Final Paper Points(15-20)
description
Transcript of Final Paper Points(15-20)
Reshmi Nair
LING 231
Final Paper
Linguistic Analysis of ransom notes to reveal the nativity of the speaker
Abstract
Linguists, being familiar with different styles of languages can look at the style of an individual’s
second language, English and conclude with understanding about their nativity, if they do
present their second language, English with a style similar to their native language. Analyzing
the linguistic styles used by individuals and if the style can conclude to an individual, since it is
not accepted as a norm but may be part of an individual’s idiolect. But they cannot do a
‘linguistic fingerprint’ from a questioned document and conclude to who is the actual author of
the note, since it is impossible to analyze only language and conclude to the author unless there
is sufficient evidence to a particular use of idiolect etc. (McMenamin 2011). I do hypothesize
that even though we may not be able to use linguistic fingerprint and conclude to a particular
individual, we can conclude to the nativity of the speaker based on the linguistic style they adopt
in using their second language. My aim is to analyze the language used in ransom notes and the
language used in it to ‘linguistic fingerprint’ on the nativity of the author. For my analysis I will
be using the ransom note from the Charles Lindbergh kidnapping, the Venna case and the Jon
Benet Ramsey case. Analyzing the forensic stylistics of these three ransom notes I prove my
hypothesis that authors do use a unique style that can reveal their nativity. In the case of Jon
Benet Ramsey, we can see how the writings were similar to that of Patricia Ramsey but due to
limitations, it could not be successfully brought to a conclusion.
INTRODUCTION
Linguistics can be defined as the study of the nature and development of the internal system of
language and also of the ways language is used in all its communicative contexts. (McMenamin
2011). Studying languages, linguists can analyze the stylistics used by an individual and
conclude to the nativity of the speaker, but the idea of ‘linguistic fingerprinting’ is not possible,
unless there is a clear variation in the speaker’s style or idiolect from the standard language.
The research question that I propose for my research is how can we analyze the linguistic
contents in ransom notes to conclude about the nativity of the author of the ransom note. My
hypothesis is that when the author’s native language is not English and that they have some
knowledge of the English language but is not fluent with it, they do use a linguistic style that
may be similar to their native language. Analyzing this linguistic style that includes grammatical
errors, misspellings etc. we can understand their nativity and their origin. For this paper, I will be
analyzing three ransom notes to answer my research question and to either agree or disagree with
my hypothesis that language content usage will reveal the non-nativity of the author. I will be
using the narrative analysis and stylistic analysis methods to either prove or disprove my
hypothesis.
Applying the method of narrative analysis, we can research on the threat level the authors
applied in their note. Narrative analysis is described as diverse kinds of texts that have a storied
form. (Riessman 2003). They can be differed and defined in various ways, in the field of social
history and anthropology, narrative can refer to an entire life story, in the field of sociolinguistics
and other fields, the concept of narrative is restricted to brief topically specific stories organized
around characters, setting and plot, and in field of psychology, sociology, narratives consists of
extended accounts of lives in context that develop over the course of single or multiple
interviews. (Riessman 2003).
Stylistics is the study of style in language and linguistic stylistics is the scientific
interpretation of style markers as observed, described and analyzed in the language of groups and
individuals. (McMenamin, 2011). Stylistics began as a distinct approach to literary texts in the
hands of Spitzer (1948), Wellek and Warren (1949), and Ullmann (1964), for example, but it
really emerged from the 1960s onwards as the different influences mentioned above came to be
integrated into a set of conventions for analysis. From Formalism and practical criticism came
the focus of interest on literature and the literary, and from linguistics came the rigor of
descriptive analysis and the scientific concern for transparency in that description. Though
stylistic analysis could be practiced on any sort of text, much discussion involved the
specification of ‘literariness’ and the search to define a ‘literary language’- this preoccupation
dominated to such an extent that stylistics has come to be identified very strongly with the
discussion of literature, with non-literary investigations delineating themselves separately as
‘critical linguistics’ or ‘critical discourse analysis’ or ‘text linguistics,’ and so on. Of course, the
notion of literariness makes no sense within a formalist or structuralist paradigm, since a large
part of what is literary depends on the social and ideological conditions of production and
interpretation. Nevertheless, stylistic analyses flourished in the 1970s, especially explorations of
the metrics and grammar of poetry, and explanations of deviant or striking forms of expression in
prose (Stockwell, 2005).
