Microsoft Word - 6291 6598 Copyright © 2025 The Author IDEAS is licensed under CC-BY-SA 4.0 License Issued by English study program of IAIN Palopo IDEAS Journal on Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) Volume 13, Number 2, December 2025 pp. 6598 - 6614 An Identification of Language Uses in Case of Criminal Threatening in Sampang, Madura: A Forensic Linguistic Study Mashud1, Sailal Arimi2 1,2 Linguistic, Universitas Gadjah Mada, Sleman, Yogyakarta Corresponding E-Mail: mashud@mail.ugm.ac.id Received: 2025-09-10 Accepted: 2025-11-19 DOI: 10.24256/ideas.v13i2.6291 Abstract Forensic linguistics research in Indonesia has experienced significant development. Based on 200 articles from Google Scholar and processed using VosViewer, forensic linguistics research examines many cases of insult, defamation, good, hearing, regulation, and blasphemy. So, the research analyzes the threats in Sampang Madura. This research aims to describe the linguistic features in the case of threatening criminal offense in Sampang Madura. The research used a descriptive qualitative method. Data collection techniques using documentation techniques. The data source in this research is obtained from the official website of the Supreme Court (https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori.html). The data in the research is the Decision of Sampang District Court Number 126/Pid.B/2014/PN Spg. The researcher used a note-taking technique to collect language containing threatening elements. To analyze the data, the researcher used the theoretical approaches of pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and systemics functional. The results showed that the use of language in the case of criminal acts of threatening in Sampang Madura fulfills the elements of threatening as stated in Article 89 of the Criminal Law Code (KHUP). The perpetrator has violated four principles of cooperation, namely, maxim of quantity, maxim of quality, maxim of relevance, and maxim of manner. In addition, the situation of the conversation is informal because the perpetrator and the victim use an informal language style. The cultural register is found in the word “carok” which shows that the perpetrator is an ethnic Madurese himself. Based on the metafunctional meaning, the perpetrator deliberately intends to threaten the victim because there is a mental process (desire) to finish off the victim's life. in terms of interpersonal language, the perpetrator does use the utterance “Kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (Do you want to carok with me?)” in interrogative mode; however, in terms of modality, the utterance is declarative. IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 2, December 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 6599 Keywords: Forensic Linguistics; Threatening Criminal; Sampang Madura; Linguistics. Introduction The threatening case in Sampang Madura is a phenomenon that reflects social and legal dynamics. Verbal threats were used as a means of intimidation to force the victim to hand over the victim's property to the perpetrator. The crime of threatening is a form of social deviance that can disrupt community activities and is often accompanied by violence or threats (Santosa, 2019). In this incident, there was an act of revoking the vehicle keys and requesting ownership documents which then developed into verbal threats when the victim asked for time to discuss with his family. The threats were accompanied by coercion to sign a letter of acceptance of the vehicle which the victim refused. The crime of threatening is an unlawful act as regulated in Article 369 which regulates the crime of threatening. Alweni (2019) states that the crime of extortion is often used by some people to carry out their intentions and actions. The crime of threatening with extortion is regulated in Article 368 of the Criminal Code which reads: “Barang siapa dengan maksud untuk menguntungkan diri sendiri atau orang lain secara melawan hukum. dengan ancaman pencemaran baik dengan lisan maupun tulisan, atau dengan ancaman akan membuka rahasia, memaksa seorang supaya memberikan barang sesuatu yang seluruhnya atau sebagian kepunyaan orang itu atauorang lain. atau supaya membuat hutang atau menghapuskan piutang, diancam dengan pidana penjara paling lama empat tahun” (“Anyone who, with intent to unlawfully benefit himself or another, by threat of verbal or written abuse, or by threat of disclosure, forces someone to give something which wholly or partially belongs to him or to another person, or to incur a debt or to cancel a debt, shall be punished by a maximum imprisonment of four years.” Threatening is a type of wrongdoing that indirectly threatens or startles a person so that they become restless, stressed, and awkward. (Andrian, 2022). Meanwhile, Wirawan (2022) state that extortion is the act of a person or institution that frightens the victim with the aim that the victim feels afraid and gives up something requested by the perpetrator. In forensic linguistics, understanding the language and structure of threats is crucial for analyzing extortion cases. Solan & Tiersma (2005) highlight that crimes can be committed through