A Pragmatic Analysis Of Language Manipulation Strategies And Motives In Ted Bundy’s Statements

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE MANIPULATION STRATEGIES AND MOTIVES IN TED BUNDY’S STATEMENTS

A THESIS

BY

RINNAH WIYONO REG. NO. 110705039

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA MEDAN 2015

A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE MANIPULATION STRATEGIES AND MOTIVES IN TED BUNDY’S STATEMENTS

A THESIS BY

RINNAH WIYONO REG. NO. 110705039

Submitted to Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara Medan in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from Department of English.

DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH

FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA

Approved by the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara (USU) Medan as thesis for The Sarjana Sastra Examination.

Head, Secretary,

Dr. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S. Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A., Ph.D NIP. 19541117 198003 1 002 NIP. 19750209 200812 1 002

Accepted by the Board of Examiners in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Sarjana Sastra from the Department of English, Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara, Medan.

The examination is held in Department of English Faculty of Cultural Studies University of Sumatera Utara on July 4th, 2015.

Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies

University of Sumatera Utara

Dr. H. Syahron Lubis, M.A. NIP. 19511013 197603 001

Board of Examiners:

Dr. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S. ...

Rahmadsyah Rangkuti, M.A., Ph.D ...

Dr. H. Syahron Lubis, M.A. ...

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION

I, RINNAH WIYONO, DECLARE THAT I AM THE SOLE AUTHOR OF THIS THESIS EXCEPT WHERE REFERENCE IS MADE IN THE TEXT OF THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS CONTAINS NO MATERIAL PUBLISHED ELSEWHERE OR EXTRACTED IN WHOLE OR IN PART FROM A THESIS BY WHICH I HAVE QUALIFIED FOR OR AWARDED ANOTHER DEGREE. NO OTHER PERSON’S WORK HAS BEEN USED WITHOUT DUE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS IN THE MAIN TEXT OF THIS THESIS. THIS THESIS HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THE AWARD OF ANOTHER DEGREE IN ANY TERTIARY EDUCATION.

Signed :

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION

NAME : RINNAH WIYONO

TITLE OF THESIS : A PRAGMATIC ANALYSIS OF LANGUAGE

MANIPULATION STRATEGIES AND MOTIVES IN

TED BUNDY’S STATEMENTS

QUALIFICATION : S-1 / SARJANA SASTRA

DEPARTMENT : ENGLISH

I AM WILLING THAT MY THESIS SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR REPRODUCTION AT THE DISCRETION OF THE LIBRARIAN OF DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH, FACULTY OF CULTURAL STUDIES, UNIVERSITY OF SUMATERA UTARA ON THE UNDERSTANDING THAT USERS ARE MADE AWARE OF THEIR OBLIGATION UNDER THE LAW OF THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA.

Signed :

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Nobody should deserve my major and foremost gratitude other than Jesus Christ. I thank You, Jesus, for guiding me through my entire life, particularly through the process of accomplishing this thesis. It has been only by Your favor that I could achieve what I have achieved until this very day. Thank You for being the One that I could always look up to whole the time. Thank You for always providing me what I need instead of what I want, because Your plans are certainly better than mine. Thank You for being there, during each happy and hard time that I have been going through. Thank You for being the reason that I am alive. I could write a hundred page of book only to show how I thank You, yet it may never be enough.

I truly realise that it has also been by the help and motivation by people around me that I could finally complete this thesis. Therefore in this page, I would like to express my gratitude to the people who have taken important roles in guiding me through the whole process of finishing this thesis.

I would like to thank the Dean of Faculty of Cultural Studies, Dr. H. Syahron Lubis, M.A., the Head of Department of English, Dr. Muhizar Muchtar, M.S., the Secretary of Department of English, Rahmadsyah Rangkuti M.A., Ph.D and other staffs of Department of English for their helpful encouragement, assistance and support given to me.

I extend my gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. H. Syahron Lubis, M.A., and also my co-supervisor, Dr. Umar Mono, M.A. Thank you for dedicating the time, energy, and efforts in order to help me complete this thesis. Thank you for the advice,

suggestions, and motivations which have encouraged me to achieve better academic results.

My greatest thanks also goes to my two living heroes: my perfectionist and organised father, Jeremy Wiyono, from whom I inherit most of the genes, and my super kind and gentle mother, Lea, from whom I learn the most precious values in life. For my eldest brother, David Wiyono, and my older sister, Deborah Wiyono, thank you for being my eternal siblings as well as my partners in crime. Thank you for being the people who will always get my back no matter what and how the situation is.

I send my love to my supportive and hilarious friends, more than ever, Aida Caroline, Raja Guntar, Elvi Rahmi, Anggie and also all the students of IMSI 2011 who have shared laughters, tears as well as other uncountable living memories which I will surely keep close in my heart eternally.

Should I say that I might not write the names of all people who have been important to me in this piece of paper, so to sum it all up, I’ll just say thanks to those who:

- have stayed beside me in my times of need. From them, I learn that God’s gift includes understanding and caring friends, which I fortunately own and can always count on.

- have turned their backs at me to teach me that not all people should stay in my life forever. Sometimes some people have to go and we should continue living our own lives.

Last but not least, I thank the awesome and wonderful 21st century’s technology which has indirectly contributed in helping me improve my knowledge as a person in general, and as a student in particular.

Medan, June 2015

The Writer,

ABSTRAK

Skripsi ini berjudul “A Pragmatic Analysis of Language Manipulation

Strategies and Motives in Ted Bundy’s Statements”. Skripsi ini secara khusus

menyoroti praktek manipulasi bahasa dalam bidang kriminal. Objek yang menjadi penelitian skripsi ini adalah Theodore Robert Bundy atau Ted Bundy. Analisis skripsi memfokuskan pada pernyataan-pernyataan dari Ted Bundy yang mengindikasikan bahwa ia menggunakan strategi manipulasi bahasa, serta motif-motif di balik manipulasi bahasa tersebut. Hasil dari penelitian mengenai strategi manipulasi bahasa pada pernyataan Ted Bundy dengan menggunakan teori Simon adalah sebagai berikut: Denial (3 data), Selective Inattention (1 data),

Rationalization (2 data), Diversion (2 data), Lying (1 data), Covert Intimidation (1 data), Guilt-tripping (2 data), Shaming (2 data), Playing the Victim Role (4 data), Vilifying the Victim (1 data), Playing the Servant Role (1 data), Seduction (1 data), Projecting the Blame (2 data), Minimization (2 data). Sementara hasil dari penelitian

mengenai motif manipulasi bahasa pada pernyataan Ted Bundy dengan menggunakan teori Braiker adalah sebagai berikut: To advance manipulator’s own

purposes (18 data), to attain feelings of power and superiority (3 data), to feel in control of manipulator’s own emotions (4 data). Berdasarkan hasil tersebut dapat

disimpulkan bahwa strategi manipulasi bahasa yang paling dominan ditemukan dalam pernyataan-pernyataan Ted Bundy adalah strategi Playing the Victim Role, sedangkan motif manipulasi bahasa yang paling dominan adalah to advance

manipulator’s own purposes.

ABSTRACT

The title of this thesis is “A Pragmatic Analysis of Language Manipulation

Strategies and Motives in Ted Bundy’s Statements.” This thesis specifically

concentrates on the practice of language manipulation in criminalism. The object of this study is Theodore Robert Bundy or Ted Bundy. This thesis focuses on the statements of Ted Bundy which indicates that he used language manipulation strategies, as well as the motives behind the statements. The results of the study of language manipulation strategies in Ted Bundy’s statements using Simon’s theory are as follows: Denial (3 data), Selective Inattention (1 data), Rationalization (2 data), Diversion (2 data), Lying (1 data), Covert Intimidation (1 data), Guilt-tripping (2 data), Shaming (2 data), Playing the Victim Role (4 data), Vilifying the Victim (1 data), Playing the Servant Role (1 data), Seduction (1 data), Projecting the Blame (2 data), Minimization (2 data). Meanwhile, the results of the study of language manipulation motives using Braiker’s theory are as follows: To advance manipulator’s own purposes (18 data), to attain feelings of power and superiority (3 data), to feel in control of manipulator’s own emotions (4 data). Based on the results, it can be concluded that the most dominant language manipulation strategy in Ted Bundy’s statements is Playing the Victim Role, while the most dominant language manipulation motive in his statements is to advance manipulator’s own purposes.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

AUTHOR’S DECLARATION ... v

COPYRIGHT DECLARATION ... vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...vii

ABSTRAK ... x

ABSTRACT ... xi

TABLE OF CONTENTS ... xii

LIST OF TABLES ... xvi

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION 1.1. Background of the Study ... 1

