On May 10, 2024, Language Sciences hosted the annual Graduate and Postdoctoral Research Day, which showcased the work of presenters from more than 10 different disciplines. This event celebrated a variety of unique studies in language sciences that are interconnected at their core. Together, these studies create a vibrant landscape that encompasses and illuminates the field of language sciences. To provide a glimpse into this diversity, we interviewed three award-winning researchers about their work.
Honorable Mention - Mariana Pinzon-Caicedo (Sociology, SFU)
(This is the first of three Q&A with award-winning presenters at the Research Day. To read the rest, please follow the links at the bottom of this article.)
1. What got you interested in studying victim’s testimonial in the Courtroom?
This question actually takes me down memory lane which I appreciate. I'm originally from Colombia and in 2016 the government signed a peace agreement with the largest guerrilla group after more than five decades of war, putting the country in what is known as a "post conflict stage". The actions done during this stage are incredibly important to avoid falling into what the literature recognizes as a "conflict trap," as countries with a history of conflict are more likely to re-enter war, creating a cycle of violence difficult to break. Following the experience of many countries that have also been through civil conflict--such as South Africa, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, the former Yugoslavia, and Ireland--Colombia opted to implement something that is commonly known as a Transitional Justice System to support the post-conflict. This system, in short, tries to help countries transition from war to peace. That was why at an early stage of this project, I knew I wanted to study the post-conflict stage and, with that, the transitional justice system implemented.
The other thing that I wanted to study was how the public discourse had changed around the unlawful killings of civilians committed by military members. With that, this project started as a comparative analysis of the public discourse around unlawful killings in 2006 (when the country signed a peace agreement with another armed group), and the most recent public discourse resulting from the current process.
Working towards this goal, I interviewed someone currently engaged with the transitional justice system, who pointed out that the testimonies of victims were being made public. With this new information I completely changed the focus of the research and started focusing on the experience of victims in the courtroom. I wanted to study how the rules of the trial shape victims' testimonies, and whether courtrooms impose certain rhetorical demands of "doing testimony".
2. What were the major challenges while conducting this study?
I would say there were 2 main challenges, one more methodological and a second one more emotional and personal. The methodological challenge is that studying the testimonies of people who have gone through traumatic events is very difficult for someone who is not trained, like me. I am a student of sociology, so there are many things about the study of linguistics and rhetoric that I am not aware of. In the beginning, I didn't know if I wanted to focus on the content of what victims were saying, or the emotional markers present in their testimonies, or grammatical structure, among the many things I could have focused on. Borrowing methodologies of study from a different field to answer a sociological question was challenging for me.
The second challenge was more emotional and personal. I was not prepared to listen to so much pain throughout the months that this project took. Listening to painful events and the hardships these people have gone through after their family members were murdered was very difficult. If it was difficult for me to listen to their stories, I cannot imagine living them.
3. Could you describe your methodologies?
I used two main methodologies. The first one was a content analysis, which means I did some coding of the testimonies by sentence. There were some categories of analysis that I wanted to look at, coming from the literature on trauma, witnessing, and transitional justice. While coding I also realized there were some other categories of analysis that I needed to be mindful of. These categories came from the victims themselves. For this part of the project, I used Nvivo for coding.
The second methodology was a text analysis which I borrowed from trauma studies specifically. Well-known researchers have already established dictionaries for the study of markers of post-traumatic distress, so I borrowed their dictionaries and methodologies to study the markers of emotional distress in the testimonies I analyzed. I used the LIWC software for the text analysis.
4. What are your major findings, and what greater implications do they hold?
My main finding is that victims' speech in courtrooms is mediated by their level of traumatic assimilation. Victims who have been able to better assimilate their trauma can more easily comply with the rhetorical structure demanded by courtrooms, which facilitates their communication with judges, lawyers, and alike. On the other hand, victims who have not been able to assimilate their trauma just want to tell their stories, and they do so in ways that clash with the purpose of the courtroom.
The main implication of this finding is that we cannot continue talking about victims as a homogeneous group because there are important differences amongst them. This finding is also an invitation to acknowledge differences in trauma assimilation when studying whether trial settings help or harm victims’ emotional recovery.
5. Do you envisage it to grow into a next phase?
Yes, I have presented my findings in a couple of conferences, and I think it would be really interesting to analyze whether similar patterns occur in other scenarios. I have gotten ideas to study these patterns in transitional justice systems implemented in other countries (I was recently made aware of testimonies from the Yugoslavian case that I could potentially study).
In addition, I was made aware of similar patterns potentially present amongst perpetrators, and not just victims. From the LangSci research day, I also got the idea of studying whether something similar happens in conversations between patients and doctors.
6. In general, what are your research interest(s)? How can people follow your work?
My research interest lies in the study of hardship and its implications in social relations. This question has made me realize that I need to set up a website and share more/better my research interests and projects!
This article is part of the Graduate and Postdoctoral Research Day series. To read the other interviews, please follow the links below.
Read Q&A with Line Lloy, winner of the Best Poster Award at Language Sciences' Graduate and Postdoctoral Research Day 24'.
Read Q&A with Starr Sandoval, winner of the Best Talk Award at Language Sciences' Graduate and Postdoctoral Research Day 24'.