For the purposes of this research, a simplified version of the DST model will be used. The aim here is to provide new understandings of expressions that point to larger socio-political patterns - because of this there are highly specialised linguistic elements of the diagram that, while important, will not be focused on. The appeal of this approach for my research is that it provides a way to highlight elements of the text and explain their significance visually, while drawing upon previous theories that can explain the patterns that are revealed. As such, I will initially be focusing on the four main axes in the model, and the ways that separating elements of the text onto these axes have shown patterns that are well worth examining.
The interdisciplinary approach of this project has allowed for the application of the DST model to a lesser level of detail than the more intricate uses demonstrated by Chilton’s research in his book Analysing Political Discourse: Theory and Practice (Chilton 2004). There are several reasons for not employing a purely DST analysis, the foremost being that this project places importance on social relationships and the functions of power in the courtroom, and discourse theories are best suited for more specific understandings of these relationships as a way of situating DST findings. This is not to say, however, that this research applies different methods on an as-and-when basis. The cognitive linguistic theoretical understandings and DST
78 analysis underpin the transcript analysis, functioning as the tools through which patterns in the text are located.
It is the broader explaining of these patterns for which I have chosen to use discourse insights. This has been done for two reasons – one, because these ideas fit will with the DST analyses due to the fact that the foundations of linguistic studies and discourse analysis are often interrelated, and two, the findings of the project are enhanced and better explained with this added element of understanding. As mentioned before, many of the gaps in the literature exist because of a focus inward – the aim here is to bring in additional insights that might bridge these gaps, but with careful focus to maintain a balanced approach that does not attempt to bring in too many ideas for one study. Therefore, DST graphs will only be shown when the complexities of the patterns found are best demonstrated visually. There are equally times when the text is best explained more basically, and the added graph would be redundant.
Though briefly explained earlier, the intricacies of the DST model are best expressed visually, and with examples from the text. In figure 1, we see the basic DST diagram as set out by Chilton.
79 There are four primary axes, at the centre of which is the deictic centre, or self. At the top of this axis are discourse referents (d), and the distance between these and the deictic centre (s) represents the degree of estrangement, visually expressing concepts of ‘other’ in relation to the speaker. The t axis is the deictic chronology, which allows for framing in the context of time. The m axis represents modality, including expressions of the possible, and the speaker’s degree of commitment. Within this space are possible counter-realities, which can be expressed by re- creating a smaller version of the entire diagram along the m axis, using words expressed in the conditional, or the speaker’s expression of what ‘might’ have happened.
The first step in applying DST to my data was to pull from the text expressions of self/other. This helped illuminate the speaker’s perceptions of his or her group, and opinions of those determined to be outside. This was applied to excerpts on a speaker-by-speaker basis, because it was not productive to map all transcripts
80 relating to one case, as speaker responses were from a variety of perspectives. Each witness transcript was therefore done individually, so that the proper context could then be provided.
For example, with the Pero Rendić witness statements, Rendić uses ‘we’ and ‘us’ to frequently refer to the group he identifies with relative to the memory he is expressing. Since he is being asked about his time at Omarska, his ‘we’ refers to the kitchen staff in the quartermasters detachment. His expressions of ‘other’ include camp guards as well as prisoners, which is not altogether unexpected given the fact that he is being questioned in a court on war crimes. His need to express detachment from the whole situation (using phrases like ‘I don’t know anything about that’ and ‘I didn’t have anything to do with that’) are common phrases in the court. As a witness, Rendić wants to give what information he has, but is also acutely aware of the seriousness of being incorporated into the events about which he is being questioned. Therefore, he defines ‘other’ as any person connected to the crimes (whether as perpetrator or as victim) the court is in session for.
The analysis of self/other can be an indicator of ethnic identity or group identification, and the way things are phrased and the additional words used expressing these ideas can reveal negative or positive opinions attached to these groupings. An individual who uses ‘we’ in the place of ‘I’ shows a strong attachment to this group perspective. The evidence of this attachment becomes even stronger in cases where the question being asked did not originally refer to any collective.
The next step in the DST analysis is to look at expressions of the possible space, and map them in the diagram alongside the other information uncovered.
81 Expressions of time can also be pulled from the text and inserted at this point, as this helps provide a larger picture for how the individual sees his or her environment. This gives a space for marking the frequency of these time-specific phrases like the ones above (attaching difficulty to time, or more importantly, attaching ‘otherness’ to time, as in ‘that was a different time’ – also a potential indicator of perception of threat or distancing), which can be interpreted as expressions of cognitive dissonance as well as a need to express a separate frame in which these choices took place.
Another potential concept to pull from the text, though not part of the DST diagram, is the expression of what information was or was not available to individuals. Expressions like ‘know’ or expressions of confusion are interesting markers in terms of how information was passing from person to person. The use of phrases like, ‘we knew that…’ followed by details of fact helps fill out the cognitive frame of the speaker. Places where these phrases are attached to expressions of decision (for example, ‘we knew X, so we did Y’ or ‘we thought X, and because of X we did Y’), are markers of how elements of information impact choices.
4 Situating DST results within additional theories
The linguistic analysis is only part of the picture for this project. Using social psychology and discourse theory in my methods has added an additional layer to the linguistic analyses, and most importantly gives weight to findings by providing analysis that expands on ideas already highlighted. As was mentioned in the introductory chapter, there are very specific reasons for choosing to use these two
82 disciplines in tandem with DST applications, and careful consideration was made for the necessity of using additional methodological insights in the first place. The two-fold analysis this research project takes does not assume that the DST falls short in the scope of its analysis. Quite the opposite, it is the strength of the theory as an analytical tool that was a strong indicator that its use on a project such as this one would be both innovative and productive.
The courtroom atmosphere, however, is particular in its complexities and while it would have been both possible and beneficial to use DST alone to analyse the language contained within, the aim of this project is to incorporate findings within the larger sphere of transitional justice studies. This goal is necessary in order to demonstrate that findings using linguistics can provide insights productive to wider audiences. Essentially, this project took the first step in answering the question (what might a cognitive linguistic analysis of ICTY transcripts reveal about social processes occurring within the courtroom?) by applying DST to transcripts, and then took a further step of placing the findings within related disciplines to determine what those disciplines might say for the meaning of the findings.
The reason for using insights from both social psychology and discourse analysis for this was again related to the data itself. Early in the process of analysing testimonies it became clear that whether the individual giving testimony was a victim or an accused changed the nature of it significantly. More specifically, the testimonies of victims dealt more frequently with events, subjects and issues that social psychology could more easily make sense of. This also proved to be the case for the speech of several low ranking accused analysed in chapter 7. Certain accused, however, spoke to larger and more abstract ideas that resonated differently within the courtroom, and their approach to the ICTY itself was of a unique, more
83 political nature. Both of these reasons meant that speech of accused was understood more clearly through examining the DST results as discourse. Essentially, the amount of power an individual held - both during the conflict and in court - changed the nature of testimony and therefore invited two approaches of second- level analysis. Both approaches required a strong basis for how their insights related to the data itself, and therefore literature was examined and relevant terms defined according to the assumptions of the project.
5 Social psychological insights
Social psychology’s relationship to studies of the ICTY begins first with the subject the tribunal is tackling, which in this instance is ethnic conflict. Although it is not the aim of this project to take on how and why violence occurred within the former Yugoslavia at the time that it did, those who have examined these reasons have developed theoretical underpinnings that can make greater sense of the language used by those who were involved in or victims of this violence.