See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/314426867

Forensic Linguistics: An Overview of the Intersection and Interaction of

Language and Law

Article · December 2013

DOI: 10.5755/j01.sal.0.23.5020

CITATIONS READS

2 2,006

1 author:

Maite Correa
Colorado State University
15 PUBLICATIONS   83 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Handbook of Research and Practice in Heritage Language Education View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Maite Correa on 23 March 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

ISSN 1648-2824 KALBŲ STUDIJOS. 2013. 23 NR. * STUDIES ABOUT LANGUAGES. 2013. NO. 23

KALBOTYRA / LINGUISTICS
Forensic Linguistics: An Overview of the Intersection and Interaction of
Language and Law
Maite Correa

http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.sal.0.23.5020

Abstract. Forensic Linguistics (FL) is a relatively new subfield within applied linguistics that studies the
different intersections between language and the legal field, which is heavily linguistic by nature. In order to
have a fair, legal and effective procedure, anyone involved in a legal process (lawyers, judges, police officers,
members of a jury, etc.) benefits from possessing a certain awareness of linguistic principles. With this purpose,
the expert testimony of a linguist could contribute to the understanding or recognition of possible
interpretations or points of view that might have gone otherwise unnoticed. This article provides the general
linguist with an overview of the broad field of FL and highlights the different ways the discipline can contribute
to the criminal justice system. It presents a summary of some of the most well-known and discussed legal cases
and outlines the intersections between applied linguistics (mainly pragmatics, discourse analysis, and
sociolinguistics) and this emerging field in three interrelated areas: (1) language as the medium of
communication between law enforcement authorities and suspects/witnesses or as the medium of legal
argumentation in the courtroom, (2) language of the law (issues of intelligibility, interpretation and construction
of legal language), and (3) crimes of language and linguistic evidence (use, validity, and reliability in the
courtroom). Challenges and limitations of the field are also discussed.
Keywords: forensic linguistics, intersections, law, legal language/legalese, pragmatics.

Introduction Linguistic Evidence

Law is codified in, and later mediated through, language. Forensic linguistic evidence is any type of text (spoken,
This means that without language, there is no law. However, signed or written) that can be used in a criminal
the language of the law is very different from everyday investigation or as evidence in court. These texts include
language, which often results in disadvantages for the emergency calls, ransom notes, anonymous letters/calls,
ordinary user. For this reason, the shades of meaning of suicide letters, text messages, police records, confession
legal language often have to be meticulously reviewed by statements, etc. Although the most well-known task that
forensic linguists, i.e., linguists who apply their knowledge forensic linguists undertake as expert witnesses might be
of linguistic theory to the forensic context of the law: author identification, they also deal with other crimes of
language, such as threats, bribes, conspiracy, or perjury,
[J]ust as physicians are trained to see things in an X-ray
that the average person with excellent vision cannot see. So among others.
linguists are trained to see and hear structures that are Author Identification
invisible to lay persons (Shuy, 1993, p. xvii).
Forensic stylistics (or stylometry) is a technique that
The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the
Forensic Linguistics (FL) field by highlighting the different utilizes the linguistic analysis of writing style for the purpose
ways this discipline has made an important contribution to of authorship identification (McMenamin, 2010, p. 487).
the criminal justice system. The next sections present some Based on the premise that there is individual variation in the
of the most well-known and discussed legal cases and use of language and that much of this variation is
outline the intersections between FL and applied linguistics unconscious (and thus difficult to disguise), in order
in three interrelated areas: (1) language as the medium of establish the linguistic fingerprint of a specific text, several
communication between law enforcement authorities and methods of rigorous quantitative and qualitative analysis can
suspects/witnesses, (2) language of the law (issues of be used.
intelligibility, interpretation and construction of legal
language), and (3) crimes of language and linguistic As a general rule, the forensic linguist compares the text
evidence (use, validity and reliability in the courtroom). presented as evidence (questioned text) to other texts
written/spoken by the presumed author (known writings)
and determines the likelihood that the same (author
identification) or different (authorship exclusion) person