As Cruse (2000) points out, the linguistic approach to meaning in language focuses on
three key aspects. The first is that “’native speaker’ semantic intuitions are centre-stage”. They
constitute the main source of primary data. The second is the importance of “relating meaning to
the manifold surface forms” of language. The third is the “respect paid not just to language, but
to languages” (Cruse 2000:11; Missikova, 2009).
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO CASE 1
The first case that will be analyzed is the Lindbergh case. Charles Augustus Lindbergh Jr. was a
20 month old boy of the aviator Charles Lindbergh and Anne Morrow Lindbergh. The child was
kidnapped on March 1, 1932 around 9 pm from their home in New Jersey. A search of the area
led them to find a ransom note demanding $50,000. There were no fingerprints at the scene.
Employees of the household and estate were investigated. Later, a second ransom note was
received on March 6, 1932 in which the ransom had increased to $70,000. In such a manner there
were a total of twelve ransom notes that were sent via various ways even including an
unidentified taxi driver. On May 12, 1932, the body of the child was accidentally found partly
buried and half decomposed. The child was positively identified and was cremated in New
Jersey on May 13, 1932. Later, after a series of investigations Hauptmann was found guilty after
being caught for a series of ransom certificates. He was indicted on October 8, 1934 for murder.
On February 13, 1935 he was found guilty for first degree murder by the jury. On April 3, 1936
he was electrocuted. (FBI.gov, 1936)
ANALYSIS
Dear Sir!
Have 50000$ redy 25000$ in
20$ bills 15000$ in 10$ bills and
10000$ in 5$ bills After 2-4 days
we will inform you were to deliver
the Mony.
We warn you for making
anyding public or for notify the Police
The child is in gut care.
Indication for all letters are
singnature
and three holes.
This is the transcript of the ransom note from the Charles Lindbergh case. Reading the
note, we can hypothesize that the author was not a native speaker of English. The narrative
analysis explains about how the speaker or writer gives and extended account. Narratives
represent storied ways of knowing and communicating (Hinchman and Hinchman, 1997;
Riessman, 2003). Even though, the note did have grammatical errors, the author let his message
be conveyed in the note by communication. He uses the format of letter by using the header
‘Dear Sir!’ but for the end, he writes ‘singnature’. In this note, we see the author may have made
errors that revealed his nativity but as a narrator he is thorough about what he wants to express in
his note. He explains how he wants the money but does not mention the child until the end when
he writes, ‘the child is in gut care.’ The threat in the note is not actually expressed since the
author writes that he is warning them for making anything public or for notifying the Police, but
does not express what it is that he is warning, that whether the child will be killed or if it is any
other sort of threat toward the whole family.
One of the main errors that leads us to believe that English is not his native language is
the way he does not use any punctuation marks except for using periods three times but does not
use them at places where required and also the misspellings. Germans have a strict rule to
punctuation but the author in the note does not use much punctuations. When he starts his new
sentence with ‘After’, he uses a capital A to express that he is starting a new sentence but does
not use a period before the word to express that he did end the sentence and a new one had
begun. He only uses four punctuation marks in his note and does not use any comas and an
exclamation point after the greeting.
In his note, the author begins with the salutation, ‘Dear Sir!’ which is not the usual way
to start a threat, since the use of ‘Dear’ would give the reader an understanding that there is a
relationship between them and Sir is a term used in respect to another man, and so using such a
greeting the threat level in such a note may be considered low. One of the main concept that is
taught to us about writing a letter is that we start with the salutation as ‘Dear…’ and end it with a
coma, while in this note, the man uses an exclamation point which hypothesizes that he may
want to get the attention of the reader and so used an exclamation instead of an appropriate
coma.
He also writes ‘50000$’, where he does not use the coma after 50 to separate the
thousand (three decimal places). For Germans, they use a decimal point and not a coma for
separation and so we may hypothesize that he did not want to confuse the reader and did not use
either a coma or a period. He also uses the $ sign after the amount and not before the amount.
