Advertisement

Abstract

Forensic linguistics is the sub-discipline of applied linguistics that explores the relationship between language, law, and crime. In this chapter, Larner explores some of the challenges and controversies relevant to carrying out forensic linguistics research. This chapter begins with a brief overview of key areas of research, before outlining the main ways in which the research can be subdivided. Larner argues that the data is central to defining what counts as forensic linguistics, rather than any one methodological approach, so explores issues surrounding data collection and ethics. The use of statistics is considered. The areas of action research, disciplinary engagement, and knowledge mobilisation are also discussed since positive social change is an important aspect of forensic linguistics research.

Keywords

Forensic linguistics Language and law Language as evidence Action research 

References

  1. Bannister, J., & Hardill, I. (2013). Knowledge mobilisation and the social sciences: Dancing with new partners in an age of austerity. Contemporary Social Science, 8, 167–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  3. Chaski, C. (2001). Empirical evaluations of language-based author identification. Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 8, 1–65.Google Scholar
  4. Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. (1998). Just words: Law, language and power. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O. J. Simpson trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cotterill, J. (2013). Corpus analysis in forensic linguistics. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  7. Coulthard, M. (1994a). On the use of corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. Forensic Linguistics, 1, 27–43.Google Scholar
  8. Coulthard, M. (1994b). Powerful evidence for the defence: An exercise in forensic discourse analysis. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law (pp. 414–427). London: Longman.Google Scholar
  9. Coulthard, M. (2004). Author identification, idiolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 25, 431–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coulthard, M. (2010). Experts and opinions: In my opinion. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 473–486). Abingdon, Oxford: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. De Costa, P. I. (Ed.). (2016). Ethics in applied linguistics research: Language researcher narratives. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Finegan, E. (2010). Legal writing: Attitude and emphasis. Corpus linguistic approaches to “legal language”: Adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 65–77). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  16. Gales, T. (2015). The stance of stalking: A corpus-based analysis of grammatical markers of stance in threatening communications. Corpora, 10, 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Grant, T. (2007). Quantifying evidence in forensic authorship analysis. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Grant, T. (2010). Text messaging forensics: Txt 4n6: Idiolect free authorship analysis? In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 508–522). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Grant, T., & Baker, K. (2001). Identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship: A response to Chaski. Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of speech, Language and the Law, 8, 66–79.Google Scholar
  20. Grant, T., & MacLeod, N. (2016). Assuming identities online: Experimental linguistics applied to the policing of online paedophile activity. Applied Linguistics, 37, 50–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hardaker, C. (2015). ‘I refuse to respond to this obvious troll’: An overview of responses to (perceived) trolling. Corpora, 10, 201–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hardcastle, R. A. (1997). CUSUM: A credible method for the determination of authorship? Science and Justice, 37, 129–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Haworth, K. (2006). The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse & Society, 17, 739–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Haworth, K. (2010). Police interviews in the judicial process: Police interviews as evidence. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 169–181). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Heffer, C. (2005). The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2014). Identifying idiolect in forensic authorship attribution: An n-gram textbite approach. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 1, 37–69.Google Scholar
  28. Kniffka, H. (2007). Working in language and law: A German perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kredens, K., & Coulthard, M. (2012). Corpus linguistics in authorship identification. In P. Tiersma & L. Solan (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 504–516). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Larner, S. (2014a). A comparative review of The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics and The Oxford handbook of language and law. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 1, 194–197.Google Scholar
  31. Larner, S. (2014b). A preliminary investigation into the use of fixed formulaic sequences as a marker of authorship. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 21, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Larner, S. (2015). From intellectual challenges to established corpus techniques: Introduction to the special issue on forensic linguistics. Corpora, 10, 131–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacLeod, N. (2016). “I thought I’d be safe there”: Pre-empting blame in the talk of women reporting rape. Journal of Pragmatics, 96, 96–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Repko, A., Szostak, R., & Buchberger, M. (2014). Introduction to interdisciplinary studies. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  35. Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (3rd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Rock, F. (2007). Communicating rights: The language of arrest and detention. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shuy, R. (2006). Linguistics in the courtroom: A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Shuy, R. (2013). The language of bribery cases. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solan, L., & Tiersma, P. (2004). Author identification in American courts. Applied Linguistics, 25, 448–465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Solan, L., & Tiersma, P. (2005). Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  41. Tiersma, P. (2000). Legal language. London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  42. Tiersma, P. (2010). Instructions to Jurors: Redrafting California’s jury instructions. In M. Coulthard & A. Johnson (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics (pp. 251–264). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. Tiersma, P., & Solan, L. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Tkačuková, T. (2015). A corpus-assisted study of the discourse marker well as an indicator of judges’ institutional roles in court cases with litigants in person. Corpora, 10, 145–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Tomblin, S. (2013). Coulthard, Malcolm. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  46. Turell, M. T. (2010). The use of textual, grammatical and sociolinguistic evidence in forensic text comparison. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 17, 211–250.Google Scholar
  47. Woodhams, J., Grant, T., & Price, A. (2007). From marine ecology to crime analysis: Improving the detection of serial sexual offences using a taxonomic similarity measure. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 17–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wright, D. (2013). Stylistic variation within genre conventions in the Enron email corpus: Developing a text-sensitive methodology for authorship research. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 20, 45–75.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Languages, Information and CommunicationsManchester Metropolitan UniversityManchesterUK

Personalised recommendations