5
produced the questioned text. One famous example of Crimes of Language
forensic speaker identification is the Prinzivalli case (Labov
There are a variety of crimes that are committed through
& Harris, 1994). Prinzivalli was an employee of Pan
language alone, such as solicitation, conspiracy, bribery,
American Airlines suspected of making telephone bomb
perjury, defamation, threatening, and plagiarism, among
threats to his employer in Los Angeles because: a) he was
others (Coulthard & Johnson, 2007; Fraser, 1998; Shuy,
known to be an unhappy employee, and b) he was a New
1993). The main difference between these and other types
Yorker (the caller making the threat was believed to have a
of crimes where linguistic evidence is involved is that:
New York accent). Labov was given a tape with the original
threat and another one with samples produced by the [o]ne does not actually need to do harm to the person
suspect. Based on the distribution of certain vowels, he threatened, give the bribe, have the wife killed, or engage in
determined that the person who issued the threat was sex with the prostitute. The language threat, offer, or
actually from Eastern New England and not from New York solicitation is enough to constitute a crime (Shuy, 1993, p. 1).
City (Prinzivalli was acquitted). In these cases, the issue generally is not determining
Another occasion where dialectic variation gave information authorship, but rather in identifying whether these crimes
about the suspect’s identity was the case of a ransom note happened or not. As these crimes are, in essence, speech
analyzed by Shuy (2001). Although the suspect included acts, it must be taken into account not only what has been
misspellings of words such as dautter for daughter or kops said (locutionary act), but also what is meant (illocutionary
for cops, his correct spelling of more difficult words such as act) and the effect it has on the listener (perlocutionary
precious, diaper or watching led Shuy to believe that the act). For example, although a threat, a promise or a
author of the note was trying to appear less educated than he warning might have the same effect on the listener (getting
was. However, what really helped determine the writer of him to do something) it could only be considered a threat if
the note was the uncommon use of devil strip, a term there is intimidation involved (Fraser, 1998):
denoting the strip of grass between the sidewalk and the Table 1. Contrasts among threatening, warning, advising, and
curb that is only used in the area surrounding Akron, Ohio.
promising (Shuy, 1993, p. 98)
As there was only one educated man from Akron in the
suspect list, the police did not take long to find other clues Threatening Warning Advising Promising
that also incriminated him. To the speaker’s X
benefit
Telephone text messages (SMSs) are another type of
linguistic evidence that has increasingly been used in court. To the hearer’s X X X
benefit
For example, in the case of Danielle Jones, a girl who
To the hearer’s
disappeared in 2001, two messages that were sent from her detriment
X
phone to her uncle after her disappearance were crucial in
From speaker’s X X X
identifying her possible abductor and killer. Coulthard perspective
(2008) was asked to compare the 65 texts that the girl had
From hearer’s X
sent in the three days previous to her disappearance with perspective
those two last texts in question. Based on a series of
Speaker controls X X
linguistic choices absent from, or rare in, the Danielle outcome
corpus, he determined that “it was fairly likely” that she Hearer controls X X
did not write them, which meant that someone else outcome
pretending to be her probably wrote them (her uncle, in
this case) (Coulthard & Johnson, 2007, p. 202). As the information in Table 1 shows, when uttering a
Another occasion in which a linguist could have been threat, the speaker is in full control: it is generated from
called to provide expert testimony was the case of four his/her perspective, it is for his/her benefit and he/she is the
men convicted for having killed a paperboy. One of the one in control of the outcome. Solan and Tiersma (2005)
four men, Patrick Molloy, made a confession admitting to mention the case of Hoffman, a young man who sent
killing the boy, but he later said that the police forced him Ronald Reagan a letter that said “Ronnie, Listen Chump!
to confess. The police claimed that they had a recording of Resign or You’ll Get Your Brains Blown Out”. The use of
an interview prior to the confession in which he also the passive voice (vs. the active: “I will blow your brains
admitted to the same crime. Molloy denied that this out”) leaves the agent unspecified, which opens the
confession ever took place and alleged that the police had possibility that this is a prediction or warning and that
fabricated it after the fact. Coulthard concluded that, based someone else could kill him (the same way a father tells
on the uniqueness principle, which states that the same his daughter “Do not play with the pan or you will get
person telling the same story at two different points in time burned”). In that case, if the outcome is not in the hands of
would select “an overlapping but different set of the speaker, it could not be considered as a threat.
lexicogrammatical choices” (2005, p. 49), both texts were However, the jury thought the opposite and Hoffman was
too similar in vocabulary and phrasing to have been convicted to four years in prison for threatening the
produced independently in two separate occasions: one president (U.S. v. Hoffman).
was derived from the other or both were derived from a The concept of conversational contamination, developed
third one. This led to the conclusion that the written by Shuy (1993), is also paramount in determining whether
confession was indeed fabricated. a person committed a crime of language or not. In a