This is not usual but when we do talk, we would say ‘50000 dollars’ and not ‘dollars 50000’ but
when writing we would write it as ‘$50000’ and not use the $ sign after the amount. But
interestingly, Germans use the pounds after the amount.
The author also does not use any punctuation marks after making the statement ‘Have
50000$ redy.’ He instead continues the sentence with ‘25000$’ which makes the sentence
ungrammatical and leads to question whether the author had a fluent knowledge of English
language. He does not mark his separation that he wants 25000$ in twenty dollar bills and
15000$ in ten dollar bills with a coma to separate them. He misspelled the word ‘ready’ as
‘redy’.
In his sentence ‘We warn you for making anyding public or for notify the Police’, he
does not use the grammatically correct suffix to make his statement more grammatical using
‘notifying’, which shows he may not have a good knowledge of the English language. German
language does not have the continuous tense form, and so he may not have the knowledge of
using the suffix ‘-ing’ in the proper manner. But he uses it when he writes ‘We warn you for
making’ where the continuous tense form of the verb is not required. This grammatical error of
misplacing the use of the continuous tense form can lead us to conclude that the author was a
German. He also does not add the clause, the child will die, if the police is notified. Hence, the
warning that ‘we warn you’, which was supposed to explain what would happen if the readers
did not take the warning seriously was not mentioned in the note.
The author misspells ‘signature’ as ‘singnature’, is a misspelling since Germans do use
words such as ‘gnome’, where the ‘gn’ sound is pronounced but the author may have learnt it as
the /ŋn/ sound and so that was used. In German languages, the /g/ sound succeeding the /ŋ/ sound
is silent, which may have been the trait he applied here by switch the /gn/ sound with /ŋ/.
Another noted misspelling is the word ‘good’ as ‘gut’. The German word for good is
‘gut’. They usually switch the /d/ sounds with /t/. When the /d/ sound is at the coda of a word,
they pronounce it as voiceless and so it sounds as /t/. The word money is misspelled as ‘mony’,
and ‘where’ as ‘were’. Another misspelling is ‘anything’ as ‘anyding’, where the /ϴ/ sound is
switched for a /d/ sound, which is common with the Germans learning English.
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE SECOND CASE
The next case that I will be using for my analysis is the Venna case. On Monday October 22,
2012 at 1:14 pm officers of the Upper Merion Township, Montgomery County were responding
to a 911 call in which a 61 year old woman, Satyavati Venna was reported to be dead. When they
arrived at the scene they were told that the 10 month old daughter, Saanvi Venna was missing.
After the family and their friends were questioned as part of the ongoing investigation, later a
ransom note was revealed, where the kidnapper was asking for $50,000. During the questioning
of the parents they had given the officers a list of the people they knew and one of them was
Yandamuri Veerendranath who after being questioned for a while confessed that he did take the
child and he had killed the grandmother. He was consistent with his statements that when the
baby cried he put a handkerchief in her mouth and a towel around her head. He placed her inside
a suitcase along with some jewelry that he stole from the home. He then said that he hid her body
inside the steam room of the men’s bathroom in the gymnasium; where she was found dead
(Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 2012).
ANALYSIS 2
Shiva your daughter has been kidnapped
If you report this to cops your daughter will be cut into pieces and found dead
If you inform this to anyone you will find your daughter bodyparts thrown into your
apartments
Our people are monitoring all your moves all the time, your emails & phones are being
traced
If you want your daughter alive and safe, follow our instructions carefully
we want $50,000.00 by end of the day
your wife lata have to bring money to the location alone
if we see you or your wife accompanied with (or) informed to anyone (cops/human). You
will find your daughter dead. This is very serious.
Its up to you to decide, you want your 1 yr old daughter or 5months of your income.
By 8pm today, lata alone should get $50,000.00 cash and come to baha fresh at acme store
complex.
Once our person receives money from her at baha fresh, we will call you and tell the
address where to pick your baby from.
Any cunning act from anyone of you will lead to your daughter’s death.
