Vol. 14 No. 99 (2026)
2026/2

Research Article

A Forensic Linguistic Analysis of Police Interrogation Discourse: Two Ahmet Ümit Novels

Published 2026-08-31

Cilt 14 Sayı 99 kapak

Öz

Polis Sorgusu Söyleminin Adli Dilbilim Açısından Çözümlemesi: İki Ahmet Ümit Romanı

Polis sorgusu, soru sorma hakkının, konu seçiminin ve söz sırasının büyük ölçüde sorgulayanın elinde bulunduğu kurumsal bir söylem türüdür. Türkçede bu söylemi betimleyen adli dilbilim çalışmaları henüz sınırlıdır ve gerçek sorgu kayıtlarına araştırma amaçlı erişim güçtür. Bu çalışma, polisiye romandaki kurmaca sorgu sahnelerini, sorgu söyleminin Türkçede nasıl temsil edildiğini gösteren ayrı bir veri türü olarak ele almaktadır. Ahmet Ümit’in Patasana (2000) ve Beyoğlu’nun En Güzel Abisi (2013) romanlarından ayıklanan yedi sorgu sahnesi, her biri tek bir soru ya da yanıt hamlesine karşılık gelen 111 birimlik bir alt derlem olarak çözümlenmiştir. Kodlama üç katmanlıdır: birinci katman Heydon’un (2005) polis görüşmesi söylemi modeline, ikinci katman Berk-Seligson’ın (2009) zorlayıcı sorgu söylemi çözümlemelerine dayanmakta, üçüncü katman ise soru eki, kip seçimleri, sözcük sırası ve eyleyen görünürlüğü gibi Türkçeye özgü dilsel taşıyıcıları kodlamaktadır. Bulgular, sorgunun yapısal omurgasının iki romanda yüksek ve birbirine yakın oranlarda işlediğini, buna karşılık zorlayıcılık araçlarının ve Türkçeye özgü taşıyıcıların kurumsal bağlama (jandarma ya da emniyet) ve özellikle sahne türüne göre belirgin biçimde değiştiğini göstermektedir. Çalışma, Türk polisiye edebiyatındaki sorgu söylemini bu iki çerçeveyi Türkçeye özgü bir katmanla birleştirerek çözümleyen ilk betimleyici inceleme niteliği taşımaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler adli dilbilim, polis sorgusu söylemi, söylem çözümlemesi, Türk polisiye romanı, Ahmet Ümit, kurumsal söylem

Abstract

Police interrogation is an institutional discourse type in which the right to ask questions, choose topics and allocate turns lies largely with the interrogator. Descriptive forensic linguistic research on this discourse in Turkish is still limited, and research access to authentic interrogation records is difficult. This study treats the fictional interrogation scenes of the crime novel as a distinct type of data that shows how interrogation discourse is represented in Turkish. Seven interrogation scenes from Ahmet Ümit’s Patasana (2000) and Beyoğlu’nun En Güzel Abisi (2013) are analysed as a 111-unit sub-corpus in which each unit corresponds to a single question or answer move. The coding scheme has three layers: the first draws on Heydon’s (2005) model of police interview discourse, the second on Berk-Seligson’s (2009) analyses of coercive interrogation discourse, and the third codes linguistic carriers specific to Turkish, namely the question particle, modal choices, word order and the visibility of agents. The findings show that the structural backbone of interrogation operates at high and closely comparable rates in both novels, whereas coercive devices and Turkish-specific carriers vary markedly with institutional context (gendarmerie or police) and, above all, with scene type. The study is the first descriptive analysis of interrogation discourse in Turkish crime fiction that combines these two frameworks with a Turkish-specific layer.

Keywords forensic linguistics, police interrogation discourse, discourse analysis, Turkish crime novel, Ahmet Ümit, institutional discourse

PDF (Turkish)