6
conversation where, for example, conspiracy or solicitation 95%, the many variables that play a role in forensic
takes place, it is very important to look at who introduced linguistic author identification can considerably affect its
the topic and how the other person responded. For reliability. For example, in the cases analyzed for this
example, agreeing with a plan by giving more details on section, there was often sufficient linguistic evidence to
how it is to be carried out is very different from responding support an identification or exclusion hypothesis. However,
“uh-huh” or remaining silent. Shuy presents the example of the linguist will not always be fortunate enough to find a
a Japanese engineer who was accused of consenting to buy word or other piece of evidence that leads to a solid
internal product secrets from an undercover FBI agent. conclusion. For this reason, many linguistic analyses may be
When analyzing the conversation, it can be seen that he inconclusive, and consequently, not used in court (and not
responded “uh-huh” several times, but he never elaborated reported in the literature).
on the plan. Shuy concludes that “uh-huh” cannot mean
The use of pragmatics in forensic investigation is not
agreement to the new information presented by the FBI
without its limitations, either. For example, the difference
agent, but instead it is a marker to signal that the addressee
between locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts
is listening or understanding (consistent with the Japanese
is not always clear, which makes attribution of intentionality
culture of politeness).
highly problematic. Additionally, relying on audiotapes
Another example in which conversation analysis shed without taking into account body language or trusting
some light on the nature of the interaction was the case of witnesses’ accounts of what they think was said (vs. what
an athlete accused of conspiracy to sell drugs (Solan & was actually said) might render evidence inaccurate or
Tiersma, 2005). The linguist in charge of analyzing the inadmissible in court.
evidence—a taped conversation between the dealer and the
Language of the Law: Intelligibility and Interpretation
athlete—concluded that the use of the singular pronoun I
of Legal Language
by the dealer (vs. the plural we) was an indicator that he
planned to act in an individual capacity and not with the The ordinary person has to deal with a number of legal
athlete. documents on a regular basis (real estate, end-user license
agreements, Medicare forms, military disability forms,
Finally, in another case mentioned by Solan and Tiersma, a
lease agreements, contracts, statutes, deeds, wills, and all
man called Lawrence Gerenstein was accused of conspiring
kind of policies, among others). In order to be explicit and
and soliciting to kill his wife. Even in the absence of a direct
avoid the ambiguities present in everyday speech, all of
request for the other man to kill his wife, he incriminated
these legal documents need to make use of:
himself by discussing different types of weapons that could
be used to perpetrate the crime. […] a register marked by redundancy (e.g. repetition of full
noun phrases instead of pronouns), technical terms with
What can the (forensic) linguist do? precise definitions (to reduce ambiguity), complex sentence
The duty of a forensic linguist, as in any case of forensic structures (through which information otherwise available
from non-linguistic context is given expression) and
investigation, is to see what might not be evident to the formulaic expressions (to assure consistency across cases)
naked eye: (Hall, Smith & Wicaksono, 2011, p. 279).
[L]inguists know what to listen for in a conversation. They The downside of this degree of explicitness is that, more
listen for topic initiations, topic recycling, response
strategies, interruption patterns, intonation markers, pause
often than not, legal language ends up being “extremely
lengths, speech event structure, speech acts, inferencing, user-unfriendly for its non-expert consumers” (p. 279). As
ambiguity resolution, transcript accuracy, and many other a result, forensic linguists have carried out a considerable
things. Scientific training enables linguists to categorize amount of research that shows, contrary to popular belief,
structures that are alike and to compare or contrast legal language used in everyday transactions is only
structures that are not. Linguists understand the significance accessible to a reduced percentage of the population.
of context in the search for meaning in a conversation and
are unwilling to agree with interpretations wrenched from In his analyses of pension plan documents and credit card
context by either the prosecution or the defense (Shuy, 1993, notices, Stygall (2010) noted that these lengthy, complex
p. xviii). texts “present excellent examples of legal language
unintelligible to most people” (pp. 51–52). The problem,
Forensic linguists called to provide information on the
according to that study, is that although the literacy rate of
authorship of a text must have a strong background in
the US population is 99%, the level of literacy required to
several areas of linguistic analysis: sociolinguistic variation,
understand the nuances of this type of texts is only attained
stylistics, phonetics, syntax, dialectology, discourse analysis,
by 3-4% of adults nationwide (p. 59), which leaves the rest
etc. In the same way, those who deal with crimes of
in a disturbingly disadvantaged position.
language need to possess strong training in pragmatics,
among other areas, in order to identify whether a crime or Although judges often rely on dictionaries to provide them
speech act was committed or not. After they reach their with the official definition of words found in legislation,
conclusions, these have to be transmitted in a simple, non- forensic linguists prefer to base their definitions on the
technical manner to their audience. observation of actual usage of those words (Goddard,
1996). The reason is the number of common, everyday
Limitations
words that, when used as legal jargon, have very different
Although regular methods of forensic identification—such meanings (legal homonyms). Stratman and Dahl (1996,
as DNA or fingerprinting—have accuracy rates approaching p. 212), for example, mentioned the case of a man who had

7
a restraining order lodged against him (State v. Hardy). d) nominalizations and passives;
When he slipped an apology letter under his partner’s door,
e) modal verbs;
he was accused of having “molest[ed], interfere[ed] or
menac[ed]” her. Clearly, the issue here is that the defendant f) multiple negation;
was unaware of the legal definition of those terms and did
g) long and complex sentences.
not think that an innocent apology might actually be
considered by the law as an act of molestation or In most of these cases, a solution that does not compromise
menacing. This case led the researchers to conduct a study the legal ramifications of the language can be found (as has
in which they provided ordinary readers with a restraining been done with relative success in California (Tiersma,
order, four different scenarios, and asked them what 2010). The explanation or defining of unusual or confusing
scenarios violated the order. Researchers concluded that, terms, the use of verb forms instead of their nominalizations,
after reading the restraining orders, most readers still failed or the avoidance of the passive, multiple negatives or
to determine whether there had been a violation or not excessive clause-embedding can improve substantially the
(they said that the restraining orders had not been violated understandability index of many legal texts.
when, in fact, it was).
Limitations
Several pieces of research have analyzed the complexity of
language in jury instructions and how faulty While it may seem straightforward to prove that a text is
comprehension can result in fatal consequences. Forensic dense, complex or difficult to understand for the average
linguist Levi reported a death penalty case (U.S. ex rel. layperson, it is more difficult to demonstrate whether a
Free v. McGinnis) in which Levi herself was called to particular person (mis)understood it or not. For this reason,
provide expert testimony and demonstrate that the majority although forensic linguists may feel limited when it comes
of the members of a jury could have misunderstood central to using this type of evidence in court, they can indeed
points of law that were “essential” to apply in this case work on making these documents more understandable and
(1993, p. 23). On the same note, Saxton (1998) found that, accessible.
although 97% of a group of jurors claimed to have Language During Legal Procedures and Courtroom
understood the instructions given to them before the trial, Discourse
40% of them still believed (after the trial) that having a
defendant charged with a crime was strong evidence that In addition to written laws and legal documents, language
they had committed the crime (p. 96). Additionally, and is also the medium of communication between law
quite ironically, looking up confusing words in the enforcement authorities and suspects/witnesses, and also
dictionary is strictly prohibited for jurors. As a the medium of legal argumentation in the courtroom. There
consequence, those who have tried have been accused of has been a great deal of research on: a) interactions
misconduct for consulting an outside source (Tiersma, between police officers and suspects (before, during and
1999), which strongly highlights the need to revisit after arrest); b) vulnerable populations as witnesses or
accessibility of legal language for the average citizen. defendants; and c) faulty court interpretation.