Be prepared by 8PM today with cash.
We dont want any excuses. Remember that your baby is starving since morning
As a narrator, the author explains the whole threat in a very detailed manner. He
introduces the note with ‘Shiva’, and not any form of title preceding it, which is common with
the South Indian style of writing, the ‘dear’ being used only when the person is being really
affectionate or have a very close relationship and ‘sir’ only when one is in a higher position to
demand the title of ‘sir’, otherwise it would be the name, which shows here that they probably
knew each other but was not a close friendship or was not one where the other demanded the
respect. He does not use an ending for his note and so the format cannot be called a letter but a
note. As a narrator, he gets the attention of the reader by writing ‘we have your child’ and then
writes the threat that he will cut the child in pieces and if they want the child alive they would
have to obey his instructions in the note. He uses the names of the readers, which may have led
him to being a suspect.
The author introduces the note with ‘Shiva’, which is not the man’s first name but is his
middle name, which could have led the investigators to realize that the kidnapper must have been
someone who knew the family. He also does not use any punctuation mark to separate the name
from his content of the note. The author does not use any punctuation mark after addressing the
note with ‘Shiva’, he just continues the note with ‘your daughter has been kidnapped’. He starts
the note with what he holds to gain the ransom and he does not use a period.
Another error was that he does not use a period after his sentence ‘Shiva your daughter
has been kidnapped’ to indicate that he ended the sentence but does begin his next sentence with
a capitalized ‘I’ to indicate that a new sentence had begun. As students of the English language
we always do learn punctuations but in Indian languages, the punctuation marks are used but are
rare and may have been another trait that he transferred to the English language but we see in his
note that later he does use period. Such inconsistencies with his punctuation marks may have
been another reason to conclude that he was not a native speaker of English. In Telugu, the
period and question mark are the most used punctuations and that may have been a reason of the
inconsistencies with the punctuations.
The author then writes ‘you will find your daughter bodyparts’, where daughter is not
marked as personal possessive indicated with ‘’s’. To be grammatical it would have to be written
as ‘you will find your daughter’s bodyparts’. He also marks the singular word ‘apartment’ as
plural by adding the suffix‘s’ and using ‘apartments’. Here also he does not use a period. The
adding of the suffix‘s’ to words where it is not required is a trait common with Indians. Later he
uses the possessive form singular with the word ‘daughter’ by using ‘daughter’s’, which shows
inconsistencies.
In the sentence, ‘Our people are monitoring all your moves all the time, your emails &
phones are being traced.’ The author uses the phrase ‘Our people’, which to the author may have
been the idea to make the reader believe that it was a group of people who did the act of killing
the grandmother and kidnapping the child, while actually it was only a one man act. In our study,
we have seen how it is usually the case that when the author uses the term ‘we’ ‘our people’ or
‘our group’ etc. it is usually a one man act to misinform the reader that it may actually be more
than one person. Another interesting factor that we see is that he uses punctuations, using a coma
to separate ‘all the time and your emails’.
In the next sentence also we see that he does use a coma. But another interesting point is
that he does not mark his separation when he wrote ‘follow our instructions carefully and we
want $50,000.00 by end of the day.’ An interesting factor in the note was the way he wrote
‘$50,000.00’. He used the coma to mark the thousand and he used the dollar sign before the
number and not after the number. He also indicated the cent marker, but he does not use a period
to indicate that it is the end of a sentence.
He continues the next line with a small alphabet but does not use a punctuation before the
sentence. He refers to the wife with her name ‘Lata’, which is another indication that he may
have been known to the family. He writes ‘your wife lata have to bring money’, where instead of
using the third person singular form ‘has’, he writes the first or second person singular form
‘have’.
The author uses an interesting choice of words when he writes ‘if we see you or your
wife accompanied with (or) informed to anyone (cops/human). You will find your daughter
dead. This is very serious.’ Instead of stressing that the woman, Lata should come alone to the
place, he writes if she is accompanied with cops/human, where the man distinguishes between
the people as two sets, either a cop or a human, which a unique trait was found in this note.