1.2. Problems of the Study ... 6

1.3. Objectives of the Study ... 7

1.4. Scope of the Study ... 7

1.5. Significance of the Study ... 8

CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 2.1. Pragmatics as the Study of Meaning ... 9

2.2.1. Locutionary Acts ... 13

2.2.2. Illocutionary Acts ... 13

2.2.3. Perlocutionary Acts ... 15

2.3. Speech Events ... 15

2.4. Speaker ... 17

2.5. Cognitive Pragmatics ... 19

2.6. Language Manipulation ... 20

2.6.1. Language Manipulation Strategies ... 23

2.6.2. Language Manipulation Motives ... 28

2.7. Previous Study ... 29

CHAPTER III METHOD OF RESEARCH 3.1. Research Design ... 32

3.2. Source of Data ... 33

3.3. Data Collection Procedures ... 33

3.4. Step of the Research ... 34

CHAPTER IV DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS 4.1. Language Manipulation Strategies ... 35

4.1.2. Selective Inattention ... 37

4.1.3. Rationalization ... 37

4.1.4. Diversion ... 40

4.1.5. Lying ... 42

4.1.6. Covert Intimidation ... 44

4.1.7. Guilt-tripping ... 45

4.1.8. Shaming ... 47

4.1.9. Playing the Victim Role ... 48

4.1.10. Vilifying the Victim ... 52

4.1.11. Playing the Servant Role ... 52

4.1.12. Seduction ... 54

4.1.13. Projecting the Blame (Blaming Others) ... 55

4.1.14. Minimization ... 56

4.2. Language Manipulation Motives ... 57

4.2.1. To Advance Manipulator’s Own Purposes ... 57

4.2.2. To Attain Feelings of Power and Superiority ... 73

4.2.3. To Feel in Control of Manipulator’s Own Emotions..77

and Motive ... 80

CHAPTER V CONCLUSIONS AND SUGGESTIONS

5.1. Conclusions ... 83

5.2. Suggestions ... 84

REFERENCES 85

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 The Most Dominant Language Manipulation Strategy ... 81

ABSTRAK

Skripsi ini berjudul “A Pragmatic Analysis of Language Manipulation

Strategies and Motives in Ted Bundy’s Statements”. Skripsi ini secara khusus

menyoroti praktek manipulasi bahasa dalam bidang kriminal. Objek yang menjadi penelitian skripsi ini adalah Theodore Robert Bundy atau Ted Bundy. Analisis skripsi memfokuskan pada pernyataan-pernyataan dari Ted Bundy yang mengindikasikan bahwa ia menggunakan strategi manipulasi bahasa, serta motif-motif di balik manipulasi bahasa tersebut. Hasil dari penelitian mengenai strategi manipulasi bahasa pada pernyataan Ted Bundy dengan menggunakan teori Simon adalah sebagai berikut: Denial (3 data), Selective Inattention (1 data),

Rationalization (2 data), Diversion (2 data), Lying (1 data), Covert Intimidation (1 data), Guilt-tripping (2 data), Shaming (2 data), Playing the Victim Role (4 data), Vilifying the Victim (1 data), Playing the Servant Role (1 data), Seduction (1 data), Projecting the Blame (2 data), Minimization (2 data). Sementara hasil dari penelitian

mengenai motif manipulasi bahasa pada pernyataan Ted Bundy dengan menggunakan teori Braiker adalah sebagai berikut: To advance manipulator’s own

purposes (18 data), to attain feelings of power and superiority (3 data), to feel in control of manipulator’s own emotions (4 data). Berdasarkan hasil tersebut dapat

disimpulkan bahwa strategi manipulasi bahasa yang paling dominan ditemukan dalam pernyataan-pernyataan Ted Bundy adalah strategi Playing the Victim Role, sedangkan motif manipulasi bahasa yang paling dominan adalah to advance

manipulator’s own purposes.

ABSTRACT

The title of this thesis is “A Pragmatic Analysis of Language Manipulation

Strategies and Motives in Ted Bundy’s Statements.” This thesis specifically

concentrates on the practice of language manipulation in criminalism. The object of this study is Theodore Robert Bundy or Ted Bundy. This thesis focuses on the statements of Ted Bundy which indicates that he used language manipulation strategies, as well as the motives behind the statements. The results of the study of language manipulation strategies in Ted Bundy’s statements using Simon’s theory are as follows: Denial (3 data), Selective Inattention (1 data), Rationalization (2 data), Diversion (2 data), Lying (1 data), Covert Intimidation (1 data), Guilt-tripping (2 data), Shaming (2 data), Playing the Victim Role (4 data), Vilifying the Victim (1 data), Playing the Servant Role (1 data), Seduction (1 data), Projecting the Blame (2 data), Minimization (2 data). Meanwhile, the results of the study of language manipulation motives using Braiker’s theory are as follows: To advance manipulator’s own purposes (18 data), to attain feelings of power and superiority (3 data), to feel in control of manipulator’s own emotions (4 data). Based on the results, it can be concluded that the most dominant language manipulation strategy in Ted Bundy’s statements is Playing the Victim Role, while the most dominant language manipulation motive in his statements is to advance manipulator’s own purposes.

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of the Study

There is always a hidden truth behind every confession. To confess something, logically, means to tell the truth. The further possible question, however, would be whether the truth has been completely told and delivered by the confessor. Most of the times, there is something else behind a statement that needs to be analysed.

In some particular cases, an advanced interpretation is needed in order to analyse and dig out the precision and genuineness of statements stated by a speaker. Such an analysis is called the analysis of meaning. Linguistics provides two fields that concentrate on meanings as the their heart of study: semantics and pragmatics. These two branches of linguistics are fairly similar because they deal with meaning. Nevertheless, they are also completely different because they focus on different kinds of meaning.

Semantics studies the literal meaning in linguistic forms. Any entities outside the form is considered out of reach. For instance, a husband tells his wife:

“A cup of hot coffee would be nice in this cloudy morning.”

The sentence above, when being analysed semantically, means that the husband thinks that a cup of hot coffee would be literally perfect in the cloudy morning. Semantics associates the meaning with what is believed to be logically correct. A cup

of hot coffee is surely considered to be appropriate in such a temperature as stated in the sentence.

However, the study of pragmatics is much wider than only analysing the literal meaning that a sentence implies. As a matter of fact, pragmatics is the only branch of linguistics that allows humans into the analysis. It means that pragmatics does not only deal with meanings, but it also considers the speakers, their intended meaning and the context as the objects of the study (Yule 1996:4).

Pragmatics, according to Yule (1996:3), is the study of speaker meaning; the study of contextual meaning; the study of how more gets communicated than is said; the study of the expression of relative distance. By studying language via pragmatics, we can talk about people’s goals, purposes, assumptions, and even the kind of action (for example, requests) that they are performing when they speak.

Thus, the sentence “A cup of hot coffee would be nice in this cloudy

morning.” may suggest that the husband is indirectly trying to tell his wife to make a

cup of hot coffee for him. There is no sign of request in the sentence if we look at it in a glimpse, but when being analysed pragmatically, we can learn that the sentence does, implicitly, contain a request.

Actions performed via utterances are generally called speech acts (Yule: 1996:47-49). Basically, there are three related acts in producing an utterance. The first one is locutionary act, which is the act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression. The second one is illocutionary act which is related to the fact that we must have purposes in producing an utterance (illocutionary force). The last one is

perlocutionary act, which deals with the response upon our utterance (perlocutionary effect).

Based on those acts, we can conclude that what is called by locutionary act is the statement “A cup of hot coffee would be nice in this cloudy morning.” The illocutionary force is the intention of the husband to ask his wife to make a cup of hot coffee for him. While the perlocutionary effect might be the act of the wife which goes to the kitchen and starts making the coffee.

However, the study of pragmatics can also be frustrating because there is no guarantee that the interpretation of a statement would be objective, consistent and unbiased. This is because different people have different interpretations. Pragmatics, for this reason, requires us to make sense of people and what they have in mind (Yule 1996:4).

What people utter and what they actually have in mind when uttering their statements might be distinct. Statements that are uttered are called verbal language. Indeed, the communication via verbal language has the function to exhange information from the speaker to the listener. Nonetheless, it would be too shallow to say that that is the only function of verbal language. Language, when used in particular times, can be a tool to control people’s thought and even direct people’s belief upon a certain issue; that is what we call as manipulation.

Manipulation is the act of concealing truths in as undetectable as possible ways in order to cover up one’s stories for certain purposes. According to Fairclough (1989:8), the use of language for particular intentions to influence people’s mind can be categorised as the act of manipulating.