What can the (forensic) linguist do? Interactions Between Police Officers and Suspects and
Courtroom Discourse
There is no doubt that each discipline needs its own jargon
to facilitate communication within the profession. In order to understand the intricacies of any interaction
However, it is also undeniable that people have the right to between interlocutors, Paul Grice’s Cooperative Principle
understand the laws that pertain to them. If comprehension (1989) and the theory of speech acts is helpful (Austin,
of legal language is often impaired by “linguistic features 1975).
that are not specifically legal” (Tiersma, 1999, p. 203), According to the Cooperative Principle (Grice, 1989), there
there is no reason why that language cannot indeed be are four maxims that need to be respected for efficient
modified in order to be made more accessible for its users communication:
(as the Plain Language Association International (PLAIN)
has demanded since 1993). 1. Quality: do not say what you believe to be false or
that for which you lack adequate evidence.
As a starting point, linguists can work with document
designers and attorneys to conduct usability testing on a 2. Quantity: make your contribution neither more nor
representative (in terms of literacy level) sample of the less than is required.
target audience (Stygall, 2010, p. 64). Then, the linguist 3. Relation: be relevant.
could suggest different phrasings while the attorneys make
sure that the meaning is still the intended one. As 4. Manner: avoid obscurity of expression and
suggested by Tiersma (1999), special attention should be ambiguity; be brief and orderly.
paid to the following: When the speaker flouts a maxim (without the apparent
a) technical vocabulary: legal homonyms, unfamiliar intention to mislead), the hearer then tries to reconcile
legal terms…; what the speaker said with the assumption that the speaker
is cooperating. It is precisely this situation that leads the
b) archaic, formal and unusual words; hearer to infer what the speaker means (conversational
c) impersonal constructions; implicatures):

8
 He has said that p; there is no reason to suppose that he is to remain silent, why do approximately 80% of them still
not observing the maxims, or at least the Cooperative answer police questions before they hire a lawyer
Principle; he could not be doing this unless he thought that (Ainsworth, 2010, p. 111)? One of the possible answers to
q; he knows (and knows that I know that he knows) that I this question might be that, as we have seen with other
can see the supposition that he thinks that q is required; he
has done nothing to stop me thinking that q; he intends me
types of legal language, the Miranda warning:
to think, or at least willing to allow me to think, that q; and violates most of the norms of spoken English and would be
so he has implicated that q (Grice, 1989, p. 31). challenging to parse even in formal written English and it
would be a difficult utterance to understand fully even in
For example, in the following interaction: the best of circumstances (p. 115).
A: “How do you know her?”
Although this warning informs the arrestees of their right
B: “We used to work in the same building.” to “the presence of an attorney during any questioning”,
this right has to be exercised by the suspect through
the apparent violation of the maxim of relation (the
another performative speech act (requesting a lawyer).
response is unrelated to the question) implies, assuming
Ainsworth (2010) noted that the use of an interrogative
that B is cooperating, that they must have met at work
such as “Could I call my lawyer?” or “Do you mind if I
(otherwise, this response would not make sense). In this
have my lawyer with me?” can prevent the arrestee from
way, what is said, what is intended by the speaker, and
getting a lawyer, as an interrogative does not necessarily
what is understood by the hearer is not necessarily the
have to be interpreted as a request. Again, this is
same. Speech acts are, then, analyzed on three levels
paradoxical, since we have already seen that interrogatives
(Austin, 1975):
can and are indeed interpreted as commands (“Does the
1. Locutionary: what is actually said; trunk open?”). The only difference here is that, in this
interaction, the one asking the question is not the person in
2. Illocutionary: speaker’s intent;
power.
3. Perlocutionary: effect of the speech act on others.
In the same way that illegally procured evidence cannot be
The perlocutionary level is intrinsically related to the used in court, a confession that is found to be involuntary
power relationship between the interlocutors. Solan & or coerced cannot be admitted into evidence either. In his
Tiersma (2005), for example, mentioned a case analysis of police-suspect interactions, Shuy (1997)
(Schneckloth v. Bustamonte) in which an ostensible stressed the coercive nature of questions to suspects and
request by a police officer (“Does the trunk open?”) was the difficulty they have remaining silent in the
interpreted as a command or order (“open the trunk”) by interrogation room:
the driver of the car, who proceeded to open the trunk, and Even if suspects know what remaining silent means, it is
in doing so consented to its search. According to the quite another thing to be able to do it. Most human beings
Cooperative Principle, there is no apparent reason why the are uncomfortable with silence while in the presence of
police officer would want to know whether the trunk opens others because it violates the cooperative principle [….]
or not, which leads the listener to infer that this is, in fact, a Can one engage in small talk, for example, and still meet
request to open it (maxim of relation). According to the the requirement of ‘remaining silent’? [….] It has been my
theory of speech acts, although the police officer is only experience that many suspects who invoke their right to
asking about the trunk working properly (locutionary act), remain silent often continue to talk anyway [….] It is as
the driver of the car interprets the speaker’s intent as an though suspects, having invoked this right, now consider
anything else they might say as ‘off the record’ (Shuy,
order (illocutionary act) and he opens the trunk 1997, pp. 187-188).
(perlocutionary act). Since illegally procured evidence
(without a warrant or consent) cannot be admitted in court, Some examples of coercion techniques that are often used
it is important to determine whether the speech act was during interrogations (and sometimes even in the
indeed a question (to which a response like “yes, it does courtroom) are the following (Shuy, 1997, p. 181):
open” would have sufficed), or a command by a person in
1. Yes/no questions;
a power position. In this particular case, the Supreme Court
found that the suspect had given voluntary consent to the 2. Tag questions;
search and the stolen checks found in the trunk were
3. Questions that presuppose a fact that has not yet been
admitted as evidence.
established;
Another issue that has received a great deal of attention by
4. Promises (plea bargain) and/or threats.
forensic linguists is the administration of the Miranda
warning, which is a set of rights that are read to a suspect Yes/No questions display more control by the questioner
upon their arrest and before interrogation. Although its than open-questions. As a consequence, it is not surprising
utterance is assumed to constitute a performative speech to find more of the former in cross-examination
act at the locutionary level (the warning cannot happen (adversarial and combative) and more of the latter in direct
unless it is actually said), the perlocutionary effect it has on examination (supportive and cooperative) (Ehrlich, 2010,
the person being arrested (whether they understand their p. 276). Tag questions and questions that include
rights or not and whether they say they do) is of critical presuppositions are even more powerful in controlling
importance. In other words, if the reading of these rights evidence because, regardless of the answer, the
informs and/or reminds the arrestee that they have the right