In his next line, he writes’ 8pm’ but does not mark it as ‘8:00pm’ but then he mentions it
as today and not tonight. This is also consistent with Indian style of speaking since the night time
will have to be specified but the fact that is that day and so today will be the word they would
use which is a trait he uses when he writes ‘8pm today.’
In his last line, he does not use apostrophe to mark the suffix‘t’ in the word ‘don’t’. He
also uses the word excuses which shows he did have some education and writes how the baby is
starving, which is another word that shows he may have some education, but again does not end
with a period.
A corpus based investigation of stance in threats revealed that threats are indeed replete
with lexical and grammatical markers of stance; yet the linguistic markers and their
corresponding functions do not always adhere to those expected in threats (Gales, 2010; Gales,
2011). Those studying and assessing threatening behavior have linked angry, insulting and
pejorative language (Milburn and Watman 1981; Gales, 2011), language describing violent
behaviors and weapons (Turner and Gelles, 2003; Gales, 2011), and profanity (Davis, 1997;
Gales, 2011) with threatening language offering a heightened sense of violence and anger within
the genre. (Gales, 2011).
In the note, we see that the author did use threat that the child would be cut into pieces
and thrown in the apartment if the readers did not obey to the commands given in the note. He
introduces the violence by explaining how the child would be killed.
BRIEF INTRODUCTION TO THE THIRD CASE
The third case that will be used is the Jon Benet Ramsey case. Jon Benet Ramsey was the child
of John Ramsey and Patsy Ramsey. Jon Benet Ramsey was a child pageant queen who was
found murdered in her home in Boulder, Colorado on December 25, 1996. The body was found
hours later in the basement of the home. She was head to have been struck on the head and was
strangled. On October 25, 2013 sealed court documents were revealed showing that the grand
jury had voted in 1999 to indict John and Patricia Ramsey in the murder of the child. This case
has been analyzed and criticized by linguists, psychologists and law enforcement officers since
the ransom note contained inconsistencies with grammatical errors and can be hypothesized that
it was written by native speakers of English (Thomas and Davis, 2000).
ANALYSIS #3
Mr. Ramsey.
Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent a small foreign
faction. We xx respect your business but not the country that it serves. At this time we
have your daughter in our possession. She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see
1997, you must follow our instructions to the letter.
You will withdraw $118,000.00 from your account. $100,000 will be in $100 bills and the
remaining $18,000 in $20 bills. Make sure that you bring an adequate size attache to the
bank. When you get home you will put the money in a brown paper bag. I will call you
between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting
so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you
early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence a earlier delivery pickup of
your daughter.
Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your
daughter. You will also be denied her remains for proper burial. The two gentlemen
watching over your daughter do not particularly like you so I advise you not to provoke
them. Speaking to anyone about your situation, such as Police, F.B.I., etc., will result in
your daughter being beheaded. If we catch you talking to a stray dog, she dies. If you alert
bank authorities, she dies. If the money is in any way marked or tampered with, she dies.
You will be scanned for electronic devices and if any are found, she dies. You can try to
deceive us but be warned that we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures and
tactics. You stand a 99% chance of killing your daughter if you try to out smart us.
Follow our instructions and you stand a 100% chance of getting her back. You and your
family are under constant scrutiny as well as the authorities. Don’t try to grow a brain
John. You are not the only fat cat around so don’t think that killing will be difficult. Don’t
underestimate us John. Use that good Southern common sense of yours. It is up to you now
John!
Victory!
S.B.T.C
ANALYSIS OF CASE #3
The note as a narrative is lengthy and explanatory. They introduce the note with a ‘Mr.
Ramsey’, portraying that it is formal and contains some sort of business and not friendly. By
writing ‘Listen carefully’, they are starting with a warning to read the note carefully to
comprehend the situation. They introduce themselves as a foreign faction who does not like the
country but does like the business. Writing ‘the child is safe and unharmed and that if you want
to child to see 1997’, the narrator is explaining how the child is safe but when warning the
parents about the child life, they write it as ‘if you want to her to see 1997’, they mention the
future year but not just write out the future. Or even just that if you want her to live, which leads
to the style of the author. In such a detailed manner, the author mentions their identity, explains
their ransom wants and how they want it, child’s safety, warning to the child if the Police is
notified and the waiting time period for the phone call, and thus writes out the narrative in a
consequential manner that shows that it was very well though and they end the note with Victory
with an exclamation mark to conclude the note to mark the ‘SBTC’.
