh Setiawan. 2019. “Tindak Tutur Ilokusi Ridwan Kamil dalam ‘Talkshow Insight’ di CNN Indonesia (The Form and Type of Illocutionary Speech Acts Ridwan Kamil in the ‘Insight Talkshow’ at CNN Indonesia).†Lensa: Kajian Kebahasaan, Kesusastraan, dan Budaya 9(2):187–200. doi: 10.26714/lensa.9.2.2019.187-200.

Sapril. 2011. “Komunikasi Interpersonal Pustakawan.†Jurnal Iqra’ 05(01):6–11.

Searle, John R. 1970. Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Searle, John R. 1979. Expression and Meaning: Studies in The Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Sholihatin, E. 2019. Linguistik Forensik dan Kejahatan Berbahasa. Yogyakarta: Pustaka Pelajar.

Shuy, R. W. 1993. Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell.

Susanthi, I. Gusti Ayu Agung Dian. 2021. “Analisis Pencemaran Nama Baik Dengan Kajian Linguistik Forensik.†IJFL (International Journal of Forensic Linguistic 2(1):1–3.

Susanto, dan Deri Sis Nanda. 2020. “Dimensi Analisis Bahasa dalam Linguistik Forensik.†International Journal of Forensic Linguistics 1(1):17–22.

Vocroix, Londre. 2021. “Morphology in Micro Linguistics and Macro Linguistics.†Macrolinguistics and Microlinguistics 2(1):1–20. doi: 10.21744/mami.v2n1.11.

Wijaya, Putri Novita. 2008. “Faktor-Faktor yang Mempengaruhi Perceraian dalam Perkawinan.†Universitas Katolik Soegijapranata Semarang.

Yule, George. 1996. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.


Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.