9
presupposition “continues to be granted” (p. 268). between them and other non-Aboriginal English speakers.
Consider the following three questions: This population, who values indirectness, for example, is
unaccustomed to direct questioning (either-or or wh-
a) Did you have intercourse with her?
questions) and eye-contact. Additionally, they often display
b) You had intercourse with her, didn’t you? the “conversational pattern of agreeing with whatever is
c) When you had intercourse with her, you said being asked, even if the speaker does not understand the
something to her, didn’t you? question” (p. 244) and value silence positively, which is
often interpreted by Western societies as “evasion,
The difference between the examples above is that, while ignorance, confusion, or even guilt” (p. 243). As a
(a) is a yes/no question, (b) is a question that presupposes consequence, and as in the other cases seen in this section,
the answer is yes, and (c) does not even question whether they are more vulnerable to self-incrimination and their
there was intercourse because it is already taken for testimony has been judged to be insufficient, inadequate,
granted (for a complete categorization of questions in unreliable, or simply invalid (with all the ramifications that
court, see Harris, 1984). this entails).
Vulnerable Populations as Witnesses, Suspects or Court Interpretation
Defendants
Depending on the case, hard-of-hearing persons and
Children, juveniles and people with communication, speakers with limited English proficiency (LEP) sitting on
cognitive or other mental disorders are especially susceptible the accused bench have the right to the assistance of an
to waiving their rights, changing their statements, making interpreter (in some states, witnesses and jurors do as
false confessions, or accepting plea agreements (Cloud et al., well). What is essential to note in these cases is that, when
2002; Drizin & Leo, 2004; Redlich, 2007): the services of a court interpreter are used, it is their
The words of the Miranda warnings themselves are interpreted words that are transcribed and, thus, become
‘meaningless’ to mentally retarded suspects, who simply do the official record. Likewise, members of the jury are
not understand them [….] Disabled suspects’ waivers of the instructed to take only the interpreted words into
rights described in the Miranda warnings are ‘voluntary, consideration, even when or if they understand the original
knowing, and intelligent’ only if we are willing to language. Although these interpreters have to uphold high
manipulate and distort the very meaning of these terms. standards of professionalism and ethical conduct, it is not
[….] When subjected to the pressures of custodial
interrogation, mentally retarded people are more likely than
uncommon to find interpretation issues that might, in the
others to confess to crimes they did not commit (Cloud et long run, invalidate a statement.
al., 2002, p. 591). In her ethnographic observation of interpreted judicial
In their analysis of 125 cases of proven interrogation- proceedings, Berk-Seligson (2002) revealed not only that
induced false confessions, Drizin and Leo (2004) found interpreting is an inherently highly complicated process,
that interrogators’ manipulative methods of psychological but also that the mismatch between an interpreter’s role
interrogation often lead an innocent person in a vulnerable and what others (court personnel and clients) perceive it to
group to make a false confession. Redlich (2007) went be might result in catastrophic consequences. Eades (2010)
further and mentioned that even though 70% to 100% of pointed out five common arguments against the use of
juveniles involved in judicial proceedings have interpreters in the courtroom:
“diagnosable disorders”, many are still questioned as 1) Will the interpreter modify an answer (for or against
healthy adults, which makes the likelihood of false the defendant’s case)?
confessions even more alarming.
2) Will the interpreter help the witness (or does the
Minors and people with mental disorders are not only defendant expect the interpreter to help them)?
vulnerable populations when they are suspects or
defendants in a case, but also when they are witnesses or, 3) Will the use of an interpreter give extra time for the
more importantly, victims of abuse. Aldridge (2010), Eades witness to prepare an answer (if the defendant
(2010), and Ellison (2002), for example, each explored the understands English partially)?
interaction between suspects/defendants and their 4) Will it be harder to gauge the credibility of the
interviewers and concluded that, even though some witness?
measures to protect them are usually put in place,
5) Will the interpreter provide a ‘buffer’ between lawyer
cross-examination is littered with linguistic devices and
and witness?
interrogative techniques that disadvantage those with
language capacity limited by immaturity or disability One of the major obstacles, according to Berk-Seligson
(Ellison, 2002, p. 10). (2002), is that the pragmatic and syntactic content of
Lastly, in the group of vulnerable populations are found interpreted testimony does not usually receive much
people whose cultural or linguistic background prevents attention:
them from being accurately protected or represented in the [A]ll interpreters tended to omit those seemingly
adversarial system. Eades (1994) examined the unimportant features of speech style that can impinge on
communicative disadvantages that Aboriginal Australians the evaluation of witnesses’ speech by those judging them.
experienced in police interviews and courtroom The interpreters’ stylistically inaccurate renditions can
interactions due to cultural and linguistic differences therefore potentially alter the outcome of the case. The