In this note, there was a greeting ‘Mr. Ramsey,’ where the author did know the reader of
the note but the author uses the correct punctuation, coma. They start the note with ‘Listen
carefully!’ which can be analyzed as a warning but it is interesting that they use the verb ‘listen’,
which is an act done when one speaks and another hears or listens to what is being said, since
this is a note, the author should have used ‘Read carefully!’ But he does use the exclamation
mark to give emphasis to the expression.
The author interestingly did something that was unique to this note which was introduce
himself as being part of a group of individuals that represent a small foreign faction, then writes
about how they respect the business but not the country. This may be a reason to lead to the
conclusion that it was written by someone within the family since in most actual ransom notes
they do not identify themselves.
The author is inconsistent with the writing of the cent markers, but the dollar sign ($)
appears before the amount. All the amounts were written in the number forms. The author writes
about calling within a time period of two hours and then advices the reader to rest well since the
whole act of giving the ransom and collecting the child is going to be exhausting. The author
explains that if the money is arranged early, the pickup of the child will be early. Here, there is
use of the word ‘hence’, which is not a commonly used word. Writing ‘If we catch you talking to
a stray dog, she dies.’ the threat is expressed that the reader should not do the act of talking about
it to anybody.
The thorough manner in which the author writes about the ransom and the threat, can let
us conclude the man was educated. Comparing with the other two notes, the author identified
with the group ‘SBTC’ which the other authors did not do. This may have led to conclude that it
had to be written within the family and not by another individual or any group.
McMenamin analyzed the note using known documents, writings of both John and
Patricia Ramsey. Analyzing the known documents against the known documents, he explained
how there were similarities to Patricia’s writing but there also were inconsistencies. In the
Known documents after writing ‘Victory’, she added an exclamation mark which was consistent
with the Questioned document, but in her other writings she changed the punctuation to coma
and period. She also wrote the amount in word form in the first document and others in the
number format. She was consistent with writing the dollar word out instead of the sign ‘$’. She
also misspelled the word ‘advize’ consistently, while the author of the note wrote the word with
the appropriate spelling. The author misspelled ‘business’ as ‘bussiness’, which was not an error
that she made. She misspelled ‘scrutiny’ as ‘scruitny’ in two of the writings. In the case study
they picked out writers to write the note to look at the style, but it was not a helpful. A limitation
that was explained in the study was that the writers were suspected to be from Colorado but if
that had not been the case, the writing samples may not have been helpful. Due to the differences
between the writings the author concluded that it may not have been her writing (McMenamin,
2002).
COMPARISON BETWEEN THE THREE NOTES
Analyzing the three documents, we can see that all the three authors wrote using their
own style. We see that in two cases, there were inconsistencies with using punctuations but with
the Ramsey case, they were consistent. As linguists, we see how each author has a unique
writing style that does express their own nativity and their own knowledge of the English
language.
Some of the unique traits found in the Lindbergh note was that he never mentioned a
name, he introduces the note with having the ransom ready, he only writes that the child is in
good care towards the conclusion. He writes the time period to wait for the instructions as ‘After
2-4 days’, which is unique in itself since usually when using a range we would write, within 2-4
days and using after, we can conclude that he may not have a fluent knowledge of the language.
He writes ‘we warn you’ for doing the action of notifying the public or the authorities but the
warning is not expressed as whether the child will be killed.
In Venna case, the names being mentioned was a unique trait that may have been the
indication that he knew the family. In his note, we see that he never mentions about the child
being safe unless, he writes that if you want your child safe and unharmed, you have to follow
our instructions. But in the other two notes, they do mention that the child is safe and unharmed.