In general, manipulation is often practiced in two fields, politics and advertisements. A candidate for president, for instance, may promote himself using attention-grabbing sentences. Oftentimes, in those sentences, he may insert some manipulative words in order to make people believe that he deserves to be the president.

As in advertisement, manipulation is often done to capture people’s interest in a product. According to Coxall (2013:4), media manipulation is a series of related techniques in which partisans create an image or argument that favours their particular interests.

However, there is another field in which manipulation is often practised. This field seems to be less popular compared to the other two fields mentioned above, but it does not erase the fact that it is still very interesting to be discussed. Manipulation is also practised in crime cases. The guilty suspect might compile sentences to manipulate law officers to lessen their punishment, or even, to free them from the case that they are accused of doing.

The analysis of language manipulation can be completed through the study of pragmatics as one of the branches of linguistics. Manipulation cannot be detected instantly at the time the language is spoken. It takes further study and break down to investigate the meaning and even connotation in the language. According to Yule (1996:3), pragmatics is the investigation of invisible meanings.

Relying on the fact that language manipulation contains hidden meaning, this study focuses on analysing the language manipulation strategies and motives found

in the statements of Theodore Robert Bundy (most well-known as Ted Bundy), who was famous as an American serial killer in the era of 1970s.

Ted Bundy was chosen to be the figure of which his statements would be analysed in this thesis for several reasons. Firstly, he was recognised as one of the most famous serial killers in the world with approximately over 50 murder cases. Secondly, in many of his interviews in different periods of times (between 1977-1989), he had expressed numerous statements which are suspected to be manipulative. He used language manipulation mostly to defend and justify his crimes and behaviors. This fact was confirmed by his trials to escape from the jail twice after being caught (in June 7, 1977 and December 30, 1977 respectively).

Analysing language manipulation, however, is not an effortless task. It really takes deep investigation and study before coming out with accurate interpretations. Therefore, in helping the writer analyse and interpret the language manipulation strategies and motives in the statements of Ted Bundy, the theory of language manipulation strategies by Simon (2000) is used side by side with the theory of language manipulation motives by Braiker (2004).

Simon (2000:80-92) suggests that there are 14 types of language manipulation strategies that might be used by a person. Those strategies are denial, selective inattention, rationalization, diversion, lying, covert intimidation, guilt tripping, shaming, playing the victim role, vilifying the victim, playing servant role, seduction, projecting the blame (blaming others), and minimization. These strategies are found in Ted Bundy’s statements which later will be discussed in this study.

Braiker (2004:52) states that manipulation exists because it works. Therefore, manipulation is surely not practised without certain motives owned by the speaker. These motives are what drive them to manipulate people. Braiker (2004:54-57) suggests that there are three principal interpersonal motives possessed by manipulators. Those motives are (1) to advance manipulator’s own purposes, (2) to attain feelings of power and superiority, (3) to feel in control of manipulator’s own emotions.

The language manipulation strategies discussed in this study are in form of statements, which are called as locutions in pragmatics. Meanwhile the language manipulation motives are referred as illocutions in pragmatics.

By using the theory of Simon (2000) and Braiker (2004), it is possible to find out how the language manipulation works in the statements of Ted Bundy and what are the motives that underlie Ted Bundy’s manipulative expressions (illocutionary acts).

1.2. Problems of the Study

In developing the analysis of language manipulation, this study places its focuses on these three problems below.

1. What language manipulation strategies are found in Ted Bundy’s statements?

2. What motives underlie his manipulative expressions?

3. What are the most dominant language manipulation strategy and motive in Ted Bundy’s statements?

1.3. Objectives of the Study

Precise and specific objectives of an analysis are needed as a parameter of a well-written study. Based on the problems stated previously, this study has set three objectives to be observed.

1. To identify language manipulation strategies found in Ted Bundy’s statements.

2. To identify the motives which underlie his manipulative expressions.

3. To identify the most dominant language manipulation strategy and motive in Ted Bundy’s statements.

1.4. Scopes of the Study

It is undeniably important to have a clear restriction in an analysis so that the analysis itself can stay on the right track. The clear and obvious restrictions are not only necessary to limit the problems of the analysis, but they are also essential to avoid any bias during the process of analysis.

This study restricted its analysis on two scopes. First of all, the theories of language manipulation strategies used in this analysis are the 14 types of language manipulation strategies as proposed by Simon (2000); the statements are called locutions in pragmatics. Secondly, the motives or intentions behind the statements (illocutionary acts) were analysed by applying the theory of language manipulation motives by Braiker (2004).

1.5. Significances of the Study

This study is expected to give such significances:

1. This study could introduce and present the language manipulation strategies and motives found in Ted Bundy’s statements.

2. This study could be useful for future researches upon the language manipulation strategies and motives found in the statements of other figures.

3. This study could make readers become apprehend that there is an invisible meaning behind every manipulative statement.

4. This study could contribute in giving knowledge for readers to be aware of manipulation strategies that are apparently practised more frequently nowadays.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1. Pragmatics as the Study of Meaning

Pragmatics is a field of study which is getting more and more familiar in linguistics today. This is an interesting fact, considering that fifteen years ago, it was even rarely mentioned by linguists (Leech 1983:1). Pragmatics is regarded as the youngest linguistic discipline, yet it is undeniably an appealing field because it is the only branch of linguistics that allows human into the analysis (Yule 1996:4).

Leech (1983:1) makes an analogy that the history of linguistics can be described in terms of successive discoveries, in which the things that have been put in a rag-bag can be taken, sewed, and patched again into a more or less presentable suit of clothes. In the same sense, the reason why pragmatics was firstly sort of overlooked and neglected is because it is different from the older disciplines of linguistics which focus more on the theoritical concepts.

Leech (1983:1-2) then states that it goes way back to the start in the late 1950s when Chomsky discovered the centrality of syntax, but like other structuralists, he still considered meanings altogether too messy to be put in a serious discussion. It was then in the early 1960s, when linguisctics grew quickly, that Katz and Fodor began to think of inserting meanings into formal linguistic theory. The ultimate transformation happened when Lukoff in 1971 stated that it was not possible to separate syntax from the study of language use. Henceforth, pragmatics was included in the linguistic map.

Leech (1983:1) says that now, many people would argue that we cannot really understand the nature of language unless we understand pragmatics: how language is used in communication.

Yule (1996:4) affirms that the advantage of studying language via pragmatics is that one can talk about people’s intended meanings, their assumptions, their purposes or goals, and the kinds of actions that they are performing when they speak.

To analyse meanings means that in the first place, one should be really clear about what types of meanings that are intended to be analysed. Generally, there are two types of meaning, literal meaning and non-literal (figurative) meaning. Literal meaning means the meaning which is written in dictionaries. Meanwhile, non-literal (figurative) meaning is the meaning that needs more complicated understanding in order to be figured out.

According to Katz (1998:166), prior to the 1980s, the standard pragmatic model of comprehension was widely believed. In that model, it was believed that the recipient would first attempt to comprehend the meaning as if literal, but when an appropriate literal inference could not be made, the recipient would shift to look for a figurative interpretation that would allow comprehension.

“Good luck for your performance tonight! Break a leg!”

The statement above, when being examined literally, would create a terrifying sense, as break a legwould mean that somebody’s leg will be literally broken . However, when it is analysed figuratively, it can be detected that break a leg is actually an idiom that means I hope you do very well.

Pragmatics, as a discipline which this thesis uses as its framework, focuses on the non-literal meaning of a statement, a sentence, or a text. It reaches out to the deep meaning and explore it in order to arrive at an accurate interpretation. Since pragmatics deals with deep meanings, at times it can be an exasperating field to be studied, because involving humans and their thoughts when they produce utterances is a very subjective matter and therefore hard to be analysed in a consistent way.

Yule (1996:4) says that two friends having a conversation may imply some things and infer some others without providing any clear linguistic evidence that we can point to as the explicit source of ‘the meaning’ of what was communicated.

Example:

A : So – you did it?

B : Why should you ask again? I certainly did!

Other people who coincidentally pass by when the conversation above happens would never have any idea about the thing which is being spoken of. It is something that can only be understood by the two persons who are having the conversation. Thus, pragmatics is appealing because it is about how people make sense of each other linguistically. At the same time, the challenge is that it is not an easy thing to do, because it requires us to make sense of people and what they have in mind.

2.2. Speech Acts

In general, when people communicate, they use language as a means to deliver what they have in mind. The language is then transformed into utterances, which contains meaning. Those utterances are called speech acts. Speech acts cannot

be separated from the study of pragmatics. As Fairclough (1989:155) states , “...

speech acts are central aspect of pragmatics, which is concerned with the meanings.”