10
 results of this study show that court interpreters are not provide specialized training for interviewers (detectives,
consistently interpreting ‘truly and faithfully’ and that lawyers…) so they are able to evaluate and recognize the
linguistic training is required for interpreters to become linguistic characteristics of a suspect and act accordingly.
aware of the importance of style in the courtroom (Hale,
2002, p. 44). When deciding whether a defendant needs an interpreter or
not, the presiding judicial officer (the judge or magistrate)
For example, while Laster (1990) observed that by adding
makes use of questions such as “How long have you been
sir and madam markers of politeness, jurors tended to
in this country?”, or “Where did you learn English?”.
consider the witness more competent and convincing than
However, all linguists would agree that these questions
when they were not. McMenamin (2002) found that
have nothing to do with the complexity or type of language
making the English version more vulgar than the original
that will be used in the courtroom (Eades, 2010, p. 66).
(by adding a word like fucking to a phrase that does not
Linguists, then, can assess the linguistic competence and
contain it) “reflects negatively on the speaker (defendant)”
performance of non-natives and decide whether they have
(p. 249).
basic interpersonal communication skills, or if they can, in
However, interpretation does not exclusively take place in fact, detect “subtle differences in word choice, tricky
the courtroom. The reading of the Miranda rights and the manipulation of presuppositions [or] three questions in
interviews that take place between the police and the one” (p. 67). In order to give the defendants the same
suspects are all necessarily mediated through language. As treatment as a native-speaker, the linguist can also ensure
Eades (2010) or Berk-Seligson (2002) noted, those that the interpreter is not giving the defendant an advantage
interviews, which can also become part of the evidence, (or disadvantage) due to unprofessional practices. Again,
more often than not, take place without a (certified) taping the actual conversation (that includes the original
interpreter. Moreover, in the cases where there is someone language) would allow linguists (and certified interpreters)
willing to mediate between the suspect and the police, to make sure that the services provided by an interpreter
whether a friend or the police officer him or herself end up are fair for everyone involved. In these cases, even if the
taking this interpreter role, which brings with it a whole original interaction is not part of the official record, it
array of implications (conflict of interests and faulty could be presented as evidence later in court.
interpretation, among others). Deaf suspects are especially
Limitations
vulnerable in this situation, since many times their
condition is not immediately recognized and, as a Grice’s Cooperative Principle presents two main problems:
consequence, their silence can be interpreted as resistance it assumes an ideal speech situation, and is limited to the
or lack of cooperation by the police (McKee, 2001). locutionary speech act. As a consequence, it also presents
some limitations: Why should it be assumed that anyone
What can the (forensic) linguist do?
involved in a crime or criminal investigation would want to
Although judges and jurors are the ones that ultimately cooperate? What happens when both parties in a
have to decide whether a speech act has or has not taken conversation have conflicting goals? Human beings lie,
place, linguists can be “extremely helpful in analyzing the exaggerate, and make use of politeness, hedges, irony,
discursive structure and linguistic content of sarcasm, figures of speech, etc., which all makes the
interrogations” (Ainsworth, 2010, p. 122). As has already assumption that they adhere to the cooperation principle
been seen, linguists “are trained to see and hear structures more unrealistic than it seems.
that are invisible to lay persons” (Shuy, 1993, p. xvii) and
In the case of court interpretation, the limitations are very
their expert testimony could be crucial in a trial. For this
clear: as long as the original testimony is not recorded in
purpose, it has been repeatedly suggested that, as a
order to be able to compare it with the interpreted version,
precautionary measure, interviews between law
linguists cannot do much more than speculate on the
enforcement agents and suspects be recorded at all stages
quality of the interpretation. Additionally, an important
of the process (Drizin & Leo, 2004; Redlich, 2007; Solan
limitation on the results regarding the effect of (faulty)
& Tiersma, 2005):
interpretation on jury decisions is that these studies used
[T]aping would provide an objective record of what mock trials that were especially manipulated for the
transpired that could later be closely examined to research at hand, which means that the effects of faulty
determine exactly what was said, when, and by whom [….] interpretation on real trials has not, or perhaps cannot, be
The experience of forensic linguists such as Roger Shuy in tested.
reconstructing and analyzing police interrogations clearly
shows that if taping were required more generally in the What the Forensic Linguist Doesn’t Do
United States, linguists could be of inestimable use in
preventing miscarriages of justice resulting from unreliable Contrary to popular belief, a forensic linguist’s duty is not
confessions (Ainsworth, 2010, p. 124). to perform text analysis with the objective of discovering
the writer’s intent or describing his/her psychological
Another way linguists can help is by suggesting ways in profile or state (McMenamin, 2002; Solan, 1998). For
which the police can make use of less coercive language example, one book that has received a great deal of
during interactions (Eades, 1994; Shuy, 1997). In this way, criticism is Author Unknown: On the Trail of Anonymous
the police could avoid the invalidation of statements or (Foster, 2000) because the analysis presented in it is
confessions due to improper questioning (exclusionary “purely speculative” (Chaski, 2001, p. 3), includes
rule). In the case of children and people with “conclusions based on literary allusion” (Solan & Tiersma,
communication disabilities, the linguist’s task would be to

