criminal psychology-第87节
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
While the speaker speaks about things that he does not believe； and the reality of which he takes no stock in； his auditor； at the same time； knows right well what the former has said； he understands correctly and does not blame the speaker for having expressed himself altogether unintelligibly。'' This occurs very frequently in daily routine； without causing much difficulty in human intercourse； but it ought； for this reason； to occur inversely in our conversation with witnesses and accused。 I know that the manner of speaking just described is frequently used when a witness wants to clothe some definite suspicion without expressing it explicitly。 In such cases； e。 g。； the examiner as well as the witness believes that X is the criminal。 For some reason； perhaps because X is a close relation of the witness or of ‘‘the man higher up；'' neither of them； judge nor witness； wishes to utter the truth openly； and so they feel round the subject for an interminable time。 If now； both think the same thing； there results at most only a loss of time； but no other misfortune。 When； however； each thinks of a different object； e。 g。； each thinks of another criminal； but each believes mistakenly that he agrees with the other； their separating without having made explicit what they think； may lead to harmful misunderstandings。 If the examiner then believes that the witness agrees with him and proceeds upon this only apparently certain basis； the case may become very bad。 The results are the same when a confession is discussed with a suspect； i。 e。； when the judge thinks that the suspect would like to confess； but only suggests confession； while the latter has never even thought of it。 The one thing alone our work permits of is open and clear speaking； any confused form of expression is evil。
＇1＇ Cf。 Zeitschrift fur Vlkeranthropologie。 Vol。 XIX。 1889。 ‘‘Wie denkt das yolk ber die Sprache？''
Nevertheless； confusions often occur involuntarily； and as they can not be avoided they must be understood。 Thus； it is characteristic to understand something unknown in terms of some known example； i。 e。； the Romans who first saw an elephant； called it ‘‘bos lucani。'' Similarly ‘‘wood…dog'' = wolf； ‘‘sea…cat'' = monkey； etc。 These are forms of common usage； but every individual is accustomed to make such identifications whenever he meets with any strange object。 He speaks； therefore； to some degree in images； and if his auditor is not aware of the fact he can not understand him。 His speaking so may be discovered by seeking out clearly whether and what things were new and foreign to the speaker。 When this is learned it may be assumed that he will express himself in images when considering the unfamiliar object。 Then it will not be difficult to discover the nature and source of the images。
Similar difficulties arise with the usage of foreign terms。 It is of course familiar that their incorrect use is not confined to the uneducated。 I have in mind particularly the weakening of the meaning in our own language。 The foreign word； according to Volkmar； gets its significance by robbing the homonymous native word of its definiteness and freshness； and is therefore sought out by all persons who are unwilling to call things by their right names。 The ‘‘_triste_ position'' is far from being so sad as the ‘‘sad'' position。 I should like to know how a great many people could speak； if they were not permitted to say _malheur_； _m
