A Pragmatic Analysis Of Language Manipulation Strategies And Motives In Ted Bundy’s Statements
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
1
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
2
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.
3
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
4
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 19771989), 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.
5
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?
6
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).
7
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.
8
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
1
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
2
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.
3
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
4
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 19771989), 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.
5
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?
6
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).
7
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.
8