However, sometimes in attempting to express themselves, people do not only produce utterances containing grammatical structural and words. Austin (1962:4) claims that we very often use utterances in ways beyond the scope of traditional grammar. Language used by humans, occasionally, functions more than only a way of stating particular statements, but also of performing actions via utterances (Yule 1996:47).

For instance, when a boy is punished by his teacher, the utterance below could signify something more than just a statement.

Teacher: You can sweep the floor after class is dismissed!

Via the utterance above, it shows that there is an action that the teacher performs, which is punishing his student to sweep the floor.

Not only can the utterance provide unpleasant sense as the statement above, but actions performed via utterances can also suggest a compliment (a), a gratitude (b), or an expression of surprise (c).

(a). You look drop-dead gorgeous tonight.

(b). I can’t describe how much I thank you for helping me. (c). What a shocking performance!

Yule (1996:48) then asserts that there are three different aspects when it comes to speech act. Those three aspects are locutionary acts, illocutionary acts, and perlocutionary acts, which each concerns with distinctive cases.

2.2.1. Locutionary Acts

To say something is to do something. This is what Austin (1962:94) states when explaining about locutionary acts. In order to be understood, the actions that we try to perform via utterances must be expressed linguistically.

Yule (1996:48) says that locutionary act is the basic act of utterance, which is the act of producing a meaningful linguistic expression. Expression itself can come through different forms. It can be sounds, words, or full sentences. However, Yule underlines utterances that can be categorised as locutionary acts are only those utterances which contains meaning.

Saying, “Bonjour! Comment allez-vous?” in English would not be considered a locutionary act, simply because the sentence is not understood in English. However, the sentence is certainly a locutionary act in French.

2.2.2. Illocutionary Acts

Normally people do not utter something without a purpose. They must have certain intentions when producing words (locutions). This is what we call as illocutionary act. Illocutionary act refers to the fact that people must have a goal when expressing their utterances. Illocutions are abstract forms and therefore can only be analysed by using pragmatics, as pragmatics deals with invisible meanings.

We may produce utterances either to make a statement, an offer, an explanation, an argument, or other communicative purposes. This is also generally known as the illocutionary force of the utterance (Yule 1996:48).

For instance, when somebody utters “This room is terribly hot!”, they might not just saying that sentence for no exact reasons. They might actually intend to ask somebody else in that room to turn on the air conditioner, or simply to open the window.

Illocutionary act is certainly more complicated to be figured out, because it requires us to pay close attention to what actually the speaker intends to imply through their utterances. Analysing illocutionary act obliges us to not only understand the utterances, but to go through one’s mind and infer what they aim to say.

When we cannot infer and make sense of what the speaker intends to mean, we have failed in understanding the illocutionary act of the utterances. However, it is worth noting that understanding illocutionary act is actually a very subjective case, since different people might interpret the utterances differently. For instance:

X : What would you like to drink? A glass of plain water or some fruit juice? Y : I just had two glasses of orange juice.

The conversation above could be inferred differently. In one case, by saying

“I just had two glasses of orange juice” might actully mean that the speaker prefers

to only have a glass of plain water. In another case, it could also mean that the speaker is not currently thirsty anymore since he has had two glasses of orange juice

deep understanding, but also the closest interpretation of what the utterances actually imply.

2.2.3. Perlocutionary Acts

According to Yule (1996:48), we surely do not produce utterances with a function without intending it to have an effect. This is the third dimension which is called as perlocutionary act. Perlocutionary act deals with the fact that people utter something to cause somebody to sense the effect as intended by the speakers.

For instance: “The food is horribly spicy! My mouth is burnt!”

The statement above, when uttered by the speaker, might cause other people around the speaker to bring him a glass of cold water. This is what we call as perlocutionary effect, which is the effect on the listeners as intended by the speakers.

When we utter something and the utterance has an effect to the listener, one of which causes them to react upon the utterance by doing something, it means that the utterance has a perlocutionary effect to the listener.

2.3. Speech Events

To perform a speech act means that we do it under a certain circumstance. All speech acts are mostly connected to the circumstance when the speech is spoken. This is what we call as a speech event. Speech event is the circumstance or the condition at the time one produces speech act. Speech events are strongly necessary to be considered when analysing speech act simply because it influences how one interprets the speech act.

For example:

Z: The light is on!

The statement above can be interpreted differently, depending on the condition when it is spoken. When it is spoken by people who are ready to have some sleep, then it might imply that they are requesting for the light to be turned off. Meanwhile, when the sentence is spoken after hours of blackout, it could show the gladness of the speaker that the light is finally on.

Yule (1996:57) states that becoming aware of speech event is important since it will help us arrive at some outcome when interacting via language. The speech event can also be categorised as the kinds of impression when an utterance is spoken.

For instance: “I thoroughly dislike that song!”

The statement above is categorised as the speech event of complaining. It is not necessarily hard to decode what it actually means and signifies. However, Yule (1996:57) then states that sometimes other utterances can be spoken in order to lead up to some outcome, without focusing the utterances on the central aspect of particular speech events.

Anna : I am glad we have a chance to meet today, Davin. Davin : Me too. What’s up anyway?

Anna : Oh, uhm, the iPhone that I bought last month can’t function well. Davin : Did it ever fall?

Anna : It did, once. But it didn’t show any damage at that time. Davin : Then why do you think it can’t function now?

Davin : What type of iPhone do you own?

Anna : It’s iPhone 5s. Do you have some leisure time? Davin : Sure thing!

Anna : Oh, thanks a lot.

In the conversation above, Anna is indirectly asking Davin to help her fix her broken phone. We can see that there is actually no words that signify request from Anna. By asking, “Do you have some leisure time?”, Anna essentially has used pre-request statement, allowing Davin to say that he is busy or he cannot help Anna at the moment. In this context,Davin saying “Sure thing” is taken as an acknowledgment that he does not only have some leisure time, but is also willing to help Anna even though there is no direct request from her.

2.4. Speaker

Pragmatics, according to Yule (1996:3), has more to do with the analysis of what people mean by their utterances than what the words or phrases in those utterances might mean by themselves. That being said, it is clear that pragmatics treats utterances in a direct relation with the speaker.

Pragmatics is a study of speaker meaning. An exactly identical utterance, when uttered by different speakers, might result in different meanings. For instance:

“Wow, this room is so cold!”

The statement above can produce different meanings when stated by two different speakers. When it is stated by a person who has been doing activities under the sun for hours, it shows a positive meaning, a thankful expression, or a pleasing

stayed in a cold room for a lengthy time, it gives a negative meaning, a sense of complain, or a dislike expression.

When it comes to pragmatics, focusing on the speaker is the main key in order to interpret the meaning correctly. This is what makes pragmatics considered to be an exceptional branch of linguistics, simply because it is the only one which allows humans into the analysis (Yule 1996:4).

A question that might raise is, “Do we have no chance at all to analyse meaning without relating it with the speaker?” Sure thing we do. The statement

“Wow, this room is so cold!” for example, can be analysed without looking at who

the speaker is. However, will the interpreted meaning be objective, especially when we do not even know who the producer of the statement is? The speaker is regarded as an important object because it is almost impossible to analyse the correct and exact meaning of an utterance by ignoring the person who produces the utterance itself.

By having a knowledge about the speaker, one can analyse the meaning of the utterances more easily. Speaker is treated as an important object in pragmatics because, as explained in the beginning, pragmatics does not only focus on the meaning as seen from the structure of the utterances, but far more than that, the meaning as implied by the speaker.

Knowing who the speakers are, their backgrounds, statuses, and occupations will help us tremendously in interpreting the meaning of their utterances. For instance, the statement “I am not guilty” when stated by a suspected criminal is

harder to believe than when it is stated by a normal and well-rounded person who has never been involved in crimes.

Getting to know the speaker means that we have reached a point where we have to put a close observation regarding the speaker’s personality. Pragmatics, as stated by Yule (1996:4), allows humans into its analysis for one important basis: one simply cannot separate the relationship between linguistic forms and the users of those forms. A statement is produced as a result of the condition of the speaker. Hence, before one talks about invisible meanings, one should be clear about the “behind the scene” of producing a statement, and relating it with the person who states it.

2.5. Cognitive Pragmatics

Communication is essentially a cooperative activity shared by two parties, the speaker and the listener, in order to arrive at one equivalent understanding. Bara (2012:443) states that the two parties involved in an interaction might have different aims, but to say that communication has taken place successfully, both parties must share the same mental states.

