Abstract
The chapter first establishes some basic conceptual distinctions regarding activities in the field of law and language. It argues that legal linguistics and forensic linguistics are very separate pursuits in significant respects and must not be conflated under the same umbrella. The chapter briefly looks at the development of forensic linguistics. It aims at situating forensic linguistics in the context of forensic science and trace theory, stressing the logical and procedural steps in turning a potential trace of a crime into a status of evidence at court. As a scientific pursuit, forensic linguistics has to answer questions about how to guarantee its status as a truly scientific discipline on a par with other science-based disciplines, like forensic medicine or biology. Forensic linguistics raises questions about the training requirements for the expert linguist and scientific methodological approaches to language as evidence. Finally, the chapter provides an overview of the book’s contents, situating them in the grid of the preceding perspectives.
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
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
A much earlier case of an application of professional linguistic knowledge to the resolution of a crime of falsification with major political consequences for the political power of the Pope in the middle age was brought to our attention by Emma Stein: the ‘Donation of Constantineʼ was shown by Lorenzo Valla—priest and early linguist—to be a falsification (Harari, 2017, p. 263f).
- 2.
“Der vorliegende Band müßte eigentlich “Texte zu Praxis und Theorie..” heißen; diese Formel gibt es im Deutschen aber wie den Ausdruck “Stand der Praxis” nicht. …Der Band möchte nämlich,…zur Konsolidierung “forensischer Linguistik”, eines konstituierenden Teilfachs der Angewandten Linguistik, beitragen.” (Kniffka, 1990, p. IX).
- 3.
As a concrete example for the discrepancy between different types of witnesses and laboratory experiments in the case of veracity evaluation of with respect to lying ‘cluesʼ see Hettler (2012, p. 144).
- 4.
That this is seen as a general issue in psychology—and linguistics is to be included here—is formulated as follows: ‘the reliance on laboratory research has had a profound negative effect on the discipline, retarding our understanding of many psychological phenomena in the forensic field. In the title to this chapter I used the term “methodolotry”. I use the term to characterize the reliance among psychologists on the use of standard experimental design in laboratory-based research (…) This method—conducting research in a relatively sterile context and manipulating some factors while other factors are controlled—is the dominant method of conducting psychological research.ʼ (Yuille, 2013, p. 3)
- 5.
Cf Hettler (2012) for a discussion of theoretical and methodological issues in procedures used in psychological veracity evaluation.
References
Ainsworth, J., & Juola, P. (2019). Who wrote this?: Modern forensic authorship analysis as a model for valid forensic science. Washington University Law Review, 96(5), 1161–1189.
Chaski, C. (2013). Best practices and admissibility of forensic author identification. Journal of Law & Policy, 21(2), 333–376.
Cooper, B., Griesel, D., & Ternes, M. (Eds.). (2013). Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment. Springer.
Cooper, B., Hugues, F., Herve, F., & Yuille, J. (2014). Evaluating truthfulness: Interviewing and credibility assessment. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1413–1426). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_534
Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (Eds.). (2010). The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Taylor & Francis.
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (Eds.). (2017). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Delémont, O., Lock, E., & Ribaux, O. (2014). Forensic science and criminal investigation. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1754–1763). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_145
Fadden, L., & Disner, S. F. (2014). Forensic linguistics. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1547–1555). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_534
Fobbe, E. (2011). Forensische Linguistik. Eine Einführung. Gunter Narr.
Foolen, A. (2019). Quo vadis Pragmatics? From adaptation to participatory sense-making. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 29–46.
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics. An introduction to language in the justice system. Blackwell.
Gibbons, J., & Turell, M. T. (Eds.). (2008). Dimensions of forensic linguistics (AILA Applied Linguistics Series, 5). John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Harari, Y. N. (2017). Homo Deus. Eine Geschichte von Morgen. Beck.
Hazard, D., & Margot, P. (2014). Forensic science culture. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1782–1795). Springer.
Hettler, S. (2012). Wahre und falsche Zeugenaussagen. Evaluation von Zeugenaussagen mit unterschiedlichem Wahrheitsgehalt mittels erweitertem Kanon inhaltlicher Kennzeichen. AV Akedemiker Verlag.
Kniffka, H. (Ed.). (1990). Texte zu Theorie und Praxis forensischer Linguistik. Niemeyer.
Leonard, R., Ford, J., & Christensen, T. (2017). Forensic linguistics: Applying the science of linguistics to issues of the law. Hofstra Law Review, 45, 881–897.
Lucas, D. (2014). Forensic science in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. In G. Bruinsma & D. Weisburd (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1805–1819). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2
Margot, P. (2011). Commentary on the need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Review, 58, 725–779.
Milroy, J., & Milroy, L. (1999). Authority in language. Investigating standard English (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Mnookin, J. (2018). The uncertain future of forensic science. DAEDALUS, 147, 99–118.
Mnookin, J., et al. (2011). The need for a research culture in the forensic sciences. UCLA Law Review, 58, 725. https://www.uclalawreview.org/the-need-for-a-research-culture-in-the-forensic-sciences-2/
Muschalik, J. (2018). Threatening in English. A mixed method approach. Benjamins. e-Book ISBN: 9789027264633. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.284
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1972). A grammar of contemporary English. Longman.
Roux, C., Talbot-Wright, B., Robertson, J., Crispino, F., & Ribeaux, O. (2015). The end of the (forensic science) world as we know it? The example of trace evidence. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 370, 20140260. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2014.0260
Smolka, J., & Pirker, B. (2016). International law and pragmatics—An account of interpretation in international law. International Journal of Language and Law, 5, 1–40.
Sources of Language and Law. https://legal-linguistics.net/
Stein, D. (2021). Sprache und Recht: das Recht als Forschungsobjekt der Sprachwissenschaft. In E. Vogenauer (Ed.), Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und Rechtssprache Festschrift für Volker Triebel. Beck.
Svartvik, J. (1968). The Evans statements: A case for forensic linguistics. University of Göteborg.
Tiersma, P., & Solan, L. (Eds.). (2012). The Oxford handbook of language and law. Oxford University Press.
Vogel, F. (ed.) 2019. Legal linguistics beyond borders: Language and law in a world of media, globalisation and social conflicts. In Berlin, Duncker, & Humblot (Eds.), Relaunching the international language and law association (ILLA). ISBN978-3-428-85423-3.
Wecht, C., & Rago, J. T. (2006). Forensic science and law. Investigative applications in criminal, civil and family justice. CRC and Taylor & Francis.
Wilson, D., & Carston, R. (2019). Pragmatics and the challenge of ‘non-propositional’ effects. Journal of Pragmatics, 145, 31–38.
Woolls, D. (2002). CopyCatch Gold v2. CL Software. UK.
Yuille, J. (2013). The challenge for forensic memory research: Methodolotry. In B. Cooper, D. Griesel, & M. Ternes (Eds.), Applied issues in investigative interviewing, eyewitness memory, and credibility assessment (pp. 3–19). Springer.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Guillén-Nieto, V., Stein, D. (2022). Introduction: Theory and Practice in Forensic Linguistics. In: Guillén-Nieto, V., Stein, D. (eds) Language as Evidence. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84330-4_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-84330-4_1
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-84329-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-84330-4
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)