PERAN LINGUISTIK FORENSIK DALAM PEMBUKTIAN TINDAK PIDANA PENCEMARAN NAMA BAIK DI MEDIA SOSIAL: KAJIAN PUSTAKA
Abstract
The rapid growth of social media use has led to an increase in the number of lawsuits related to language, particularly defamation. In such cases, the meaning of a post is often disputed, necessitating an objective linguistic analysis. This study aims to describe the role of forensic linguistics in proving criminal defamation on social media, as well as the challenges of utilizing linguists in Indonesia. The method used is a literature review employing a qualitative descriptive approach to books, journal articles, and legislation, including Law No. 1 of 2024 and Constitutional Court Decision No. 105/PUU-XXII/2024. Data were analyzed through data reduction, data presentation, and drawing conclusions. The results of the study indicate that forensic linguistics plays a role in (1) interpreting the meaning of utterances through semantic and pragmatic analysis, (2) distinguishing between statements of fact, opinion, and emotional expressions to assess elements that may defame a person’s honor or reputation, and (3) tracing the authorship of texts through idiolect analysis. Identified challenges include the lack of uniform methodological standards, the absence of a mechanism for expert qualification, limited data context, and the need to maintain expert independence. This study concludes that the involvement of linguists contributes to a more objective evidentiary process; however, linguistic conclusions remain merely an aid to judges and do not determine a person’s guilt or innocence.
References
Austin, J. L. (1962). How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.
Coulthard, M. (2004). Author identification, idiolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 25(4), 431–447. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.4.431
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Routledge.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Culpeper, J. (1996). Towards an anatomy of impoliteness. Journal of Pragmatics, 25(3), 349–367.
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell.
Grice, H. P. (1975). Logic and conversation. Dalam P. Cole & J. L. Morgan (Ed.), Syntax and semantics: Vol. 3. Speech acts (hlm. 41–58). Academic Press.
Leech, G. N. (1983). Principles of pragmatics. Longman.
Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldaña, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook (3rd ed.). SAGE Publications.
Mintowati, M. (2016). Pencemaran nama baik: Kajian linguistik forensik. Paramasastra: Jurnal Ilmiah Bahasa Sastra dan Pembelajarannya, 3(2). https://journal.unesa.ac.id/index.php/paramasastra/article/view/1525
Olsson, J. (2008). Forensic linguistics (2nd ed.). Continuum.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Shuy, R. W. (2006). Linguistics in the courtroom: A practical guide. Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. W. (2010). The language of defamation cases. Oxford University Press.
Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, P. M. (1999). Legal language. University of Chicago Press.
Wijana, I. D. P. (1996). Dasar-dasar pragmatik. Andi Offset.
Yule, G. (1996). Pragmatics. Oxford University Press.
Zed, M. (2004). Metode penelitian kepustakaan. Yayasan Obor Indonesia.