11
2005, p. 458) and is “more consistent with literary 3. Austin, J. L., 1975. How to Do Things with Words. 2d ed. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
criticism than linguistic science” (McMenamin, 2002,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198245537.001.0001
p. 87).
4. Berk-Seligson, S., 2002. The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters
Other areas that fall outside of forensic linguistics are, in the Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
among others, graphology, handwriting analysis or 5. Chaski, C. E., 2001. Empirical Evaluations of Language-based Author
document examination. Graphology has been repeatedly Identification Techniques. Forensic Linguistics, no. 8 (1), pp. 1–65.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/sll.2001.8.1.1
questioned for its pseudo-scientific nature. Handwriting
analysis and document examination, on the other hand, 6. Cloud, M., Shepherd, G. B., Barkoff, A. N., and Shur, J. V., 2002.
Words Without Meaning: The Constitution, Confessions, and Mentally
although helpful in shedding light on criminal cases, bases Retarded Suspects. The University of Chicago Law Review, no. 69 (2),
their research on scientific theory other than linguistics, pp. 495–624.
such as chemistry, computer science, or physics, among http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1600500
others. 7. Coulthard, M., 2005. The Linguist as Expert Witness. Linguistics and
the Human Sciences, no. 1 (1), pp. 39–58.
Lastly, it is vital to note that what the forensic linguist http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/lhs.2005.1.1.39
analyzes is language, not guilt or innocence (Shuy, 1993, 8. Coulthard, M., 2008. By Their Words Shall Ye Know Them: On
p. xxi). In other words, although the expert testimony of a Linguistic Identity. In: C. R. Caldas-Coulthard and R. Iedema, eds.
linguist might be helpful in a case, it is the prosecution’s Identity Trouble. London: Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 143–155.
burden to prove the accused’s guilt beyond a reasonable 9. Coulthard, M., and Johnson, A., 2007. An Introduction to Forensic
doubt. Legal decisions are for judges to make and the Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.
forensic linguist’s testimony is just one piece in the puzzle. 10. Drizin, S. A., and Leo, R. A., 2004. The Problem of False Confessions
in the Post-DNA World. North Carolina Law Review, no. 82, pp. 891–
Conclusion 1007.

Law is inconceivable without language: without language 11. Eades, D., 1994. A Case of Communicative Clash: Aboriginal English
and the Legal System. In: J. Gibbons, ed. Language and the Law.
there would be no laws, no trials, and in some cases, no Harlow: Longman, pp. 234–64.
evidence. Although the field of forensic linguistics is still
12. Eades, D., 2010. Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process. Bristol:
in its infancy, its contributions to the criminal justice Multilingual Matters.
system are nonetheless significant. 13. Ehrlich, S., 2010. Rape Victims. The Discourse of Rape Trials. In:
This article has provided the reader with an overview of M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, eds. The Routledge Handbook of
Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 265–80.
the intersections between forensic linguistics and other
areas of applied linguistics (mainly sociolinguistics, 14. Ellison, L., 2002. The Adversarial Process and the Vulnerable Witness.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
pragmatics, and discourse analysis) in three interrelated http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198299097.001.0001
areas: linguistic evidence, language and the law, and 15. Foster, D., 2000. Author Unknown: On the Trail of Anonymous. New
language during legal procedures and courtroom discourse. York: Henry Holt and Co.
It has shown how applied linguistics can contribute, not 16. Fraser, B., 1998. Threatening Revisited. Forensic Linguistics, no. 5 (2),
only to a more understandable codification of the law, but pp. 159–173.
also to the maintenance of the rights of linguistically http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/sll.1998.5.2.159
vulnerable populations. 17. Goddard, C., 1996. Can Linguists Help Judges Know What They
Mean? Linguistic Semantics in the Courtroom. Forensic Linguistics,
Like any other emerging discipline, forensic linguistics no. 3, pp. 250–272.
presents numerous limitations that should not be 18. Grice, H. P., 1989. Studies in the Way of Words. Cambridge: Harvard
overlooked. First, linguistic evidence alone is often not University Press.
enough to convict or exonerate a person, although it may 19. Hale, S., 2002. How Faithfully Do Court Interpreters Render the Style
contribute to a larger body of evidence. Second, while of non-English Speaking Witnesses’ Testimonies? A Data-based Study
linguistic analysis is becoming increasingly accurate with of Spanish-English Bilingual Proceedings. Discourse Studies, no. 4 (1),
the aid of technology, it is still not 100% infallible and it is pp. 25–47.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/14614456020040010201
still subject to interpretation. Finally, the impossibility of
20. Hall, C. J., Smith, P. H., and Wicaksono, R., 2011. Mapping Applied
experimental manipulation in the courtroom makes some Linguistics: A Guide for Students and Practitioners. New York:
assumptions about what happens there difficult to Routledge.
demonstrate. While this may be the case, what needs to be 21. Harris, S., 1984. Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrates’
clear is that when linguists serve as expert witnesses, their Courts. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, no. 49,
aim is mainly to assist the jury in understanding the pp. 5–27.
evidence by shedding light on issues that might not be http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/ijsl.1984.49.5
obvious otherwise. 22. Labov, W., and Harris, W. A., 1994. Addressing Social Issues Through
Linguistic Evidence. In: John Gibbons, ed. Language and the Law.
Harlow: Longman, pp. 265–305.
References
23. Laster, K., 1990. Legal Interpreters: Conduits to Social Justice? Journal
1. Ainsworth, J., 2010. Curtailing Coercion in Police Interrogation: The of Intercultural Studies, no. 11 (2), pp. 15–32.
Failed Promise of Miranda V. Arizona. In: M. Coulthard and http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07256868.1990.9963364
A. Johnson, eds. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics.
New York: Routledge, pp. 111–125. 24. Levi, J. N., 1993. Evaluating Jury Comprehension of Illinois Capital-
sentencing Instructions. American Speech, no. 68 (1), pp. 20–49.
2. Aldridge, M., 2010. Vulnerable Witnesses in the Criminal Justice http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/455834
System. In: M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, eds. The Routledge
Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 296–314. 25. McKee, R., 2001. People of the Eye: Stories from the Deaf World.
Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.

