Pragmatic Analysis of Ambiguity as Part of Forensic Linguistic Examination of Texts on Cases Related to Countering Extremism
https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2022-4-88-93
Abstract
The article discusses the theoretical and methodological grounds for establishing the “intentional” nature of ambiguity when conducting a linguistic analysis on cases related to countering extremism. The author addresses the concept of “intentional” ambiguity from the point of view of pragmatic functions implemented by ambiguity in different types of discourse. In particular, the paper shows that ambiguity in the “extremist” discourse performs not only the rhetorical function of influencing the addressee, but also contributes to the implementation of the author’s communicative strategies such as leveling the negative (“extremist”) meaning, absolving the author of responsibility. This justifies the need for a pragmatic analysis of ambiguity. Establishing of “intentional” ambiguity in the texts as part of forensic linguistic analysis involves a comprehensive study of the text’s genre specifics, as well as the author’s intentions and the recipient’s expectations implied. Accounting for these characteristics ensures the validity of the expert’s conclusions about the “intentional” nature of ambiguity, as well as the probability of “extremist” meaning in the analyzed context.
About the Author
O. V. Kozhara
Saratov Laboratory of Forensic Science of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Kozhara Olesya Vladimirovna – State Forensic Expert
410003, Saratov
References
1. Mamaev N.Yu. The Issue of Objectification of the Understanding of a Controversial Text within Forensic Linguistics // Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2020. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 6–18. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2020-4-6-18
2. Kukushkina O.V., Safonova Yu.A., Sekerazh T.N. Method of conducting complex forensic psikhologolinguistic examination of the affairs connected with counteraction to extremism and terrorism. Moscow: RFCFS, 2014. 98 p. (In Russ.)
3. Katsnelson S. D. The content of the word, meaning and designation. M., 1965, 68 p. (In Russ.)
4. Uspenskii В.A. Ego Loquens. Language and Communication Space. Moscow: RGGU, 2007. 320 p. (In Russ.)
5. Wasow, T. Ambiguity Avoidance is Overrated // Ambiguity: Language and Communication / Edited by S. Winkler, Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter, 2015. P. 29–48. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110403589-003
6. Berndt, F., Sachs-Hombach, K. Dimensions of Constitutive Ambiguity // Ambiguity: Language and Communication / Edited by S. Winkler, Berlin, München, Boston: De Gruyter, 2015. P. 271–282. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110403589-012
7. Nerlich, B., Clarke, D. D. Ambiguities we live by. Towards a pragmatics of polysemy // Journal of Pragmatics, 2001. Vol. 33. No. 1. P. 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(99)00132-0
8. Yuzhannikova M.A. Ambiguity and its Implementation into the Stylistics System of Russian Language // Actual Problems of Stylistics. 2017. No. 3. P. 89–94. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/slloap
9. Yuzhannikova M.A. Language Ambiguity in the Light of Ecolinguistics// Ecology of Language and Communicative Practice. 2016. Vol. 7. No. 2. P. 27–38. (In Russ.) https://elibrary.ru/xiivgd
10. Zaliznjak Anna A. The Phenomenon of Polysemy and Ways of their Description // Issues in Linguistics. M., 2004. No. 2. P. 20–45. (In Russ.) https://www.philology.ru/linguistics2/zaliznyak_anna-04.htm
11. Matveeva O.N. (ed). Forensic Linguistics. Monograph. Barnaul: Kontsept, 2015. 310 p. (In Russ.)
12. Anisimova E.E. Text Linguistics and Cross-Cultural Communication (based on the material of creolized texts). Moscow: Tezaurus Publ., 2013. 122 p. (In Russ.)
13. Daylof E.L. The Linguistic Research of Nonverbal Component of a Composit Verbal / Visual Text: Problems of Verbalization Sense // Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2016. Vol. 43. No. 3. P. 76–81. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/64/1819-2785-2016-3-76-81
14. Krylov Yu.V., Steksova T.I. New Genres of Internet Communication (based on Demotivators and Memes) // Speech Genres. 2020. Vol. 25. No 1. P. 53–61. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18500/2311-0740-2020-1-25-53-61
15. Khimik V.V. Dictionary of Russian colloquial speech: In 2 vol. Vol. 2: О – Я. St.Petersburg: Zlatoust, 2017. 532 p. (In Russ.)
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Kozhara O.V. Pragmatic Analysis of Ambiguity as Part of Forensic Linguistic Examination of Texts on Cases Related to Countering Extremism. Theory and Practice of Forensic Science. 2022;17(4):88-93. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30764/1819-2785-2022-4-88-93
Views:
530
Email this article 