He expresses the time as ‘8pm today’, where he is not giving the readers the time limit that was
given by the other two authors in the other cases. This may have been a trait that may be used by
South Indians, since when given a range of time, they tend to usually show up later than the time
of range and so to keep the threat real and actual, the author just used a time and not within a
range. He questions the parents about which is more important, the child’s life or five months’
salary. This sort of questioning to choose between the ransom demands and the child’s life is
unique to this case and is not found in the others.
In the Ramsey case, the author uses the name ‘Ramsey’ and ‘John’ which shows that the
author knew the family. They also give themselves an identification of SBTC (Foreign faction)
which is a trait unique to this case and may have been an indication that the author was someone
within the family, since the other two ransom notes, they used ‘we’ to sound as though it was a
group even though they were individuals but they never claimed that they were from a specific
group. The threat to the child is present when the write ‘Speaking to anyone about your situation
such as Police or F.B.I. etc. will result in your child being beheaded). The time limit is written as
‘between 8 and 10 am’.
The limitations to looking at the notes using stylistic analysis is that unless the person
does express his second language with errors caused because of his native language and the
phonetic, phonological and syntactic errors they make in their second language, but if the author
may be a native speaker of English and may have their own unique traits that are part of their
idiolect but may not be sufficient enough to conclude to the author as in the Ramsey case.
The multivalent position of stylistics has its roots in the histories of language study and
literary criticism, and the institutional make-up of modern universities and department divisions
which fossilize particular disciplinary boundaries and configurations. Stylistics has therefore
come to be regarded as an essentially interdisciplinary field, drawing on the different sub-
disciplines within linguistics to varying degrees, as well as on fields recognizable to literary
critics, such as philosophy, cultural theory, sociology, history and psychology. (Stockwell,
2005).
One central tenet in modern stylistics has been to reject the artificial analytical distinction
between form and content. Contrary to the practice of traditional rhetoric, style cannot be merely
an ornamentation of the sense of an utterance, when it is motivated by personal and socio-
cultural factors at every level and is correspondingly evaluated along these ideological
dimensions by readers and audiences. Style is not merely free variation. Even utterances which
are produced randomly are treated conventionally against the language system in operation
(Stockwell, 2005).
As Toolan (1990: 42-6_ points out, stylistics can be used for a variety of purposes,
including the teaching of language and of literature. It can also be used as a means of
demystifying literary responses, understanding how varied readings are produced from the same
text; and it can be used to assist in seeing features that might not otherwise have been noticed. It
can shed light on the crafted texture of the literary text, as well as offering a productive form of
assistance in completing interpretations, making them more complex and richer. Stylistics can
thus be used both as a descriptive tool and as a catalyst for interpretation (Stockwell, 2005).
Cross-cultural pragmatics comes to play when culture specific aspects appear in a text.
Thus an effort to enhance cultural awareness is crucial in language class is justified, and at least
some cultural sensitivity is crucial in understanding texts with reflections and indications of
particular cultural context. (Miššíková, 2009). Stylistics is a method of textual
interpre
CONCLUSION
Analyzing the three ransom notes, we can see how the linguistic contents in the ransom
notes can be analyzed to reveal the nativity of the author. In two of the cases, we see how the
authors did make errors in their writing that would have been beneficial in concluding about the
nativity of the person. In the Ramsey case, we see that the note may have been written by a
native speaker of English and using the analysis done by McMenamin we see how the writing
was similar to that of Patricia Ramsey but was inconclusive. There are limitations to stylistics
analysis which are the selection of stylistic variables used for comparison and contrast has been
said to be arbitrary and subjective; the frequency of occurrence of stylistic variables is not well
defined, resulting in analytical methods that do not include rigorous statistical analysis of written
texts; given that reference to a linguistic norm is needed for the analysis of linguistic variation, a
norm that is inaccessible for any reason weakens the analysis; The inability to clearly
differentiate between group v. individual variation; The relative significance of stylistic variables
cannot be determined because it is not yet possible to determine levels of conscious intervention
as stylistic choices are made in the writing process, assuming that the most telltale markers are
those least consciously used (McMenamin, 2002). These limitations are some concepts that as
linguists we have to consider while analyzing the documents to reveal authorship. Thus, we can
answer the hypothesis that the nativity of an author can be revealed based on the linguistic errors
that they make in their writings.