12
26. McMenamin, G., 2010. Forensic Stylistics. Theory and Practice of 32. Shuy, R. W., 2001. DARE’s Role in Linguistic Profiling. DARE
Forensic Stylistics. In: M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, eds. The Newsletter, no. 4 (3), pp. 1–5.
Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, 33. Solan, L. M., 1998. Linguistic Experts as Semantic Tour Guides.
pp. 487–507. Forensic Linguistics, no. 5 (2), pp. 87–106.
27. McMenamin, G., 2002. Forensic Linguistics: Advances in Forensic http://dx.doi.org/10.1558/sll.1998.5.2.87
Stylistics. Boca Raton: CRC Press. 34. Solan, L. M., and Tiersma, P. M., 2005. Speaking of Crime: The
http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781420041170 Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
28. Redlich, A. D., 2007. Double Jeopardy in the Interrogation Room for 35. Stratman, J. F., and Dahl, P., 1996. Readers’ Comprehension of
Youths with Mental Illness. American Psychologist, no. 62 (6), Temporary Restraining Orders in Domestic Violence Cases: a Missing
pp. 609–611. Link in Abuse Prevention? Forensic Linguistics, no. 3, pp. 211–231.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X62.6.609
36. Stygall, G., 2010. Complex Documents/average and Not-so-average
29. Saxton, B., 1998. How Well Do Jurors Understand Jury Instructions –
Readers. In: M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, eds. The Routledge
A Field Test Using Real Juries and Real Trials in Wyoming. Land and Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 51–64.
Water Law Review, no. 33, pp. 59–121.
37. Tiersma, P. M., 1999. Legal Language. Chicago: University Of
30. Shuy, R. W., 1997. Ten Unanswered Language Questions About Chicago Press.
Miranda. Forensic Linguistics, no. 4 (2), pp. 175–196.
38. Tiersma, P. M., 2010. Instructions to Jurors. Redrafting California’s
31. Shuy, R. W., 1993. Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Jury Instructions. In: M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, eds. The Routledge
Evidence in the Courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell. Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, pp. 251–264.

Maite Correa
Teismo lingvistika: kalbos ir teisės sankirta ir sąveika

Santrauka
Teismo lingvistika (Forensic Linguistics) yra palyginti nauja taikomosios kalbotyros sritis, tyrinėjanti įvairias kalbos ir teisės sankirtas. Savo esme teisė
glaudžiai siejasi su lingvistika. Siekiant užtikrinti sąžiningą, juridiškai efektyvią teismo procedūrą, visi teisminio proceso asmenys, pvz., teisėjai, advo-
katai, tarėjai, policijos pareigūnai ir kt. turi išmanyti tam tikrus lingvistikos principus. Todėl lingvisto ekspertiniai teiginiai gali pastebimai prisidėti prie
galimų interpretacijų ar nuomonių supratimo bei jų pripažinimo, kas priešingu atveju gali būti ir nepastebėta. Šiame straipsnyje pateikiama teismo ling-
vistikos apžvalga ir aprašomi įvairūs būdai, atkleidžiantys teismo lingvistikos taikomumą baudžiamosios teisės sistemoje. Straipsnyje yra pateikiami kai
kurių garsių ir plačiai nuskambėjusių bylų aprašymai ir bendrais bruožais nusakomos taikomosios lingvistikos (daugiausiai pragmatikos, diskurso anali-
zės ir sociolingvistikos) ir šio dalyko sankirtos trijose tarpusavy susijusiose srityse: 1) kalboje, kaip komunikacijos aplinkoje tarp įstatymus vykdančių
valdžios organų ir įtariamųjų / liudininkų arba kalboje, kaip juridinių ginčų aplinkoje teismo salėje, 2) teisės kalboje (suprantamumo, interpretacijos ir
teisės kalbos konstrukcijos problemos) ir 3) kalbos ir lingvistinių faktų iškraipymų srityje (vartojimas teismo salėje, validumas ir patikimumas). Taip pat
aptariami šios lingvistikos srities iššūkiai ir trūkumai.

Straipsnis įteiktas 2013 08

Parengtas spaudai 2013 12

About the author

Maite Correa, Assistant Professor of Applied Linguistics, Colorado State University, USA.
Academic interests: heritage language learning, critical pedagogy, metalinguistic awareness, educational linguistics.
Address: Foreign Languages and Literatures, Campus Delivery 1774, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1774. USA.
E-mail: maite.correa@colostate.edu

13

View publication stats