Investigative Discourse Analysis - Coursework Example

Contents Contents 0 Part 1 Part 2: 4 Central issue 4 The prologue 4 Semantic analysis of the narrative 4 Amplifying questions 6 References: 8 Part1 The contention that discourse analysis is an art and not a science is borne out by the fact that methods of examination rely upon subtle nuances and changes in order to arrive at the results of investigative analysis. For instance, Rabon (1994) has highlighted the views of Ben Jonson suggesting that in determining the veracity of the discourse, it is what a man thinks that determines what he says, hence the essence of discourse analysis is “to know the heart of the individual speaker.” (Rabon,1994:14). Since art is generally dependent upon creativity and creativity originates within the heart of the individual, this suggests discourse analysis is not based upon the precision and factual approach characteristic of a scientific bent of mind. If discourse analysis was a science, it would require the application of the scientific method and knowing the facts would be more important than knowing the heart of the speaker. Discourse analysis however requires an analysis of subjective elements rather than a focus on the purely rational, as it is for scientific analysis. While the discourse analyst uses the science of words, i.e., semiotics, the process of analysis does not involve the words themselves but rather the underlying signs that are associated with the words. A semantic analysis of narrative to detect deception for instance, would involve noting when a person displays a lack of conviction about utterances, using the present tense to discuss events that are past, using generalized statements, an avoidance of self-referencing and a reduced mean length of utterance. All of these are not dependent upon precise or scientific methods, rather they depend upon detecting subtle elements and aspects that are associated with the words and phrases and the manner in which they are delivered. The identification of temporary lacunae in the narration may also help to identify discrepancies (Radon, 1994: 94). The process of discourse analysis does not function on scientific principles of application and testing of hypotheses. While it may be necessary to apply rational principles to some extent in assessment and analysis of discourse, the overall interpretation is based upon subjective assessment. When carrying out a discourse analysis, every pause and hesitation has meaning as well, (Radon, 1994: 47) therefore it conforms more to the mould of art rather than science that requires hard material data to be analysed as opposed to ambiguous elements such as hesitations, pauses, fluctuations in syntax and such factors. It may be argued that the semantic analysis of a narrative requires an amplification of the narrative through detailed examination under a microscope. It must be noted that using a microscope to more closely examine the intricate details of cells or objects under a microscope is an inherent part of scientific analysis. Therefore, in this particular aspect, it may be argued that the process of semantic analysis is in accordance with a scientific method and the scientific process of enquiry. While the process of amplification of the narrative does require the eliciting of more details (Radon, 1994:89-90), the analysis that is carried out thereafter is yet again, based upon a subjective assessment of the details that are divulged. The examiner asks the subject to elucidate further on certain sections of the narrative which are unclear, and open ended questions are used, which allow the subject to answer freely rather than in accordance with any prior structure that has been imposed by the examiner. (Radon, 1994:90). This is where it diverges from the scientific method, because in general a scientific approach is more precise with the boundaries well established. Freedom and free flowing, open ended expression of ideas is more characteristic of methods used in art rather than science; therefore on the whole discourse analysis conforms more to art than to science. Part 2: Central issue The central issue that is being discussed in this narrative is the allegation of sexual abuse being made by the young boy Sam against his grandfather during a four-day holiday when he was staying with him and the response the grandfather offers to those allegations. Sam alleges that his grandfather has abused him sexually, both by requesting and by performing oral and anal sex. The prologue The prologue of this narrative sets out the period during which the alleged sex acts occurred. i.e., during the four day holiday period. It contains a brief description about how the grandfather was contacted by telephone and the young boy Sam states that his grandfather pinched his nipples and penis. The main narrative and actual event deals with the details of the alleged abuse and includes allegations made by one of the grandfather’s daughters, wherein she alleges that her father had been sexually familiar with one of her brothers. The epilogue of the narrative seeks to elicit information on whether there could be any underlying sexual abuse patterns in the childhood of the grandfather that could suggest a predisposition towards engaging in sexual abuse. Semantic analysis of the narrative The statement appears to show an initial lack of conviction in assertions on the part of the child. Based upon the narration of the grandfather, everything appeared to be normal. As evidenced in lines 33 to 41, young Sam appears to be responding quite normally to his grandfather and in line 41, there is “some is prompting in the background” before Sam accuses his grandfather of pinching him. The lack of conviction appears even more pronounced when the grandfather asks him when he pinched him and Sam appears quite ready to drop the subject. This suggests a lack of conviction on the part of Sam about his assertions, which could also be caused by his youth and lack of awareness about the enormity of what has happened. Similarly, Sam’s assertions about past events are also provided in the present tense, which provides yet another indication that there could be deception in the narrative and it may not strictly be the truth. The tenses are also mixed up, for example “Gramps looks angry when he did it.” (line 75). S’s narrative on the other hand, is specific and demonstrates overall tense unity. There is conviction in the utterances, as well as specificity. However, there are also incidences that could suggest deception; evidenced in the mixing up of tenses between lines 34 and 45, where the Sam’s grandfather’s narrative starts off in the past tense but then when it draws into a description of the alleged sexual activity, it slips into the present tense. Another example is at line 105, there is a temporal lacuna, where S states “I don’t recall using that kind of.....I’ve been a God fearing man, yes...”. The existence of a lacuna such as this provides an indication of possible deception in utterance. Similarly, there are some lacunae evident in Sam’s mother narrative as well. One example is at lines 67-68, where there is a discontinuity in narrative that is noticeable. Sam’s Mum talking about Gramps putting his penis in her mouth strikes a discordant note because this is supposed to be what Sam would have said. Similarly, in lines 44 to 45, there is yet another example of choice of words which does not ring true, i.e, Sam dismissing the alleged abuse with an “oh you forgot” while Sam’s mother appears more disturbed about it than Sam. Amplifying questions The narrative has been exemplified at several places, through seeking additional details about events and incidents that are alleged to have occurred. Examples of amplification occur for example at lines 109 to 118 where the interviewer asks Sam’s grandfather to provide more details on the costume he dressed up in. Other examples of amplification may be seen at lines 50 to 54, where the investigator is amplifying questions about Sam’s pyjamas in order to get to the bottom of the alleged sexual abuse activity. Amplifying questions appear at lines 13-14, 21, 53,57, 91, 113 and 115. Mean Length of utterance The total number of words in the entire narrative is 2292, with the total number of sentences being 188, which brings the mean length of utterance of the entire narrative to an average of 12 words. The Prologue contains 292 words in 25 sentences, which brings the MLU of this section to 12 words. The epilogue comprises 179 words in 17 lines, which works out to an average mean utterance of 10 words. It may be noted that from the perspective of the mean length of utterance, there is a distinct trend noticeable in the narrative where Sam’s grandfather tends to respond in monosyllables or very brief answers whereas in justifying his denial of sexual activity, there is a tendency to give lengthy answers. The epilogue section has a noticeably lower MLU, which indicates there might have been sexual abuse in the grandfather’s childhood as well. References: Rabon, D, 1994. “Investigative Discourse Analysis”, North Carolina: Academia Press. Read More