References

  1. Argun, Uğur, Karapazarlıoğlu, Ersin ve Taşğın, Serkan. “Öldürme (Cinayet) Olaylarında Polis Soruşturmaları”. Legal Hukuk Dergisi 13.147 (2015): 61-89.
  2. Aikhenvald, Alexandra Y. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
  3. Aksu-Koç, Ayhan. The Acquisition of Aspect and Modality: The Case of Past Reference in Turkish. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554353
  4. Bartley, Leanne ve Trevisan, Piergiorgio. “‘We can fix this. Let’s get you out of trouble, son’: An Analysis of the Transitivity and Appraisal Patterns in the Netflix TV Show When They See Us”. Applied Linguistics (2024). Çevrimiçi önyayın. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amae081. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amae081
  5. Bednarek, Monika. Language and Television Series: A Linguistic Approach to TV Dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108559553
  6. Berk-Seligson, Susan. “The Miranda Warnings and Linguistic Coercion: The Role of Footing in the Interrogation of a Limited-English-Speaking Murder Suspect”. Language in the Legal Process, ed. Janet Cotterill. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, s. 127-143. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522770_8
  7. Berk-Seligson, Susan. Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492
  8. Byrman, Gunilla ve Byrman, Ylva. “In Evidence: Linguistic Transformations of Events in Police Interview Reports”. Nordic Journal of Linguistics 41.2 (2018): 155-181. DOI: 10.1017/S0332586518000100. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0332586518000100
  9. Carter, Elisabeth. Analysing Police Interviews: Laughter, Confessions and the Tape. London: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2011.
  10. De Pablos-Ortega, Carlos. “‘Would It Be Fair to Say That You Actively Sought Out Material?’ Mitigation and Aggravation in Police Investigative Interviews”. Pragmatics and Society 10.1 (2019): 50-72. DOI: 10.1075/ps.00015.pab. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/ps.00015.pab
  11. Diepeveen, Aafke. “The Suspect’s Statement in Interaction: Responding to ‘Formulations’ in the Investigative Interview”. Journal of Pragmatics 220 (2024): 47-61. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2023.11.010. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2023.11.010
  12. Erguvanlı-Taylan, Eser. The Function of Word Order in Turkish Grammar. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984.
  13. Göksel, Aslı ve Kerslake, Celia. Turkish: A Comprehensive Grammar. London: Routledge, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203340769
  14. Halliday, M. A. K. ve Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. 3. baskı. Londra: Hodder Arnold, 2004.
  15. Haworth, Kate. “The Discursive Construction of Evidence in Police Interviews: Case Study of a Rape Suspect”. Applied Linguistics 38.2 (2017): 194-214. DOI: 10.1093/applin/amv009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv009
  16. Heritage, John. “The Limits of Questioning: Negative Interrogatives and Hostile Question Content”. Journal of Pragmatics 34.10 (2002): 1427-1446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00072-3
  17. Heydon, Georgina. The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502932
  18. Kim, Young-Hoon. “Post-Syntactic Linearization of Yes/No-Question Particle in Turkish”. Proceedings of the Workshop on Turkic and Languages in Contact with Turkic 7 (2022). DOI: https://doi.org/10.3765/ptu.v7i1.5316
  19. Korkmaz, Zeynep. Türkiye Türkçesi Grameri (Şekil Bilgisi). Ankara: Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları, 2003.
  20. Leahy-Harland, Samantha ve Bull, Ray. “Police Strategies and Suspect Responses in Real-Life Serious Crime Interviews”. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 32.2 (2017): 138-151. DOI: 10.1007/s11896-016-9207-8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-016-9207-8
  21. Mason, Marianne. “The ‘Preparatory’ and ‘Argumentation’ Stages of Police Interrogation: A Linguistic Analysis of a Criminal Investigation”. Language & Communication 48 (2016): 79-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.langcom.2016.03.001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2016.03.001
  22. Quaglio, Paulo. Television Dialogue: The Sitcom Friends vs. Natural Conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 2009. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.36
  23. Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. ve Jefferson, Gail. “A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation”. Language 50.4 (1974): 696-735. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/412243
  24. Stokoe, Elizabeth. “The (In)Authenticity of Simulated Talk: Comparing Role-Played and Actual Interaction and the Implications for Communication Training”. Research on Language and Social Interaction 46.2 (2013): 165-185. DOI: 10.1080/08351813.2013.780341. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2013.780341
  25. Ümit, Ahmet. Beyoğlu’nun En Güzel Abisi. İstanbul: Everest Yayınları, 2013.
  26. Ümit, Ahmet. Patasana. İstanbul: Everest Yayınları, 2000.
  27. Wing, Dakota. “‘It’s Just Like on TV’: An Analysis of the Mirandizing Process on TV”. Criminal Justice Review 50.2 (2023): 191-204. DOI: 10.1177/07340168231196995. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07340168231196995
  28. Wright, Allison M. ve Alison, Laurence. “Questioning Sequences in Canadian Police Interviews: Constructing and Confirming the Course of Events?”. Psychology, Crime & Law 10.2 (2004): 137-154. DOI: 10.1080/1068316031000099120. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316031000099120