language. Linguistics has been applied to threat assessment (Gales, 2011; Smith, 2006; Solam, 2015; Van De Vegt, 2021). enabling forensic analysis to identify threat forms, intimidation tone, and other linguistic evidence in a perpetrator’s communication. Forensic linguistics, the scientific study of language in legal contexts (McMenamin, 2002), connects language, crime, and the law (Olsson, 2009). It encompasses law Mashud, Sailal Arimi An Identification of Language Uses in Case of Criminal Threatening in Sampang, Madura: A Forensic Linguistic Study 6600 enforcement, judicial processes, legislation, legal disputes, and conflicts requiring legal resolution. Furthermore, Coulthard & Jhonson (2017) define it as a sub-field focused on professional and institutional interactions in legal settings. Therefore, forensic linguistics offers various perspectives so that a linguist can assist law enforcement officials in upholding justice. Figure 1: forensic linguistics studies in Indonesia The figure above is generated from VOSviewer which processes 200 articles on forensic linguistics in Indonesia taken from Google Scholar. As a result, forensic linguistics studies in Indonesia mostly discuss hate speech, law and legal, defamation, semantics, and defamation. Research has been conducted by (Subuki, et al., 2023; Maulana & Arimi, 2022; Supriyana, et al., 2017) in regulatory and statutory cases. In addition, defamation cases have also been researched by (Arimi, et al., 2024; Kotzé, 2010; Sugiyantiningtyas, et al., 2023). Meanwhile, cases of terrorism and murder have been studied by Wardana & Gayatri, 2014; Garcı́a & Queralt, 2024). There is also research on threat cases that have been researched by (Kusno et al., 2022; Rahmat, 2015). Based on these studies, the development of forensic linguistics studies uses a variety of approaches, theories, methods, and research objects that are very complex. The complexity depends on how language objects in legal cases are used. Previous studies have largely examined defamation and hate speech, while research on the linguistic characteristics of criminal threats in Indonesia remains scarce. Based on the official website of the Supreme Court, 5114 cases of extortion and blackmail have been recorded in Indonesia. Meanwhile, in Sampang Madura, during the last 7 years, a total of 7 cases of threats have occurred. In the criminal IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 2, December 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 6601 act of extortion and threatening in Sampang Madura, the perpetrator extorts and threatens directly to the victim through linguistic expression. The threatening and extortion incidents are characterized by the motives of collecting installment loans, theft, and the perpetrator's grudge against the victim. Threatening is often carried out when the victim is alone without being accompanied by other people. In addition, the threatening language expressions used by the perpetrators reflect local norms and unique communication patterns, which can influence the way the threats and extortion are received and interpreted by the victim. Language in legal cases is interesting to analyze, especially in threatening cases. Tebas and carok are two lexical terms in Madurese that contain the element of threat. However, in terms of intent, the two lexicals certainly have different interpretations of the victim. Therefore, this study aims to describe the chronology and the linguistic features used in the case of threatening criminals in Sampang Madura. Method This research is qualitative descriptive research. The data collection was carried out using the documentation technique. Documentation technique is a method of collecting data by looking at or analyzing documents made by the subject himself or by others. Data sources in the research were obtained from the official website of the Supreme Court (https://putusan3.mahkamahagung.go.id/direktori.html). The data in the research is the decision of the Sampang District Court Number 126/Pid.B/2014/PN Spg. The researcher chose this case data because the case has more language data than other cases. The author then uses it to collect those that contain threats (Sugiono, 2022). To collect data, the author uses listening and note-taking techniques. First, researchers observed to all the contents of the decision. Second, noted the chronology of the case to understand the context. Third, noted the language that contains elements of threatening. To analyze the data, the author uses theoretical approaches that are relevant to the object of research. The researcher uses three theoretical approaches, namely pragmatics, sociolinguistics, and functional systemics. In analyzing the context of speech acts, the author uses the theory of the cooperative principles (Grice, 1991). Grice's cooperative principal theory is important to use in such cases because it can help analyze how the perpetrator uses maxim violation. For the Sociolinguistic approach, the author uses the theory of language variation Wardhaugh (2015). The theory of language variation in sociolinguistics is important in such cases because it can reveal how language use, including