“The cognitive emphasis that can be seen in the titles both of the paper and ofthe book is justified by the fact that communication will not be examined herefrom the viewpoint of an external observer, as happens in linguistics and in thephilosophy of language, where attention is focused on the finished product,whether this be an utterance or a discourse. Instead, I will take a standpointwithin the mind of the individual participants, trying to explain how eachcommunicationact is generated mentally — before being realized physically— and then comprehended mentally by the other interlocutors.” (Bara 2012:443)

Based on the quotations of Bara above, it can be concluded that cognitive pragmatics is a study which sees communication not merely as the act of transmitting language and information, but also the act of understanding mentally what is going

through the mind of the individuals who are involved in the process of communication.

Human beings posses a series of mental states. These mental states might include conscious emotional or cognitive. They are fundamentally important when one talks about pragmatics in a relation with the cognitive process. To communicate something means that one shares mental states such as attention, knowledge, belief, and consciousness (Bara 2012:445-446).

The issue of pragmatics itself has been about the difference between what is said and what is meant. Further than that, it has also been widely discussed about how people interpret what is meant from what is said (Fairclough 1989:10). These things have captured the attention of cognitive psychologists; how language is closely connected to one’s mental state.

The basis standpoint is that we do not simply decode an utterance, but we are actively involved in the process of matching features of the utterances with the representations of what has been planted inside our long-term memory (Fairclough 1989:11). These representation are a collection of a lot of things, such as the shape of words, the grammatical forms of statements, the types of a person, the expected sequence of events in a particular situation type, and so forth. Some of these are linguistics, but some others are just not. Therefore, to talk about people’s intended meaning, we should look further into the cognitive condition of the speaker.

2. 6. Language Manipulation

The study of pragmatics, accoding to Fairclough (1989:8) focuses on the individualism, because the speaker holds the control to use language to achieve their

goals or purposes. Fairclough (1989:6) then states that the use of language for specific purposes can be categorised as the act of manipulation.

As discussed in the previous sub-topic, there is a splash of element of cognitive psychology when we talk about pragmatics, because pragmatics analyses not only the linguistic expression, but also the people who express their thoughts via language. That being said, pragmatics and psychology can go side by side and support each other when it comes to the use of language in a relation to speakers and their intentions.

Braiker (2004:1) states that manipulation is a type of social influence that has a purpose to change the perception or behaviour of others through underhanded, deceptive, and even abusive tactics. Nevertheless, social influence through manipulation is not necessarily negative. At times, it could also be positive, depending on the context. For example, a doctor influences his patients to consume healthy medicines is categorised as a positive social influence. When the manipulation uses abuse and coercion, however, it will be included in the negative social influence.

The topic of manipulation is getting more and more important because as language grows quickly nowadays, people become more aware of the power of language to deliver something far beyond traditional purposes. Language, which traditionally is used to transfer information in interaction, has been taken to the next level, which is to direct people’s perspective upon a certain issue, which is also called as manipulation.

The use of language to manipulate people is usually practised in several fields. First, in politics. Politicians often use manipulative language to make people believe that they are on the side of their citizens. Fairclough (1989:15) claims that when politicians uses the subject “we” instead of “I”, it is categorised as the act of manipulating to assure people that they are one of “them” (the citizens). It will create the sense of closeness between those politicians and the citizens. This kind of manipulation, though, is not always a negative social influence.

Second, language manipulation is also often practised in marketing fields (advertisements). Advertisements at all times focus on how to grab people’s interests to buy particular products so that their advertisements can be considered successfull. This type of manipulation, though, dwells in the grey line between positive and negative social influence. When the use of manipulative language simply aims to attract people’s attention without providing false truth about the advertised product, then it is a positive social influence. On the contrary, when the products are made up to be much better and much expensive than it normally is, it is considered as a negative social influence.

Another field which language manipulation is often practised is in the crime cases. This field is less popular to be analysed, but at the same, it does not reduce the interesting fact that criminals often use manipulative language when providing their defence. Criminals use manipulative language for one general purpose, that is to cover up their faults and hence to be freed up in the eyes of law.

Getting to know how language manipulation works in practice is important because it familiarises us with the way to detect the manipulative language once it is

When people use manipulative language, they produce utterances or statements, which in pragmatics, are called as locutions (They do the locutionary act). Nonetheless, those statements are not genuinely produced without any particular intentions by the speaker. The motives behind the manipulation can be analysed by investigating the illocutionary acts of the statements, which mainly includes the reasons behind the manipulation itself.

2.6.1. Language Manipulation Strategies

Simon (2000:79) states that almost everyone is familiar with the term “defense mechanism”. It is the the automatic or unconscious mental behaviors that people employ to protect or defend themselves from the threat of some emotional pain. Most of the times, people use it to defend their reputation or self-images from the chance to feel ashamed or guilty about something.

Since this thesis focuses on an individual object named Ted Bundy, who had been convicted on crime cases such as murdering, raping, and torturing over 50 women, then he will be regarded as the manipulator, or someone who tries to defend and justify his behavior using different strategies of manipulation.

Simon (2000:80-92) claims that there are 14 types of language manipulation strategies. Those strategies are:

1. Denial

Denial is the language manipulation strategy used by manipulators to refuse all bad behaviors that have been pinned on them when in fact, they are indeed responsible for all of those bad behaviors.

“This is when the aggressor refuses to admit that they’ve done something harmful or hurtful when they clearly have.” (Simon 2000:80)

2. Selective Inattention

This strategy is used by manipulators when they pretend not to hear or know the question that is referred to them.

“It’s when the aggressor “plays dumb”, or act oblivious. When engaging in this tactic, the aggressor actively ignores the warnings, pleas or wishes of others, and in general, refuses to pay attention to everything and anything that might distract them from pursuing their own agenda. Often, the aggressor knows full well what you want from him when he starts to exhibit this “I don’t want to hear it!” behavior. By using this tactic, the aggressor actively resists submitting himself to the tasks of paying attention to or refraining from the behavior you want him to change.” (Simon 2000:82)

3. Rationalization

Manipulators use this strategy to justify their behavior as rationally as possible to make people think that there is a big chance that they are right. Most of the times, people cannot sense that they are doing manipulation because what the manipulators say makes just enough sense.

“A rationalization is the excuse an aggressor tries to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behavior. It can be an effective tactic, especially when the explanation or justification the aggressor offers makes just enough sense that any reasonably conscientious person is likely to fall for it. If the agressor can convince you they’re justified in whatever they’re doing, then they’re freer to pursue their goals without interference.” (Simon 2000:84)

4. Diversion

Diversion is a manipulation strategy in which manipulators try to drag the topic and direct people’s attention to another issue in order to keep themselves safe for moments.

“When we try to pin a manipulator down or try to keep a discussion focused on a single issue or behavior we don’t like, they’re expert at knowing how to change the subject, dodge the issue or in some way throw us a curve. They use distraction and diversion techniques to keep the focus off their behavior, move us off-track, and keep themselves free to promote their self-serving hidden agendas.”(Simon 2000:84)

5. Lying

Lying is a manipulation strategy which manipulators use to cover their fault to people in a calm and subtle way that sometimes it makes people become unconscious that the manipulators are currently lying.

“It’s hard to tell when a person is lying at the time they’re doing it. Manipulators often lie by withholding a significant amount of the truth from you or by distorting the truth. They are adept at being vague when you ask them direct questions. This is an especially slick way of lying by omission.”(Simon 2000:86)

6. Covert Intimidation

Manipulators use covert intimidation strategy to give some sort of threats to people so that people will feel the frightening sense which they are trying to give.

“Aggressor frequently threaten their victims too keep them anxious, apprehensive in one-down position. Covert-aggressive intimidate their victims by making veiled (subtle, indirect or implied) threats.” (Simon 2000:86)

7. Guilt-tripping

Most of the times, manipulators know very well that normal people possess consciences that are certainly larger than them. As a result, manipulators often make people sympathize with their condition so that people will try to understand their position and therefore believe that the manipulators are actually not completely bad persons.

aggressive personalities know well is that other types of persons have very different consciences than they do. Manipulators are often skilled at using what they know to be the greater conscientiousness of their victims as a means of keeping them in a self-doubting, anxious, and submissive position. The more conscientious the potential victim, the more effective guilt is as a weapon.”(Simon 2000:87)

8. Shaming

Shaming is the strategy that manipulators use which includes saying sarcasm and even striking people back in a subtle way. This strategy is done to make people doubt that the manipulators are bad persons.

“This is the technique of using subtle sarcasm and put-downs as a means of increasing self-doubt in others. Covert-aggressives use this tactic to make others feel inadequate or unworthy, and therefore, defer to them.”(Simon 2000:88)

9. Playing the Victim Role

As a mechanism of defending themselves, manipulators use this strategy to set themselves as victims of one condition.

