Forensic Linguistics
Forensic linguistics is the scientific study of language as applied to forensic purposes and contexts. It is a very new area of linguistics vis-à-vis its 2400-year history and is a recent and rapidly growing area of modern applied linguistics. Linguists who did much of the ground-breaking work in forensic linguistics are often heard to say that what they do is linguistics that happens to be in a forensic context, and that a forensic linguist must first be a good linguist. Such observations are not meant to minimize the task of learning how to function within the judicial system, but they do signal the primary importance of the connection forensic linguistics has as a discipline to the
scientific theories and methods developed over time within general and applied linguistics. The purpose of this chapter is to trace the foundations of forensic linguistics and to outline specific areas of current research and practice within the field.
Early work on language and the law is significant. One of the first and most interesting works is Bryant’s (1930) compendium on function words in legal language. The work of Wetter (1960) on the style of written appellate decisions elaborates an early discussion of writing style in a legal context and presents many example opinions. Melinkoff (1963) began his influential plain language campaign, which was carried on by him and others through the next three decades. The relatively early article by Danet (1980) on the language of fact-oriented disputes is formidable for its breadth, depth, and attention to topics (e.g., pragmatics) that were not seriously studied until much later. Levi (1982) prepared the first comprehensive bibliography in the field. Systematic study of courtroom language was begun by O’Barr (1982) and his colleagues, and linguistic applications, especially in the areas of discourse and pragmatics, were developed by Shuy (1984, 1986). Robin Lakoff ’s earlier courses and lectures on language and the law are also significant, especially her observations about courtroom language, i.e., the formality of the courtroom, and the nonreciprocity and public nature of courtroom discourse (Lakoff, 1990, Chapters 5 and 6).
More recent research demonstrates a rapid, large-scale surge of interest and basic scientific work in forensic linguistics. Overviews of language, law, and the legal process have been done by Gibbons (1990), Kniffka (1990), Tiersma (1993), Eades (1994), Levi (1994b), Murphy, (1998) and Butters(2001). O’Barr has continued work on the language of the courtroom (Conley and O’Barr, 1998), and Shuy on analysis of discourse in the language used in legal settings (Shuy, 1993, 1998). Specific studies and collections relating to various linguistic applications to the law have been written or edited by Levi and Walker (1990), Rieber and Stewart (1990), Gibbons (1994), Eades (1995), and Kniffka et al. (1996). In addition, Levi (1994a) has expanded her bibliographic work by continuing to identify and document advances in forensic linguistics.
A complete compilation of all the milestones and international developments in forensic linguistics is not within the reach of this chapter, but some of the most important will be identified. Levi and Walker organized and coordinated the 1985 Georgetown University conference on language in the judicial process and published their eponymous volume of work on language and law (Levi and Walker, 1990). In 1995 Dumas started Language in the Judicial Process, an electronic newsletter aimed at disseminating information on bibliography, rganizations, courses and programs, and legal cases. During and after this time, courses were developed and presented around
the world. For example, Dumas’ course on language and law at the University of Tennessee focused on legal language, interpretation, courtroom language, plain English, pragmatics, jury instructions, language in legal settings and proceedings, and the language of consumer product warnings. Similar courses have been developed at various universities such as University of Wales (Bangor), University of Birmingham, Cambridge University, University of New South Wales, University of Melbourne, Georgetown University, Montclair State, University of California (San Diego), San Diego State, California State University (Fresno), and many others. Perhaps the single most effective advance in the study of forensic linguistics during the past decade was the 1994 initiation at the University of Birmingham of Forensic Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law , and the founding of the International Association of
Forensic Linguistics. This journal, edited by Malcolm Coulthard and Peter French, and the IAFL (website in reference section) have since provided serious venues for the presentation of research that is more regular, unified, and formal than ever before.
The above-cited works demonstrate that forensic linguistics is a well established area of applied linguistics. However, when a field such as forensic linguistics goes through the process of defining itself, there are certain to be instances of ambiguity related to what is or is not part of the discipline.
Psycholinguistics has been represented (in Section 4.4.1) as an example of an effort considered misnamed and best left to another specialty. The psycholinguistics practiced in American forensic contexts contrasts to the field of psycholinguistics (as studied in linguistics and psychology) in much the same way astrology does to astronomy, i.e., both astrology and “psycholinguistics” are
interesting and may be useful, but are of questionable scientific consequence.
Another type of ambiguity is created when a single area of forensic linguistics is defined as the field itself. For example, the entry on forensic linguistics in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language (Crystal, 1987:69) includes only a discussion of stylistics. A later entry called “(forensic) stylometry” in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language (Crystal,1995:423) claims that “this application [of stylometry] has generated yet another name for the subject: forensic linguistics.” The field cannot be accurately understood when defined by synecdochic descriptions of this type.
The description of forensic linguistics that follows categorizes areas within the field and cites related bibliographies. While differences in categorization paradigms are to be expected (e.g., compare that on the bibliography website of the University of Birmingham), it is not possible to avoid overlap in the multifaceted research areas of forensic linguistics. In addition, the scope of this chapter does not allow exhaustive bibliographic citation. Instead, every effort has been made to include representative works in every category of
forensic linguistic study and application. Note also that a list of selected electronic sources for forensic linguistics is included in the reference section.
(GERALD R. McMENAMIN)
