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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The CUSUM technique claimed to be a scientific method for identifying authorship in which the cumulative sums of features such as the number of two- and three-letter words and number of words beginning with a vowel were calculated, providing each author with a so-called linguistic “fingerprint.”
References
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.
Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. London and New York: Longman.
Chaski, C. (2001). Empirical evaluations of language-based author identification. Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 8, 1–65.
Conley, J. M., & O’Barr, W. (1998). Just words: Law, language and power. London: University of Chicago Press.
Cotterill, J. (2003). Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O. J. Simpson trial. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cotterill, J. (2013). Corpus analysis in forensic linguistics. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. London: Wiley.
Coulthard, M. (1994a). On the use of corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. Forensic Linguistics, 1, 27–43.
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.
Coulthard, M. (2004). Author identification, idiolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 25, 431–447.
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.
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Abingdon: Routledge.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
De Costa, P. I. (Ed.). (2016). Ethics in applied linguistics research: Language researcher narratives. New York: Routledge.
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.
Gales, T. (2015). The stance of stalking: A corpus-based analysis of grammatical markers of stance in threatening communications. Corpora, 10, 171–200.
Grant, T. (2007). Quantifying evidence in forensic authorship analysis. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 14, 1–25.
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.
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.
Grant, T., & MacLeod, N. (2016). Assuming identities online: Experimental linguistics applied to the policing of online paedophile activity. Applied Linguistics, 37, 50–70.
Hardaker, C. (2015). ‘I refuse to respond to this obvious troll’: An overview of responses to (perceived) trolling. Corpora, 10, 201–229.
Hardcastle, R. A. (1997). CUSUM: A credible method for the determination of authorship? Science and Justice, 37, 129–138.
Haworth, K. (2006). The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse & Society, 17, 739–759.
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.
Heffer, C. (2005). The language of jury trial: A corpus-aided analysis of legal-lay discourse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Kniffka, H. (2007). Working in language and law: A German perspective. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
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.
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.
Larner, S. (2015). From intellectual challenges to established corpus techniques: Introduction to the special issue on forensic linguistics. Corpora, 10, 131–143.
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.
Repko, A., Szostak, R., & Buchberger, M. (2014). Introduction to interdisciplinary studies. London: Sage.
Robson, C. (2011). Real world research (3rd ed.). West Sussex: Wiley.
Rock, F. (2007). Communicating rights: The language of arrest and detention. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shuy, R. (2006). Linguistics in the courtroom: A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. (2013). The language of bribery cases. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Solan, L., & Tiersma, P. (2004). Author identification in American courts. Applied Linguistics, 25, 448–465.
Solan, L., & Tiersma, P. (2005). Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. London: The University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, P. (2000). Legal language. London: University of Chicago Press.
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.
Tiersma, P., & Solan, L. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
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.
Tomblin, S. (2013). Coulthard, Malcolm. In C. Chapelle (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of applied linguistics. London: Wiley.
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.
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.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 2018 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Larner, S. (2018). Forensic Linguistics. In: Phakiti, A., De Costa, P., Plonsky, L., Starfield, S. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Applied Linguistics Research Methodology. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_31
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59900-1_31
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-137-59899-8
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-59900-1
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)