“This tactic involves portraying oneself as an innocent victim of circumstance or someone else’s behavior in order to gain sympathy, evoke compassion and thereby get something from another. Convince your victim you’re suffering in some way, and they’ll try to relieve your distress.”(Simon 2000:89)

10. Vilifying the Victim

This strategy is mostly similar with playing the victim role, unless it includes the act of manipulators to make people feel bad about themselves and therefore treat the manipulators as victims.

“This tactic is frequently used in conjunction with the tactic of playing the victim role. The aggressor uses this tactic to make it appear he is only responding (i.e. defending himself against) aggression on the part of the victim.” (Simon 2000:89)

11. Playing the Servant Role

Playing the servant role is a manipulation strategy which shows that the manipulators are contributing in some hard work to conceal their real purpose, which is to manipulate people.

“Covert-aggressives use this tactic to cloak their self-serving agendas in the guise of service to a more noble cause. It’s a common tactic but difficult to recognize. By pretending to be working hard on someone else’s behalf, covert-aggressives conceal their own ambition, desire for power, and quest for a position of dominance over others.” (Simon 2000:90)

12. Seduction

Manipulators use this strategy to perform themselves as people who are appealing enough to gain people’s trust. Not only that, they also realise the needs of others to feel respected so they use this strategy to make people feel good about themselves.

“Covert-aggressive personalities are adept at charming, praising, flattering or overtly supporting others in order to get them to lower their defenses and surrender their trust and loyalty. Covert-aggressive are also particularly aware that people who are to some extent emotionally needy and dependent (and that includes most people who aren’t character-disordered) want approval, reassurance, and a sense of being valued and needed more than anything. Appearing to be attentive to these needs can be a manipulator’s ticket to incredible power over others.” (Simon 2000:91)

13. Projecting the Blame (Blaming Others)

This is the strategy that manipulators use when they blame something else, such as circumstances or things as the causes of their bad behaviors.

“Aggressive personalities are always looking for a way to shift the blame for their aggressive behavior. Covert-aggressives are not only skilled at finding scapegoats, they’re expert at doing so in subtle, hard to detect ways.”(Simon 2000:91)

14. Minimization

Minimization is a manipulation strategy which includes the capability of manipulators to make people think that their mistakes are not as big as people think they are.

“This tactic is a unique kind of denial coupled with rationalization. When using this maneuver, the aggressor attempting to assert their abusive behavior isn’t really as harmful or irresponsible as someone else may be claiming. It’s the aggressor’s attempt to make a mole-hill out of a mountain.”(Simon 2000:92)

2.6.2. Language Manipulation Motives

The term “motive” according to English Thesaurus (2011) has the synonyms with “intention”, “drive”, or “aim”. Therefore when we talk about manipulation motives, we are essentially talking about the intention of the speaker behind their manipulative statements, which in pragmatics are called as illocutions.

According to Braiker (2004:54-57), manipulators often do the act of manipulating for these three interpersonal motives:

1. To advance manipulator’s own purposes

Manipulators feel the need to have their personal gain upon other people. Braiker (2004:54) then states that manipulators are entirely self-serving and selfish by disposition, even if they say otherwise. Manipulators will say and do everything necessary to advance their own purposes. They might refer themselves to be honest, unselfish and trustworthy individuals, in order to gain your complete trust so that their purposes can be fulfilled.

2. To attain feelings of power and superiority

Manipulators want to feel that they are superior and possess all the power to conquer his targets. Braiker (2004:55) claims that manipulators want to be acknowledged and validated. This actually roots from the fact that manipulators basically are people with inferiority and low self-esteem. They use manipulative strategies to hide these poor feelings in disguise, so that they appear to be people with bold self-confidence. They need to demonstrate that they are superior to compensate for feelings of inferiority and inadequacy.

3. To feel in control of manipulator’s own emotions

Manipulators are essentially people with high level of anxiety. Braiker (2004:56) states that they want to feel in control of their emotions that symbolise weaknesses, such as anxiety, sadness and loneliness. They need to be seen that they are able to control themselves. This need that manipulators have actually extends beyond their desires or needs to control others. They do not want to feel like they are losing control and finally being controlled by others. Manipulators intend to manage their emotions as fine as possible in order to succeed in manipulating others.

2.7. Previous Study

The similar analysis about language manipulation has ever been done before byRachman Galih (Universitas Komputer Indonesia: 2012) with the title “Motif dan

Strategi Manipulasi Penutur serta Respons Petutur dalam Skrip Film Sherlock Holmes” which analyses the strategies, motives and responses of manipulation via

In his thesis, Galih (2012) examined the motives and strategies of the speaker as well as the responses of the listener found in the movie script entitled “Sherlock

Holmes”. Galih used the theory of Simon (2000) to classify which strategies used by

the speaker to manipulate his target. Meanwhile, in order to analyse the motives of the speaker and responses of the listener, Galih used the theory of Yule (1996) about locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary acts.

Galih’s analysis resulted in the findings of 13 language manipulation strategies used by the speaker to manipulate his target. Those 13 language manipulation strategies are denial, selective inattention, rationalization, diversion, lying, covert intimidation, guilt tripping, shaming, playing the victim role, playing servant role, seduction, blaming others, and minimization. The result of his findings is a bit different with the result in this thesis, which found 14 language manipulation strategies used by the speaker.

The analysis of illocutionary acts which drove the speaker to do the act of manipulating are categorised into two kinds of motives, which are private motives (to serve one’s personal will) and open motives (to help others). In his analysis, Galih then concluded that the speaker had more interests to do manipulation by private motives rather than the intention to help others (open motives).

The responses upon the manipulation can be classified into two parts, verbal perlocutions and non-verbal perlocutions. Verbal perlocutions refer to the responses which are given verbally, while non-verbal perlocutions indicate the responses which are expressed through actions. Based on his findings, Galih then concluded that the responses can also be achieved by involving both verbal and non-verbal perlocutions

Stirred by the previous analysis mentioned above, this thesis focuses on the analysis of strategies and motives of language manipulation found in Ted Bundy’s statements by using the theory of Simon (2000) and Braiker (2004) via pragmatics approach. To make the analysis in this thesis become easier to understand, here is the scheme of framework that establishes the analysis.

The Scheme of Language Manipulation PRAGMATICS

LOCUTIONS ILLOCUTIONS PERLOCUTIONS

SPEECH ACTS

LANGUAGE MANIPULATION STRATEGIES

LINGUISTICS

LANGUAGE MANIPULATION MOTIVES

CHAPTER III

METHOD OF RESEARCH

3.1. Research Design

In analysing the strategies and motives of language manipulation in the statements of Ted Bundy, this thesis uses a particular research method in order to come out with the most accountable results.

Originally, there are two kinds of methods which are often used in researches. The first one is quantitative method, which involves data in form of numbers. The second one is qualitative method, which deals with thoughts, ideas, and descriptions. However, according to Creswell (2002:17), there is a method which is less known than qualitative and quantitative methods. The method, which is the combination of both qualitative and quantitative, is called the mixed methods.

This thesis uses the mixed methods because it does not only analyse the strategies and motives of language manipulation, but also determines the most dominant language manipulation strategy and motive in the data. Hence, to analyse the strategies and motives of language manipulation, this thesis uses descriptive qualitative method. Subsequently, to determine the most dominant language manipulation strategy and motive in the data, the quantitative method will be applied.

The quantitative method will focus on finding the mode of the data. According to Quantitative Method Study Guide book by Management College of South Africa (2013:34), the mode is obtained from a collection of scores by selecting the score that occurs most frequently.

Since this thesis relies on the study of pragmatics as its main focus, there are several most important reasons regarding why the mixed methods is considered the best to be applied in this thesis. Creswell (2002:13-14) states that pragmatics is a linguistic discipline which is open to all kinds of researches, especially the mixed methods because pragmatics itself does not limit its analysis to certain boundaries. Furthermore, mixed methods researchers look up to many approaches in collecting and analysing data rather than subscribing to only one way (either quantitave or qualitative).

3.2. Source of Data

The data in this thesis were taken from the numerous statements of Ted Bundy which were to show the kinds of language manipulation strategies found in his statements. The statements were produced by Ted Bundy in different occasions of interviews and periods of time. The statements were taken from websites such as YouTube and Wikipedia.

3.3. Data Collection Procedures

In collecting Ted Bundy’s statements which signify that he indeed used manipulation strategies, the writer uses steps as follows.

1. Downloading and searching the statements of Ted Bundy, both verbal and non-verbal, from trusted websites, such as YouTube, Wikipedia, etc.

2. Most of Ted Bundy’s statements, which are verbal, are then transcripted in form of written texts by the writer.

3.4. Step of the Research

Doing the research is the most important part in finishing a thesis. Each and every step of the research plays a great role to complete the research process. Therefore, in endeavouring to complete this thesis, the steps of researches are as follows.