dialect, register and speech style, reflects the socio-cultural context that influences the way threats are delivered and received by victims. Finally, to analyze meaning, the Mashud, Sailal Arimi An Identification of Language Uses in Case of Criminal Threatening in Sampang, Madura: A Forensic Linguistic Study 6602 author uses systemic functional Halliday (1989). Halliday's systemic functional theory is important in such cases because it can analyze how perpetrators use language in three main aspects: ideational, which conveys threats and claims of ownership, interpersonal, which establishes domination and intimidation, and textual, which structures utterances to pressure victims, thus helping to reveal the linguistic strategies in criminal acts. The data analysis stage used a pragmatic approach, (1) the author classified the types of speech acts of the defendant and the victim, (2) explained the context of speech acts, and (3) parsed the content of the suspect's speech intentions. Then, sociolinguistic analysis begins with (1) writing a linguistic profile to analyze the defendant's background, and (2) looking for the defendant's language idiolect. For the analysis in terms of functional systemic analysis, the author classifies the meaning as experiential, interpersonal, logical, and textual. Result This research has three analyses. First, it analyzes speech acts using cooperative principles consisting of the maxim of quantity, the maxim of quality, the maxim of relation, and the maxim of manner. Second, analyzing using language variation which includes language style, register, and speaker identity. Finally, it analyzes using functional systemic which includes ideational, interpersonal, and textual metafunctions. The following is a chronology of the criminal act of threatening in Sampang Madura. Scheme 1. Chronology of the criminal act of threatening in Sampang Madura The chronology of this case illustrates how the perpetrator used verbal threats and intimidation to seize the victim's vehicle. The perpetrator started the IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 2, December 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 6603 interaction by directly asking for the vehicle registration without introduction, showing a suspicious authoritative attitude. When the victim tried to ask for time to show the STNK, the perpetrator put even more pressure by expressing his suspicion of the motorcycle's ownership. The peak of escalation occurred when the perpetrator issued a threat with a harsh sentence, “Do you want to carok me?”, which in the context of Madurese culture has a serious meaning and can cause fear for the victim. This threat was reinforced by the perpetrator's sharp gaze, which further intimidated the victim. As a result, the perpetrator managed to forcibly grab the motorcycle keys and take the vehicle. The case eventually proceeded to the legal realm after the victim reported to the police, and the court found the perpetrator guilty of committing the crime of threatening. Table 1. Theoretical perspectives in the case of threatening in Sampang, Madura Data Cooperative Principles Socioliinguistics Systemic Functional Mana STNK- nya, saya mau lihat, soalnya saya mau mencocokkan (where is the vehicle registration certificate I want to see, because I want to match) It violates the maxim of quantity because the perpetrator does not explain in detail the reason for matching the vehicle registration and does not mention his identity. Using Indonesian with informal style and imperative sentences. Shows the dominance of the perpetrator over the victim through requests. kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (Do you want to fight with me?) It violates the maxims of politeness and relevance, as the threat is irrelevant to the original request about the vehicle registration and is used to scare the victim. Contains Madurese dialect with the concept of carok culture which is full of violent meaning. Shows the psychological pressure and intimidation of the perpetrator. iya tunggu sebentar pak (Yes, wait a minute, sir) It complies with the maxim of relevance because the victim's answer responds to Using formal language with the particle “sir” as a form of Menunjukkan kepatuhan dan usaha korban untuk meredam situasi. Mashud, Sailal Arimi An Identification of Language Uses in Case of Criminal Threatening in Sampang, Madura: A Forensic Linguistic Study 6604 the STNK request directly and remains polite. respect. ya tunggu sebentar, jangan ambil dulu kontaknya (yes wait a minute, don't take the key first) It complies with the maxims of quantity and relevance. The victim provides enough information and asks the perpetrator not to take unilateral action. Use language that is more assertive but still polite. The victim tries to defend her rights by rejecting the perpetrator's actions. Discussion Cooperative principle analysis In the perspective of the cooperative principle proposed by Grice (1991), speech acts in a case of criminal threatening in Sampang Madura can be analyzed based on the cooperative principles: the maxim of quantity, the maxim of quality, the maxim of relation, and the maxim of manner. Maxim