Introduction
The case under consideration is the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. They included hijacking four planes and targeting the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, and these events were recorded and analyzed by experts (“9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 01 of 08,” n.d.). Therefore, this paper aims to examine the available linguistic evidence and, more specifically, the transcript from UA Flight #93 to prove conspiracy was committed as per this type of language crime.
Description of the Case and the Language-Related Issue
There is extensive information regarding the specified events in FBI records online. They primarily include wiretaps from onboard devices and transcripts of phone calls. The main file includes data concerning the terrorists’ conversations and interviews with family members of their victims. According to them, the fact of the crime was reflected in the dialogues recorded by the cockpit voice recorder, and Lizbeth Glick, Mark Kendall Bingham, and others confirmed it as they talked to their spouses (“9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 01 of 08,” n.d.). Other documents contain the interrogation of airports employees communicating with flight attendants who reported the numbers of terrorists and passengers’ injuries (“9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 02 of 08,” n.d.; “9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 05 of 08,” n.d.; “9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 01 of 08,” n.d.; “9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 01 of 08,” n.d.). These facts were complemented by the conversation with the girlfriend of one of the terrorists, Ziad Jarrah, who claimed that she did not know about their plans (“9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 07 of 08,” n.d.). They were sufficient for investigating the crime since they provided extensive linguistic evidence.
Piece of Linguistic Evidence Under Consideration
The selected piece for analysis of the language is the transcript from UA Flight #93, which is one of the most apparent proofs of the criminal nature of some passengers’ actions. It is useful for examining the context of the described events since the responses of participants to time, location, enactors, and other factors precisely reflect the circumstances of the matter (Ho et al., 2019). Thus, the first condition implying the organized efforts of the group of criminals is their unity in expressions and the same religion. They continuously pray to Allah and repeat their orders and actions, such as “sit down,” or referring to themselves in each case as “we have a bomb aboard” or “we have our demands” (“9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 01 of 08,” n.d.). Another factor allowing to classify their actions as illegal from the very beginning is the phrases of passengers saying they do not want to die or stating that someone is hurt (“9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 01 of 08,” n.d.). They serve as a confirmation of violence caused by organized efforts of individuals, and the linguistic analysis implies the presence of crime.
Criteria/Standards for Wiretap/Undercover Transcripts
The criteria, which define the case as an example of wiretap and undercover transcripts, are the means of receiving information and its scope alongside the consequent authorized access to these materials for investigation. Thus, it should “identify the target subjects, describe the facility or location, and list the alleged offenses” (“Electronic surveillance – Title III affidavits,” n.d.). This piece corresponds to the specified legal criteria as it clearly states that the events happened aboard, mentions the flights, types of planes, their characteristics, individuals affected or committing the crimes, and their features (“9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 01 of 08,” n.d.). Hence, it can be concluded that the case belongs to the identified category of offenses.
Subsystems of Language, Speech Acts, and Essential Characteristics
The subsystems of language connected to the analysis above include discourse and semantics. For instance, the former is the examination of the meaning above the level of a sentence, which allows understanding the significance of separate expressions (“A guide to the language subsystems,” n.d.). It helps analyze the context and, consequently, people’s ideas and views (“A guide to the language subsystems,” n.d.). In turn, the latter is the general analysis of connotation transmitting the nature of phrases, whether it is positive or negative (“A guide to the language subsystems,” n.d.). It advantageously complements the discourse examination by bringing clarity to the emotions behind the words. As for the speech acts, they are primarily directives, which imply commands, orders, or summons used by terrorists (Wijana, 2021). In this way, their communication was rather direct and clear since the transcript does not include any vague expressions (“9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 01 of 08,” n.d.). In addition, the presence of the Cooperative Principle is evident because the criminals exchange the information accordingly (Wijana, 2021). Thus, their conversations were efficient and reflected the organized efforts of the group.
Conclusion
To summarize, the linguistic evidence received from wiretap transcripts related to the examined terrorist attacks proves a serious intent to commit the crime. A variety of materials, including phone calls, interviews with affected persons and employees, and records of conversations, allows conclusion on the organized nature of the events and, consequently, proves conspiracy. Moreover, the selection of expressions indicates the unity of criminals in religion. In addition, their plans, as well as directness and clarity as per the consideration of semantics and the discourse analysis, confirm compliance with the Cooperative Principle. Thus, this case can be viewed as a serious intent of individuals to commit the crime.
References
9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 01 of 08. (n.d.). The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 02 of 08. (n.d.). The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 04 of 08. (n.d.). The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 05 of 08. (n.d.). The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 07 of 08. (n.d.). The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
9/11 interviews 2001 09(Sep) 08 of 08. (n.d.). The Federal Bureau of Investigation.
A guide to the language subsystems. (n.d.). Manganmedia.
Electronic surveillance – Title III affidavits. (n.d.). The United States Department of Justice Archives.
Ho, Y. F., Lugea, J., McIntyre, D., Xu, Z., & Wang, J. (2019). Text-world annotation and visualization for crime narrative reconstruction. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 34(2), 310-334. Web.
Wijana, I. D. P. (2021). On Speech Acts. Journal of Pragmatics Research, 3(1), 14-27.