More search terms:
"forensic linguistics, psycholinguistics, authorship identification, speaker
identification, comparative stylistics, forensic stylistics, stylistic
analysis, stylometry, forensic phonetics, and disputed authorship...
psychological profiling, demographic profiling, stylistic analysis, and threat
assessment. Topic analysis, conversational analysis, linguistics, and
sociolinguistics are other terms used to refer to discourse analysis."
Great books you may find helpful...
Forensic Stylistics / by G. R. McMenamin ISBN: 0444815449
Elsevier Science 07/01/1993 264 pages
1997. Discourse Analysis: An Introduction. (co-authored with Alexandra
Georgakopoulou). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. 208 pp.
Synopsis
Offering an introduction to the latest trends in the theory, method and tools
of discourse studies, this work aims to give a grounding to the linguistics
mechanisms and strategies of discourse, emphasizing their interaction with
their contexts of occurrence. It also familiarizes the reader with the
linguistic construction of different text-types, and the ways in which they can
be analyzed from a variety of perspectives.
Coulthard, M. 1992. Forensic discourse analysis. In M. Coulthard (ed.) Advances
in Spoken Discourse Analysis. London: Routledge.
And an article which might be of interest:
LINGUISTICS IN THE COURTROOM
By
Penelope O. Pickett, M.F.S
Forensic Linguist
FBI Laboratory
Washington, DC
With increasing frequency, the term "linguistics" is being
heard in the courtroom as linguists bring their expertise to
bear during judicial proceedings. Both prosecutors and defense
attorneys realize the effectiveness of linguistic testimony
which, oftentimes, turns a case around. Because linguistic
analysis and testimony can influence investigations and the
outcome of cases tried in court, the law enforcement community
may benefit from knowing what to expect from the discipline of
linguistics.
This article discusses three types of linguistic analysis
presented in the courtroom. It shows the differences among the
three types by providing examples and explaining the analytical
focus of each.
LINGUISTIC ANALYSIS
Linguistics, the scientific study of language, is a
well-established discipline that interlinks with other
disciplines. The 1980's saw the beginning of a wave of
linguistic activity in civil and criminal investigations, which
swelled into the decade of the 1990's.
Although various linguistic analysis interrelate with
judicial matters, the predominant activity centers around three
basic types of examination and testimony--author/speaker
comparison, author/speaker assessment, and discourse analysis.
All three focus on language usage and involve comparison
methodology, each from a different perspective.
Author/Speaker Comparison
Linguistic examinations can compare a written communication
with a voice communication or a typewritten text with a computer
printout. These examinations can also be conducted on two or
more written documents or two or more voice recordings.
In the author/speaker comparison process, linguistic
examiners analyze and compare applicable elements of the
specific communications. These elements include vocabulary
selection, syntax, phraseology, spelling, style, format,
sentence length, pronunciation, intonation, pitch, rate of
speech, voice quality, etc.
When testifying in court, linguistic experts might present
computer printouts of word frequency counts and analyses, which
show correlations of common word choice or word length between
two communications, or words infrequently used by the general
population. Experts might also demonstrate comparisons of other
items, such as grammatical constructions and errors or speaking
characteristics. The following cases illustrate author/speaker
comparisons (1) in linguistic examinations.
CASE #1: In late 1989, package bombs killed a Federal judge
in Alabama and an attorney in Georgia. A linguistic examination
by the FBI Laboratory compared the typewritten communiques
associated with the bombings to documents known to have been
authored by a prime suspect in the case. (Traditional document
examination determined that the communiques and the documents
were prepared on the same typewriter.) As a result of the
linguistic examination, FBI examiners concluded that this
suspect was not responsible for the bomb communiques.
When the FBI Laboratory received known writings of another
suspect, Walter Leroy Moody, Jr., a linguistic examination
determined that this suspect most likely authored the bomb
communiques. This caused investigators to shift their attention
to Moody, who was subsequently identified as the perpetrator and
later tried and convicted.
CASE #2: A police chief in Pennsylvania received
threatening letters in disguised and distorted handprinting. (2)
Linguistic examiners were able to compare the threatening
letters to letters in normal handwriting written by the suspect.
This examination revealed sufficient similarities in vocabulary,
grammar, spelling, etc., for examiners to conclude that the
suspect most likely composed the anonymous letters. The
suspect, the town's former police chief, subsequently confessed.
CASE #3: "Dear Sir: I have been involved in espionage for
several years...." So began the first in a series of anonymous
typewritten letters to the FBI that revealed participation in a
spy ring. Later, when John Walker and his family came under
investigation for espionage, known writings of his friend, Jerry
Whitworth, were printed out from computer memory and submitted
to the FBI Laboratory for comparison with these anonymous
typewritten letters.