quantity In conversation, the principle of maxim of quantity emphasizes the importance of providing information as needed, no less and no more. This can be seen in interactions between defendants and witnesses in certain situations. For this reason, the speaker must provide enough information to make the communication effective and free from misunderstanding (Herman & Marlina, 2022). Perpetrator: mana STNK nya saya mau lihat, soalnya saya mau mencocokkan (where is the vehicle registration certificate I want to see, because I want to match) Victim: iya tunggu sebentar pak (Yes, wait a minute, sir) Perpetrator: kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (Do you want to fight with me?) Victim: ya tunggu sebentar, jangan ambil dulu kontaknya (yes wait a minute, don't take the key first) In the conversation, the witness gave an adequate and not-exaggerated answer when asked to show the STNK. The utterance “iya tunggu sebentar pak (Yes, wait a moment sir)” provides sufficient information, without explaining in detail why you have to wait. IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 2, December 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 6605 However, the defendant violated the maxim of quantity when he said “kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (Do you want to fight me?)” added unnecessary information to the original context (STNK request). It is not only redundant but also does not provide information related to the purpose of the conversation, which is to match the vehicle registration. Meanwhile, the witness maintains the maxim of quantity by answering concisely and in accordance with the needs of communication, for example by saying “ya tunggu sebentar, jangan ambil dulu kontaknya (yes, wait a minute, don't take the key first.)” which provides enough information without unnecessary additions. Maxim quality The quality maxim suggests that speech participants in interaction do not provide information that is believed to be false (lie) and do not provide information that is not supported by sufficient evidence. This can be seen in the conversation between the defendant and the witness in certain situations. As stated Putra et al., (2023), The maxims emphasize honesty and the need to have sufficient basis for statements made in conversation. Perpetrator: mana STNK nya saya mau lihat, soalnya saya mau mencocokkan (where is the vehicle registration certificate I want to see, because I want to match) Victim: iya tunggu sebentar pak (Yes, wait a minute, sir) Perpetrator: kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (Do you want to fight with me?) Victim: ya tunggu sebentar, jangan ambil dulu kontaknya (yes wait a minute, don't take the key first) In the conversation, the defendant uttered the sentence “kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (Do you want to carok me?)” which potentially violates the maxim of quality. This is because there is no clear evidence or basis that the witness does have the intention to conduct a carok (Madurese armed duel). If the defendant does not have strong evidence for his statement, then the utterance can be considered as a threat or intimidation attempt, which is not the by the principle of quality in conversation. Meanwhile, the witness adhered to the maxim of quality by providing a response that was factual and relevant, namely asking the defendant to wait for a while and reminding him not to take the vehicle's ignition first. Maxim relation Maxim relation suggests that speech participants make contributions that are appropriate to the context of the conversation and do not convey unrelated information. The maxim of relevance refers to the principle that speakers should provide information that is relevant and necessary in the conversation (Ishaq & Mashud, Sailal Arimi An Identification of Language Uses in Case of Criminal Threatening in Sampang, Madura: A Forensic Linguistic Study 6606 Putra, 2023). This can be seen in the conversation between the defendant and the witness in certain situations. Perpetrator: mana STNK nya saya mau lihat, soalnya saya mau mencocokkan (where is the vehicle registration certificate i want to see, because I want to match) Victim: iya tunggu sebentar pak (Yes, wait a minute, sir) Perpetrator: kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (Do you want to fight with me?) Victim: ya tunggu sebentar, jangan ambil dulu kontaknya (yes wait a minute, don't take the key first) In the conversation, the defendant violated the maxim of relevance when he said “kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (Do you want to fight me?)”