1. Studying the statements of Ted Bundy and made a temporary hypothesis regarding which language manipulation strategy would be found in his statements.

2. Choosing the statements of Ted Bundy in which signifies that language manipulation strategies are found.

3. Investigating the motive of Ted Bundy’s language manipulation by learning about his personal background, such as his family, academics, and career.

4. Determining the most dominant language manipulation strategy and motive in Ted Bundy’s statements.

CHAPTER IV

DATA ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS

The statements of Ted Bundy were analysed based on the types of language manipulation strategies as proposed by Simon (2000) and language manipulation motives as suggested by Braiker (2004).

4.1. Language Manipulation Strategies

There are 14 types of language manipulation strategies found in Ted Bundy’s statements. Here below are the analysis of his statements and the language manipulation strategies used in those statements.

4.1.1. Denial

Denial is the language manipulation strategy used by manipulators to refuse all bad behaviors that have been pinned on them, when in fact, they are indeed responsible for all of those bad behaviors.

Data 1

Reporter : Did you ever physically harm anyone?(Appendix i, no. 10)

Ted Bundy : Ever physically harmed anyone? No, no. You know, again, not in the

context that you’re speaking of.(Appendix i, no. 11)

In the conversation above, the reporter was asking if Ted Bundy had ever physically harmed anyone. Physically harmed anyone in this context refers to the act of raping, torturing and murdering women which were accused to Ted. He then

denied the accusation by saying “No, no. You know, again, not in the context that

you’re speaking of.”

Data 2

Reporter : Are you angry?(Appendix i, no. 7)

Ted Bundy : Sure, I get very, very angry and indignant. I don’t like being locked up for something that I didn’t do. I don’t like my liberty taken away. I don’t like being treated like an animal. I don’t like people walking and ogling at me like I’m some sort of weirdo, because I am not.

(Appendix i, no. 8)

By stating “I don’t like being locked up for something that I didn’t do”, Ted had used the denial strategy in order to manipulate people. He tried to express how he did not like being treated badly as consequences of something that he did not even do. He implied that none of the punishments that he got were fair for him, because he simply did not commit any crimes as the law had convicted on him.

Data 3

Ted Bundy : I’m not guilty of the charges that have been filled against me.

(Appendix i, no. 15, line 2)

Reporter : And the allegations?(Appendix i, no. 16)

Ted Bundy : And the allegations.(Appendix i, no. 17)

By saying “I’m not guilty of the charges that have been filled against me and

4.1.2. Selective Inattention

This strategy is used by manipulators to ignore or refuse to pay attention to what other people are saying towards them.

Data 4

Dr. Dobson : One of the final murders you committed was 12-year-old Kimberly Leach. I think the public outcry is greater there because an innocent child was taken from a playground. What did you feel after that? Were they normal emotions after that?(Appendix ii, no. 45)

Ted Bundy : I can’t really talk about that right now. I would like to be able to convey to you what that experience is like, but I won’t be able to talk about that.(Appendix ii, no. 46)

In the conversation above, Dr. Dobson as the interviewer asked Ted about one of his murder cases. Dr. Dobson wanted to know how Ted’s feeling was after committing such a terrible crime; whether Ted regretted it or not. On the contrary, Ted didn’t give any exact answers. He pretended not to be able to answer the question by saying “I can’t really talk about that right now.”

4.1.3. Rationalization

Manipulators use this strategy to justify their behavior as rationally as possible to make people think that there is a big chance that they are right. Most of the times, people cannot sense that they are doing manipulation because what the manipulators say makes just enough sense.

Data 5

Dr. Dobson : For the record, you are guilty of killing many women and girls.

(Appendix ii, no. 3)

Ted Bundy : Yes. Yes, that’s true. (Appendix ii, no. 4)

Dr. Dobson : How did it happen? Take me back. What are the antecedants of the behaviour that we’ve seen? So much grief, so much sorrow, so much pain for so many people. Where did it start? How did this moment come about? (Appendix ii, no. 5)

Ted Bundy : As a young boy of 12 or 13 certainly, I encountered in the local grocery stores and the local drug stores, just softcore pornography. And you know the anecdote, young boys do explore the back rows, sideways and byways of neighborhoods, and oftentimes, people would dump the garbage and whatever they’re cleaning their houses. From time to time, we would come across pornographic books of a harder nature, more graphic. This also included detective magazines. And I want to emphasize this. The most damaging kind of pornography – and I’m talking from hard, real, personal experience – is those that involve violence and sexual violence. Because the wedding of those two forces – as I know only too well – brings about behaviour that is just too terrible to describe.(Appendix ii, no. 10,

line 5-14)

explanation about how it first started. He said that as a young boy of 12 or 13, he encountered pornographic books in his neighborhoods. He claimed that the kinds of pornography that involves violence and sexual violence are capable of bringing behaviour that is too terrible to describe, which actually referred to his own behaviour.

In one way, what he stated above makes just enough sense. He stated it in such a logical and understandable way of how in the first place he was engaged in pornography. However, at the same time, this can also be an effective tactic to justify his violent behaviour. As Simon (2000:84) claims that a rationalization is the excuse that manipulators try to offer for engaging in an inappropriate or harmful behaviour.

Michaud & Aynesworth (1989:320) believed that Bundy’s sudden condemnation of pornography was his last manipulative attempt to rationalize his action by providing Dr. Dobson, a longtime anti-pornography advocate, precisely things that he wanted to hear. While in fact, Ted told Michaud and Aynesworth in 1980, and Hagmaier the night before he spoke to Dobson, that pornography played an insignificant role in his development as a serial killer. Dekle (2011:219) claimed,

“The problem wasn’t pornography. The problem was Bundy.” So it is obvious that

justifying his behaviour as a result of his addiction to pornography is Ted’s attempt to manipulate people to believe that he was not the only one who should bare all the responsibilities.

Data 6

Ted Bundy : In the beginning, it fuels this kind of thought process. Then, at a certain time, it is instrumental in crystallizing it, making it into something that is almost a separate entity inside.(Appendix ii, no. 14)

Based on the conversation above, Ted stated that it was pornography that fueled his thought process, but not only that. According to his opinion, pornography also contributed in crystallizing the thought process and making it become a separate entity inside his mind.

Clearly, the statement above shows another rationalization that Ted tried to offer by stating how pornography contributed in shaping his violent behaviour which is the act of killing women and girls.

4.1.4. Diversion

Diversion is a language manipulation strategy in which manipulators try to drag the topic and direct people’s attention to another issue in order to keep themselves safe for moments. It also includes the act of never giving straight answers to straight questions.

Data 7

Dr. Dobson : How long did you stay at that point (influenced by pornography) before you actually assaulted someone?(Appendix ii, no. 17)

Ted Bundy : Well, yeah, you see.. That is a very delicate point, in my own development. We’re talking about having reached the point or a grey area that of course, well....(Appendix ii, no. 18)

Ted Bundy : Well, I would say.. I would say a couple of years.(Appendix ii, no.

20, line 1)

In the conversation above, it is obvious that Ted in the beginnning was apparently trying to hide from the question that was given by the interviewer. He was hesitating to pick the right words to say and also attempting to drag the issue by saying “That is a very delicate point”, which aims to manipulate the interviewer. The interviewer, however, clarified whether or not Ted remembered it, before Ted finally gave the answer, “I would say a couple of years.”

Data 8

Dr. Dobson : Do you deserve the punishment the state has inflicted upon you?(Appendix ii, no. 48)

Ted Bundy : That’s a very good question. I don’t want to die. I’m not gonna kid you. I deserve, certainly, those extreme punishments society has. And I think society deserves to be protected from me and from others like me. That’s for sure. What I hope will come of our discussion is that I think society deserves to be protected from itself. As we have been talking, there are forces at loose in this country, especially this kind of violent pornography, where, on one hand, well-meaning decent people will condemn the behaviour of Ted Bundy while they’re walking past a magazine rack full of the very kinds of things that send young kids down the road to being Ted Bundys. That’s the irony, because I’m talking about going beyond

retribution, which is what people want with me.(Appendix ii, no. 49,

line 1-10)

In the conversation above, Dr. Dobson as the interviewer asked Ted Bundy if he thought that he deserved the punishment that had been inflicted upon himself, which was the death sentence. At first, Ted claimed that he surely did not want to die, although he deserved the extreme punishment that society had. Note that the interviewer actually was talking about the punishment in particular, the death sentence, while Ted responded to it by saying “I don’t want to die.”

In spite of this, he used language manipulation strategy by asserting that the society essentially deserved to be protected from itself. He affirmed that it was an irony for people to curse his crime but at the same time could be walking past a magazine rack which contained things that might turn any young kids to commit the crime as he once did.

