Home “Money. Armed. Quietly”: An analysis of criminogenic prose in institutional holdup notes
Article
Licensed
Unlicensed Requires Authentication

“Money. Armed. Quietly”: An analysis of criminogenic prose in institutional holdup notes

  • Michael Arntfield EMAIL logo
Published/Copyright: November 3, 2015

Abstract

This paper examines an Anglophonic corpus of institutional holdup notes (n=29) recovered by robbery detectives in a single Canadian city over a twenty-year period. Moreover, it examines how the recurrence of specific lexical structures in written content reflects a given offender’s awareness of his social position relative to both his victim and the institution where a robbery is committed. By disaggregating holdup notes into three distinct categories based on written content, it is argued that these categories reflect the willingness of perpetrators to adjust the content of these notes through a process of linguistic code switching that both enables and expedites the completion of the offence. It is additionally argued that the perceived formality of the institution targeted by perpetrators has an unconscious but direct bearing on the formality and structure of their writing.

References

Arntfield, M. & K. A. Gorman. 2014. Introduction to forensic writing. Toronto: Carswell.Search in Google Scholar

Burgoon, J. K., Stern, L. A., & Dillman, L. 1995. Interpersonal adaptation: Dyadic interaction patterns. New York: Cambridge University Press10.1017/CBO9780511720314Search in Google Scholar

Christopherson, L. 2011. Can u help me plz?? Cyberlanguage accommodation in virtual reference conversations. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science & Technology 48(1). 1–9.10.1002/meet.2011.14504801080Search in Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press10.21236/AD0616323Search in Google Scholar

Crystal, D. 2011. Internet linguistics: A student guide. London: Routledge10.4324/9780203830901Search in Google Scholar

Cupach, W. R. & T. Imahori. 1993. Identity management theory. In R. L. Wiseman & J. Koester (eds.), Intercultural communication competence, 112–131. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Dorrell, D. D. & G. A. Gadawski. 2012. Financial forensics: Body of knowledge. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.10.1002/9781119200734Search in Google Scholar

Giles, H. & T. Ogay. 2007. Communication accommodation theory. In B. B. Wayley & W. Samter (eds.), Explaining communication: Contemporary theories and exemplars, 293–310. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Giles, H. & P. Smith. 1979. Accommodation theory: Optimal levels of convergence. In H. Giles & R. N. St. Clair (eds.), Language and social psychology, 45–65. Baltimore, MD: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Giles, H., R. Dailey, V. Barker, C. Hajek, D. C. Anderson & N. Rule. 2006. Communication accommodation: Law enforcement and the public. In B. Poire & R. Dailey (eds.), Applied interpersonal communication matters: Family, health, and community relations, 241–270. New York: Peter Lang.Search in Google Scholar

Goffman, E. 1967. Interaction ritual: Essays in face-to-face behavior. Chicago: Aldine.Search in Google Scholar

Gudykunst, W. B., C. M. Lee, T. Nisihida & N. Ogawa. 2005. Introduction. In W. B. Gudykunst (ed.), Theorizing about intercultural communication, 3–32. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Search in Google Scholar

Hymes, D. (ed.). 1971. Pidginization & creolization of languages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Joos, M. 1967. The five clocks. New York: Harcourt Brace.Search in Google Scholar

Kucera, H. 1967. Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence: Brown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Laugesen, A. 2002. Convict words: Language in early colonial Australia. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

London Police Service. 2014. Uniform crime report data. Robbery – other. Original view only files.Search in Google Scholar

Matsell, G. 1859. Vocabulum; Or, the rogue’s lexicon. New York: G.W. Matsell.Search in Google Scholar

Olsson, J. 2008. Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language, crime, and the law, 2nd edn. London: Continuum.Search in Google Scholar

Salfati, C. G. 2000. The nature of expressiveness and instrumentality in homicide: Implications for offender profiling. Homicide Studies 4(3). 265–293.10.1177/1088767900004003004Search in Google Scholar

Sebba, M. 1997. Contact languages: Pidgins and creoles. London: MacMillan.10.1007/978-1-349-25587-0Search in Google Scholar

Skudiene, V., D. D. Everhart, K. Slepikaite & J. Reardon. 2013. Front-line employees’ recognition and empowerment effect on retail bank customers’ perceived value. Journal of Service Science 6(1). 105–116.10.19030/jss.v6i1.8241Search in Google Scholar

Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. Individual empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal 38(1). 1442–1465.10.2307/256865Search in Google Scholar

Statistics Canada. 2014. Canadian center for justice statistics. Uniform Crime Reporting Surveys, 1993–2013.Search in Google Scholar

Todd, L. 1974. Pidgins and creoles. London: Routledge.10.4324/9780203381199_chapter_5Search in Google Scholar

West, R. & L. H. Turner. 2010. Introducing communication theory: Analysis and application. New York: McGraw-Hill.Search in Google Scholar

Published Online: 2015-11-3
Published in Print: 2016-1-1

©2016 by De Gruyter Mouton

Downloaded on 19.11.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/sem-2015-0119/pdf
Scroll to top button