. This statement was irrelevant to the main topic, which was the request to see the vehicle registration certificate. The perpetrator focused on matching the vehicle registration, the defendant inserted a statement that led to threats or intimidation, which was not related to the original purpose of the conversation. On the other hand, the witness still maintains the maxim of relation by providing responses that are still by the context, such as “iya tunggu sebentar pak (yes, wait a minute sir)” and “ya tunggu sebentar, jangan ambil dulu kontaknya (Yes, wait a minute, don't take the key first)”. The witness's answers remained within the realm of the main topic, namely the submission of the vehicle registration certificate, without deviating to other matters. Thus, in this conversation, only the defendant violated the maxim of relevance, while the witness maintained it. Maxim manner The maxim of manner suggests that speech participants speak clearly, unambiguously, not wordy, and well-organized so that it is easily understood by the interlocutor. The maxim of manner emphasizes that communication should be precise, organized, and concise, avoiding ambiguity and excessive detail, in accordance with the principles of courtesy (Khusna et al., 2021). This can be seen in conversations between the defendant and the witness in certain situations. Perpetrator: mana STNK nya saya mau lihat, soalnya saya mau mencocokkan (where is the vehicle registration certificate I want to see, because I want to match) Victim: iya tunggu sebentar pak (Yes, wait a minute, sir) Perpetrator: kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (Do you want to fight with me?) Victim: ya tunggu sebentar, jangan ambil dulu kontaknya (yes wait a minute, don't take the key first) IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 2, December 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 6607 In this conversation, the defendant violated the maxim of manner when he said “Do you want to carok me?”. This utterance can be considered ambiguous because it does not explicitly explain the meaning of “carok” in this context. It is possible that the defendant meant to threaten in his statement. As a result, this statement could create uncertainty or even fear for the witness. Meanwhile, the witness still follows the maxim of manner by giving a clear and unambiguous answer, such as “Yes, wait a minute, don't take the key first (ya tunggu sebentar, jangan ambil dulu kontaknya)”. This speech is concise, to the point and easy to understand without ambiguity or multiple interpretations. Thus, the defendant violated the maxim of manner because he used a potentially ambiguous and indirect utterance, while the witness maintained clarity in the conversation. Language Variation Analysis According to Wardhaugh (2015), Language variation is defined in terms of a particular set of linguistic items or speech patterns associated with external factors such as geographical area or social group. The analysis of language variation in this section consists of language style, register, and speaker profile. Language style The choice of language style by each speaker adjusts the conditions of the speech event. When in a formal situation, the language style used uses formal language. Conversely, when in an informal situation, the language style used is informal language. Wardhaugh (2015) stated that the use of formal and informal language is determined by the speech act situation. In the case of threatening in Sampang Madura, the speaker used informal language. Based on the speech act situation as reviewed in the court decision, the speech act event occurred in a public place. In other words, the perpetrator used informal language to the victim. This is indicated by the use of the pronoun ‘kamu (you)’ which shows the type of informal pronoun in Indonesian addressed to the person being spoken to. Wardhaugh also emphasizes that one of the characteristics of an informal situation is that the speech event occurs in a public place. In addition, the verb ‘mau (want)’ is an informal type of verb, which in the formal language of the verb is ‘menginginkan (want)’. Register Register is a variety of language used in a particular situation, context or domain. Register is the language of a community that is only understood by themselves to communicate among themselves. Register in language variation refers to the different forms of language used by a particular occupational or social group, characterized by lexical differences (Pescuma et al., 2023). Based on the language data above, one of the characteristics of the register that emerges is the Mashud, Sailal Arimi An Identification of Language Uses in Case of Criminal Threatening in Sampang, Madura: A Forensic Linguistic Study 6608 cultural register, namely 'carok'. Carok is a Madurese term that refers to the practice of dueling or armed fighting, usually using a celurit, as a form of conflict resolution that is considered to involve pride or honor. In the cultural register, carok is not just a word but also reflects the social values, norms, and honor system in Madurese society. The word 'carok' refers to a physical fight with sharp weapons that can injure and take the life of the victim. Speaker identity The identity of the speaker can be known through the use of the word 'carok', which is a Madurese cultural register. The sentence structure also shows patterns of Indonesian language interference with the typical language style of Madurese speakers, such as “kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (do you want to carok with me?)” which resembles Madurese language patterns. This indicates that the speaker comes from a Madurese cultural and linguistic background. Metafunction analysis