He also claimed that he was talking beyond the revenge that the society wanted to impose on him. He used this language manipulation strategy to drag people’s attention away from his punishment and focusing on the consequences that society would bear whether or not he was sentenced to death.

4.1.5. Lying

Lying is a manipulation strategy which manipulators use to cover their fault in a calm and subtle way that sometimes it makes people become unconscious that the manipulators are currently lying.

Data 9

Dr. Dobson : You, as I understand, were raised in what you considered to have been a healthy home. You were not physically, sexually, or emotionally abused?(Appendix ii, no. 7)

Ted Bundy : No. No way. And that’s part of the tragedy of this whole situation. It is because I grew up in a wonderful home with two dedicated and loving parents, as one of 5 brothers and sisters. We, as children, were the focus of my parents’ lives. We regularly attended the church. They’re two Christian parents. Theydid not drink. They did not smoke. There was no gambling or physical abuse or fighting in the home. (Appendix ii, no. 8, line 1-6)

Ted was known to have experienced an unusual childhood. His mother, Louis, gave birth to him at the Elizabeth Lund Home for Unwed Mothers. The identity of his father remains a mystery. To avoid social stigma, his grandparents claimed him as their son. Ted then grew up believing his mother to be his older sister. This fact was kept from him for quite a long time. Ted would not learn the truth about his parentage until he was in high school. By the time he found out about it, he was very angry and expressed a lifetime resentment towards his mother.

The fact surely opposses what he stated in the statements above about his childhood. His grandfather was well-known to be abusive. Ted and other family members told attorneys in 1987 that his grandfather was a tyrannical bully and often showed violent rage towards his grandmother and even his aunt. Ted was then moved to Washington with his biological mother, Louis. She married Johnny

Culpepper Bundy in 1951 and he formally adopted Ted as his son and gave Ted his surname.

The indication of Ted’s lie is because he was not being honest about his earlier childhood which had been suspected to be not as nice as his confession above. It was also believed that his troublesome childhood, especially the fact that he did not know about his parentage until high school, that contributed to his behaviours.

4.1.6. Covert Intimidation

Manipulators use covert intimidation strategy to give some sort of threats to people so that people feel anxious and intimidated.

Data 10

Ted Bundy : I’ll tell you, as long as they (the officers) attempt to keep their heads in stand above me, there’s gonna be people turning up in canyons, there’s gonna be people being shot in this city, because the polices aren’t willing to accept what I think they know, and they know that I didn’t do these things. And the men who kidnap children are just gonna continue to be free, and not only her but every other young woman is going to be threatened by that person or persons. It’s happening today and it’s gonna happen in the future.(Appendix i,

no. 5)

In his statement above, Ted implied that as long as the officers focused on him instead of chasing the real killers, more women would be killed. In this statement, he used language manipulation strategy called covert intimidation, with

especially this kind of violent pornography, where, on one hand, well-meaning decent people will condemn the behaviour of Ted Bundy while they’re walking past a magazine rack full of the very kinds of things that send young kids down the road to being Ted Bundys. That’s the irony, because I’m talking about going beyond retribution, which is what people want with me.

Data 9

Dr. Dobson : You, as I understand, were raised in what you considered to have been a healthy home. You were not physically, sexually, or emotionally abused?

Ted Bundy : No. No way. And that’s part of the tragedy of this whole situation. It is because I grew up in a wonderful home with two dedicated and loving parents, as one of 5 brothers and sisters. We, as children, were the focus of my parents’ lives. We regularly attended the church. They’re two Christian parents. They did not drink. They did not smoke. There was no gambling or physical abuse or fighting in the home.

Data 10

Ted Bundy : I’ll tell you, as long as they (the officers) attempt to keep their heads in stand above me, there’s gonna be people turning up in canyons, there’s gonna be people being shot in this city, because the polices aren’t willing to accept what I think they know, and they know that I didn’t do these things. And the men who kidnap children

young woman is going to be threatened by that person or persons. It’s happening today and it’s gonna happen in the future.

Data 11

Dr. Dobson : If I were able to ask the kind of questions that are being asked, one would be, “Are you thinking about all those victims and their families that are so wounded? Years later, their lives aren’t normal. They will never return to normal. Is there remorse?”

Ted Bundy : I know people will accuse me of being self-serving, but through God’s help, I have been able to come to the point, much too late, where I can feel the hurt and the pain I am responsible for.

Data 12

Ted Bundy : I can’t begin to understand the pain that the parents of these children and young women that I have harmed feel. And I can’t restore much to them, if anything. I won’t pretend to, and I don’t even expect them to forgive me. I’m not asking for it, because that kind of forgiveness is of God. If they have it, they have it. If they don’t, maybe they’ll find it someday.

Data 13

Reporter : So you’re not guilty?

Ted Bundy : I am not guilty? Does that include the time when I stole a comic book when I was 5 years old?

Data 14

Ted Bundy : People say, “Ted Bundy didn’t show any emotion, there must be something in there.” I showed emotion and you know what people said? “See, he really can get violent and angry.” There’s no one right way for me to act.

Data 15

Dr. Dobson : You had gone about as far as you could go in your own fantasy life, with printed material, photos, videos, and then there was the urge to take that big step over to a physical event.

Ted Bundy : Right. It happens in stages, gradually. It doesn’t, necessarily not to me, happen overnight. My experience with pornography that deals with sexual violence is that... Once you become addicted to it, and I look at this as a kind of addiction, and like other kinds of addiction, you’d keep looking for more potent, more explicit, more graphic kinds of material. Like an addiction, you keep craving something which is harder, harder; something which gives you a greater sense of excitement, until you reach the point where the pornography only goes so far. You reach that jumping off point where you begin to wonder that maybe actually doing it will give you that was just beyond reading about it or looking at it.

Data 16

Ted Bundy : I was dealing with very strong inhibitions against criminal and violent behaviour that been conditioned and bred into me from my

wrong to think about it, and certainly, to do it was wrong. I was on the edge, and the last vestiges of restraint were being tested constantly, and assailed through the kind of fantasy life that was fueled, largely, by pornography.

Data 17

Dr. Dobson : Do you remember what pushed you over that edge? Do you remember the decision to go for it? Do you remember where you decided to throw caution to the wind?

Data 18

Dr. Dobson : After you committed your first murder, what was the emotional effect on you? What happened in the days after that?

Ted Bundy : It was like coming out of some kind of horrible trance or dream. I can only liken it to, and I don’t want to overdramatize it, but to have been possessed by something so awful and alien, and then the next morning wake up and remember what happened and realize that in the eyes of law, and certainly in the eyes of God, you’re responsible. To wake up in the morning and realize what I had done with a clear mind, with all my essential moral and ethical feelings intact at that moment, absolutely horrified that I was capable of doing something like that.

Data 19

Ted Bundy : I want to emphasize this. The most damaging kinds of pornography – and I’m talking from hard, real, personal experience – are those that involve violence and sexual violence. The wedding of those two forces – as I know only too well – brings about behaviour that is just too terrible to describe.

Data 20

Dr. Dobson : How did it happen? Take me back. What are the antecedents of the behaviour that we’ve seen? So much grief, so much sorrow, so much pain for so many people. Where did it start? How did this moment come about?

Ted Bundy : That’s the question of the hour, and not only people much more intelligent than I have been working for years. I, myself, have been working for years. I’m trying to understand. Is there enough time to explain it though? I don’t know. I think I understand what happened to me to the extent that I can see how certain feelings and ideas developed in me to the point where I began to act out on them; certain very destructive and very violent deed.

Data 21

Ted Bundy : I’ve been told that the parents of these girls are fairly decent people... I don’t know. I really feel for them because apparently these people suffered some incredible tragedy in their lives. The loss of a loved one is probably the most extreme kind of loss one could

can.

Data 22

Ted Bundy : The issue is how this kind of literature (pornography) contributed and helped mold and shape the kinds of violent behaviour.

Data 23

Dr. Dobson : Would it be accurate to call that a sexual frenzy?

Ted Bundy : That’s one way to describe it – a compulsion, a building up of this destructive energy. Another fact I haven’t mentioned is the use of alcohol. In junction with my exposure to pornography, alcohol reduced my inhibitions and pornography eroded them further.

Data 24

Ted Bundy : No man is truly innocent. I mean we’ve all transgressed in some way in our lives. And as I say, I’ve been impolite, and there are things that I regret having done in my life, but nothing like the things I think that you’re referring to.

Data 25

Ted Bundy : There is no way in the world that killing me is going to restore those beautiful children to their parents and correct and soothe the pain.