Because the questioned documents were typewritten and the
documents of known authorship were computer printouts, the
Laboratory could not conduct a traditional document comparison
examination. Linguistic comparison examinations, however, found
strong similarities in word usage, grammar, spelling, and
format, concluding that Whitworth most likely authored the
anonymous letters. Whitworth was later convicted for his
participation in the spy ring.
Author/Speaker Assessment
In analyzing communications to determine demographic and
psychological characteristics of the author/speaker, the
linguistic examiner looks at the same features as in the
comparison examination, e.g., vocabulary selection, syntax,
phraseology, etc. The examiner basically does the same type of
comparison examination, but in author/speaker assessments, uses
population standards as the comparative material.
Unfortunately, a comprehensive, centralized set of
population standards does not exist, even though linguists,
sociologists, psychologists, and others have conducted studies
on the various factors (3) that could be used to identify
otherwise anonymous authors. Without a full data bank of such
standards, current author/speaker assessments (4) depend on an
examiner's own knowledge of standard textbook usage, academic
studies, and familiarity with language usage of various
demographic groupings, as well as on the examiner's experience.
Using knowledge and experience, and the ability to obtain
supplemental information, the examiner makes qualified
determinations concerning an author's/speaker's age, sex,
education, occupation, geographic/ethnic background, veracity,
etc. At present, this type of examination serves as an
investigative aid and is not intended for court testimony. As
comparison standards become more developed, however, the
results of linguistic examinations will undoubtedly be the
subject of more frequent expert witness testimony.
CASE EXAMPLE: In Fayetteville, Tennessee, the body of a
teenage girl was found in her bathtub. The investigation of
this homicide centered on adult males until the FBI Laboratory
conducted an examination of a note thought to be connected to
the homicide.
Linguistic analysis of the note determined that the
vocabulary, grammar, and style were most likely that of a
teenage male. Investigators then turned their attention to the
teenage population, in which they eventually found the
perpetrator. They subsequently learned that the male teen
committed a similar crime in a neighboring jurisdiction.
Discourse Analysis
"[There were] one hundred and twenty-five differences
between what I heard on the tape and the transcript." (5) A
linguist made this statement while testifying as an expert
witness for the defense. With this comment, the linguist set
the stage for his analysis, which pointed out major flaws in the
State's case and which led to the defendant's acquittal.
Discourse analysis, (6) conducted in the judicial system
context for court testimony, is the analysis of conversations
recorded on audio or videotape that are used as evidence in
court. This analysis is offered to facilitate accurate
listening, or accurate understanding, of what was said in the
recording.
Correcting transcripts that may be used as listening guides
is one manifestation of discourse analysis. Another involves
explaining the dynamics of conversation to show who is more in
control of a particular conversation, what underlying agenda
each participant has, and so on.
To perform a discourse analysis, the linguist first
typically prepares a corrected transcript from which to work.
Corrections are almost always necessary because most
transcribers do not realize that there are different types of
transcripts, and therefore, they produce transcripts that do not
meet the stringent accuracy requirements of law enforcement. (7)
Next, the linguist analyzes the conversation, identifying
such things as topics raised in the conversation, who raised
them, and the responses to them. Issues of entrapment and
inaccuracy in case facts (both transcription and listening
errors) are highlighted in this type of analysis.
CASE EXAMPLE: After Senator Harrison A. Williams, Jr.,
had been convicted of bribery in the ABSCAM case, the U.S.
Senate debated his censure and expulsion. During the debate,
Senators heard a linguist's statement of his analysis of the
videotapes in question, concluding, "Despite all of the
strategies used by the Government agents to accomplish these
aims [of recording a self-incriminatory act or statement by the
Senator], the recorded evidence makes it abundantly clear that
they fail." (8)
APPROPRIATENESS FOR COURT
Linguistics, a well-established discipline recognized by
the scientific community for decades, has proven helpful in
examining evidential communications in case investigations.
But, is linguistic analysis appropriate for court testimony
requiring an expert witness?
Some judges believe so and have allowed the testimony;
others have not. A judge's decision to allow linguistic
analysis as expert testimony often hinges on whether that judge
believes the testimony would aid the trier of fact. It can also
depend on whether the judge believes that the benefit to the
trier of fact outweighs the influence that scientific testimony
may have on the jury's decision. Each case calls for
independent evaluation of admissibility.
CONCLUSION
Linguistic analysis and testimony in criminal cases include
three major types-author/speaker comparison, author/speaker
assessment, and discourse analysis. Whenever cases involve
written or recorded language as evidence, linguistic analysis
may become involved in the investigation and court proceedings.
Being able to differentiate among these three types of analysis
will assist the law enforcement community in understanding how
each could affect a particular investigation or trial.