In the Functional Systemic theory or metafunctional meaning proposed by (J. J. W. M.A.K. Halliday, 2009:7) The meaning of an utterance is analyzed based on three metafunctions of language, namely ideational, interpersonal, and textual. The following classification of functional systemic meaning is shown in the table below. Tabel.1 systemic functional Rank Metafunctions Analysis Clause Logikcal This clause contains interdependency, which is the relationship between the main clause and the interrogative element in an informal structure. The parataxis structure is seen in the use of “apa (what)” as the trigger for interaction and “mau carok (want to fight)” as the main action. Ideational The process in this sentence is the material process in the transitivity system, which is the action “want carok (want to fight)”. The main actor is “kamu (you)”, and “sama saya (with me)” is the participant (goal/beneficiary). Interpersonal This sentence has an interrogative mood function, but with a challenging tone. There is modality in the form of “mau (would)”, which indicates intention. The word “ya (yes)” also functions as an adjunct to emphasize the interpersonal expression. IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 2, December 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 6609 Textual The sentence structure shows the theme in the word “kamu (you)”, which emphasizes who is being addressed. The word “apa (what)” functions as a conjunction that connects the theme with the main action. Nominal Experiential “kamu (you)” is a nominal group that contains determination (subject affirmation). “Carok” is a thing type classification, which is categorized as local culture. Verbal Logical "Mau carok (want to fight)" adalah verbal group yang memiliki tense dalam bentuk modalitas futuratif (mau = akan melakukan). Word Experiential “Carok” is a specific noun that has its own cultural meaning in Madurese society, so it falls under denotation and can have connotation as an act of violence or honor depending on the context. Information unit Tekstual The word “ya (yes)” in this sentence functions as an accentuation, giving emphasis to the challenge in the conversation. This sentence has a strong interpersonal function as it is used in the context of challenging someone. Experientially, the word “carok” indicates a threat to the victim that can injure and take lives. Logically, there is a parataxis relationship between the question clause and the action intention. Ideational Ideational metafunction relates to how language represents experience or the real world, including processes, participants, and circumscriptions in an utterance. For this reason, the metafunctional meaning in the utterance “kamu mau carok ya sama saya (do you want to fight me?)” can be analyzed as in the table below. 1) Process The main verb in this sentence is “mau (want)”, which indicates a mental process as it relates to desire or intention. However, there is also an element of material process implied in the word “carok”, as carok is a physical act (armed combat) that can cause injury and loss of life. 2) Participant Past participants are actors involved in the discourse. There are two actors in the conversation, namely the perpetrator and the victim. a. "Kamu (you)": Refers to an interlocutor who is a victim in an act of carok. Mashud, Sailal Arimi An Identification of Language Uses in Case of Criminal Threatening in Sampang, Madura: A Forensic Linguistic Study 6610 b. "Saya (me)": Refers to the speaker as the one who challenges or asks the interlocutor for his/her wishes. 3) Circumstance Based on the linguistic data above, it is not explicitly mentioned in the sentence, but the presence of the word “ya (yes)” gives an indication that this word leads to confirmation of a certain situation or intention. Ideationally, this sentence describes a potential action (fight or conflict) involving two participants (speaker and interlocutor), focusing on whether the interlocutor has the intention to perform the action. Interpersonal Interpersonal metafunction is concerned with how language is used to establish and regulate social relationships between speakers and interlocutors, including the expression of attitudes, power, and social interaction. 1) Mode and modality This sentence is in the form of an interrogative (question), which usually indicates a request for information. However, in this context, the question is rhetorical and more like a challenge or threat. In the example “Kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya (do you want to carok me?”, the mode used is interrogative, but pragmatically it is not an ordinary question, but a form of threat. 2) Person attitude In this sentence, the use of the word “You (you)” as a personal pronominal emphasizes the direct relationship between the speaker and the interlocutor, which is challenging. The element “apa mau (want)” shows the modality of possibility or intention, which in this context is more provocative. The word 'carok', which is a Madurese cultural term, has a strong emotional charge and shows a distinctive social context, namely a challenge to duel as a form of conflict resolution. Textual In Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL), textual metafunction deals with how an utterance or text is organized to have cohesion and coherence. The main elements in this metafunction are theme-rhema, conjunction, and textual cohesion. 1) Theme - Rhema The sentence "Kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (do you want to fight with me?)” has the following theme-rhema structure: Theme : kamu ini (you are) → The initial part that is the starting point of the discourse, which refers to the interlocutor. Rhema : apa mau carok ya sama saya? (want to fight with me?) → The part that brings new information, namely the possibility of carok, is the IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 2, December 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 6611 core of communication. In this sentence, the theme “kamu ini (you are) serves to draw attention and emphasize that the interlocutor is the main focus, while the rhema “apa mau carok ya sama saya? (do you want to carok ya with me?)” carries the main content which is a challenge or provocation. 2) Conjunctions and textual cohesion Although there is no explicit conjunction in this sentence, cohesion is maintained through the use of the particle “ya (yes)”, which serves as a marker of social interaction and ensures that this statement remains related to the context of the conversation. 3) Lexical cohesion Kata "carok" menjadi elemen kohesi leksikal karena merujuk pada konsep budaya Madura yang sudah dikenal dalam komunitas penutur. Kata ini memperkuat konteks sosial dan kultural dalam ujaran. The word “carok” becomes a lexical cohesion element because it refers to a Madurese cultural concept that is already known in the speaker community. This word strengthens the social and cultural context of the utterance. Conclussion Based on the results and discussion above, the use of language in the criminal case of threatening in Sampang Madura fulfills the elements of threatening as stated in Article 89 of the Criminal Law Code (KUHP). One of the pieces of evidence of threatening language is in the language “Kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (do you want to carok me?)”. Based on the utterance, the perpetrator has violated the principles of cooperation; 1) violating the maxim of quantity because the information conveyed is irrelevant to the victim's statement, 2) violating the maxim of quality because there is no evidence or indication from the victim to oppose or fight with the perpetrator, 3) violating the maxim of relevance because the perpetrator's statement is irrelevant to the topic of conversation, and 4) violating the maxim of manner because the perpetrator's statement does not explicitly explain the meaning of “carok” so that it makes the victim feel afraid. In addition, based on the analysis of language variation, the situation of the conversation is in an informal situation because the perpetrator and the victim use an informal language style. Then, the cultural register is found in the word “carok” which shows that the perpetrator is an ethnic Madurese himself. In terms of metafunctional meaning, the perpetrator deliberately intends to threaten the victim because there is a mental process (desire) to finish off the victim's life. In addition, in terms of interpersonal language, the perpetrator did use the utterance “Kamu ini apa mau carok ya sama saya? (do you want to carok me?)” with interrogative mode, however, in terms of modality, the utterance means declarative. Forensic linguistics strengthens threat investigations by providing scientific Mashud, Sailal Arimi An Identification of Language Uses in Case of Criminal Threatening in Sampang, Madura: A Forensic Linguistic Study 6612 language analysis, but its effectiveness depends on combining linguistic evidence with other forensic and contextual data. Acknowledgment The authors thank the Indonesia Endowment Fund for Education Agency (LPDP) for financial support. References Alweni, M. K. (2019). Kajian Tindak Pidana Pemerasan Berdasarkan Pasal 368 KUHP. Jurnal Lex Crimen, 8(3), 47–54. Andrian, K. (2022). Penegakan Hukum Terhadap Pelaku Tindak Pidana Pengancaman Dengan Kekerasan Melalui Media Sosial. Jurnal Justisia : Jurnal Ilmu Hukum, Perundang-Undangan Dan Pranata Sosial, 7(1), 268. https://doi.org/10.22373/justisia.v7i1.13220 Arimi, S., Adelawati, M., Mada, U. G., Humaniora, J. S., Malang, K., & Yogyakarta, D. I. (2024). KASUS HUKUM AHMAD DHANI : KAJIAN LINGUISTIK FORENSIK. 19. Asep Supriyana, Krisanjaya, dan A. W. (2017). STRUKTUR DAN MAKNA VERBA PADA PERSIDANGAN PERMOHONAN JUDICIAL REVIEW TERHADAP UNDANG-UNDANG: KAJIAN LINGUISTIK FORENSIK DI MAHKAMAH KONSTITUSI. Arkhais, 53(9), 1689–1699. Beni Wirawan, Hanuring Ayu, H. M. (2022). PENYIDIKAN TERHADAP TINDAK PIDANA PEMERASAN DI WILAYAH HUKUM POLSEK WONOSARI. Jurnal Inovasi Penelitian, 2(10), 3155–3160. Giménez García, R., & Queralt, S. (2024). Grounds for Exemption from Criminal Liability? How Forensic Linguistics Can Contribute to Terrorism Trials. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37(2), 623–646. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10049-4 Herman, L. A., & Marlina, L. (2022). An Analysis of Quantity Maxim Violation in Movie Richard Kletter & Michele Samit Stolen by My Mother: Kamiyah Mobley (2020). English Language and Literature, 11(1), 63. https://doi.org/10.24036/ell.v11i1.116261 I Gede Krismon Andika Putra, Putu Devi Maharani, & Putu Desi Anggerina Hikmaharyanti. (2023). Context Situation Analysis of Characters’ Utterance in “Little” Movie: Maxim of Quality Violation. ELYSIAN JOURNAL : English Literature, Linguistics and Translation Studies, 3(1), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.36733/elysian.v3i1.4266 I Putu Bagus Eko Hadhi Santosa, I. M. A. D. I. N. L. (2019). Aspek Hukum Tuntutan Jaksa Penuntut Umum Tentang Tindak Pidana Pemerasan dan Pengancaman. Jurnal Analogi Hukum, 1(1), 88–92. I Wayan Kasu Wardana, Putu Amanda Gayatri, P. S. P. (2014). Kajian Linguistik Forensik Dalam Penyidikan Kasus Pembunuhan Engeline. Journal of Arts and IDEAS, Vol. 13, No. 2, December 2025 ISSN 2338-4778 (Print) ISSN 2548-4192 (Online) 6613 Humanities, 3(5), 5. http://theartsjournal.org/index.php/site/article/view/478/270 Khusna, F. A., Aliyah, S. L., & Asyifah, D. A. (2021). Investigating the Use of Maxims in the Efl Class Presentation: a Pragmatic Study. SAGA: Journal of English Language Teaching and Applied Linguistics, 2(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.21460/saga.2021.22.80 Kotzé, E. F. (2010). Author identification from opposing perspectives in forensic linguistics. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 28(2), 185–197. https://doi.org/10.2989/16073614.2010.519111 Kusno, A., Arifin, M. B., & Mulawarman, W. G. (2022). Pengungkapan Pemerasan dan Pengancaman pada Alat Bukti Kasus Pinjaman Online (Kajian Linguistik Forensik). Diglosia: Jurnal Kajian Bahasa, Sastra, Dan Pengajarannya, 5(3), 555–570. https://doi.org/10.30872/diglosia.v5i3.423 Loakes, D. (2024). Automatic speech recognition and the transcription of indistinct forensic audio: how do the new generation of systems fare? Frontiers in Communication, 9(February), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1281407 Masruddin, M., & Nasriandi, N. (2022). Lexical and Syntactical Errors Performed by Junior High School Student in Writing Descriptive Text. IDEAS: Journal on English Language Teaching and Learning, Linguistics and Literature, 10(1), 1094-1100. Masruddin, M., Amir, F., Langaji, A., & Rusdiansyah, R. (2023). Conceptualizing linguistic politeness in light of age. International Journal of Society, Culture & Language, 11(3), 41-55. M. A. K. Halliday, R. H. (1989). Language, Context, and Text: Aspects of Language and Social-semiotic Perspective. Oxford University Press. M.A.K. Halliday, J. J. W. (2009). Continuum Companion to Systemic Functional Linguistics (Issue 112). Continumm International Publishing Group. Maulana, I. P. A. P., & Arimi, S. (2022). Sikap Penilaian Dalam Naskah Perkara Nomor 103/Puu-Xviii/2020 Tentang Cipta Kerja: Kajian Linguistik Forensik. Metahumaniora, 12(2), 162. https://doi.org/10.24198/metahumaniora.v12i2.40816 McMenamin, G. R. (2002). Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic Linguistics. CRC Press. Olsson, J. (2009). Word Crime: Solvng Crime Through Forensic Linguistics (First, pp. 1–17). Continuum. Paul Grice. (1991). Studies in The Way of Words. In Harvard University Press. Harvard Uviversity Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199587292.003.0015 Pescuma, V. N., Serova, D., Lukassek, J., Sauermann, A., Schäfer, R., Adli, A., Bildhauer, F., Egg, M., Hülk, K., Ito, A., Jannedy, S., Kordoni, V., Kuehnast, M., Kutscher, S., Mashud, Sailal Arimi An Identification of Language Uses in Case of Criminal Threatening in Sampang, Madura: A Forensic Linguistic Study 6614 Lange, R., Lehmann, N., Liu, M., Lütke, B., Maquate, K., … Knoeferle, P. (2023). Situating language register across the ages, languages, modalities, and cultural aspects: Evidence from complementary methods. Frontiers in Psychology, 13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.964658 Rahmat, W. (2015). Bahasa Ancaman Dalam Teks Kaba Sabai Nan Aluih Berbasis Pendekatan Linguistik Forensik. Jurnal Arbitrer, 2(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.25077/ar.2.1.81-97.2015 Risa Maulana Ishaq, & I Gde Agoes Caskara Surya Putra. (2023). An Analysis of Maxim Relevance by Main Character in Taxi Driver Film. Austronesian: Journal of Language Science & Literature, 2(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.59011/austronesian.2.2.2023.86-96 Ronald Wardhaugh, J. M. F. (2015). An Introdoction to Sociolinguistics (Seventh Ed). Blackwell Publishers. Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of Crime. Subuki, M., Nuryani, Sholeha, M., Hudaa, S., & Hariyanto, B. (2023). Konstruksi argumentasi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Gunung Sitoli No . 07 / Pid . B / 2013 / PN-GS : Kajian linguistik forensik. KEMBARA: Jurnal Keilmuan Bahasa, Sastra Dan Pengajarannya, 9(1), 89–102. Sugiyantiningtyas, T., Pastika, I. W., Simpen, I. W., & Sudipa, I. N. (2023). Defamation on Whatsapp Story Text: A Forensic Linguistics View. The International Journal of Social Sciences World , 5(1), 222–226. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7812424