Forensic linguistics is a sub-field of linguistics which particularly focuses on the study of language and its relationship with the legal system (Coutlhard, Johnson and Wright 2016: 106). Linguistic issues can occur in a selection of legal contexts, and therefore there are a multitude of subjects that need to be addressed by a forensic linguist. For example, forensic linguists have focused on miscommunication because of dialect differences; the comprehensibility of legal documents; the identification of authors and speakers, and more (Tiersma and Solan 2002: 221). Linguists as expert witnesses are increasingly being integrated into American courtrooms so as to support the understanding of legal terminology and language used in the court context (Tiersma and Solan 2002: 221). Forensic linguists are able to provide an insight into the language that is usually overlooked. For example, grammatical items such as nouns, verbs, principles, infinitives and clauses are often unnoticed in terms of linguistics due to the fact that they are so commonly used in routine conversation. (Coulthard, Johnson & Wright 2016: 106). The fact that these areas are so commonly overlooked, makes them an interesting point of investigation. Especially due to the fact that within a legal text, it is imperative to focus on features of syntax and grammar in order to isolate what is distinctive to one’s character.
Danielewicz-Betz explains the interface between language, crime and the law as the analysis of ‘courtroom discourse, courtroom interpreting and translating, the readability/comprehensibility of legal documents, the comprehensibility the police caution issued to suspects, and authorship attribution’ (2012: 95). Forensic linguists are utilised in a courtroom for their linguistic expertise and application of contextual legal skills. Extended knowledge of the subject matter allows forensic linguists, as expert witnesses, to apply frameworks such as phonetics, morphology and syntax, semantics, discourse, psycholinguistics and dialectology to aid a criminal case. All linguistic frameworks can be analysed in all walks of life and communication, especially in courtroom contexts where the analysis could make or break a court case or prove someone guilty. Coulthard divides the responsibilities of a forensic linguist into three distinct parts; ‘the language of written legal texts’ (2010: 16) where the linguists are interested in complex grammar, unusual and uncommon lexis, and other aspects of legal writing which may cause concerns for those involved; ‘the spoken language of the legal process’ (2010: 16) which involves the linguist addressing the difficulties that individuals may face regarding those who do not speak, or struggle to speak the language of the court. The importance of a forensic linguist in a courtroom resides in their understanding of legal English. Law as a language differs from how language is used for other professional purposes. Cotterill describes narratives in forensic settings as ‘multi-perspectival and multi-voiced (2004: 147).
It is important to consider how long the processing of a case takes, in regard to the telling of a story. The timeline of a case undergoes a large number of retellings and reverberation by the time it ends in the courtroom. ‘Repetition is therefore a critical and defining feature of forensic narratives, to a large extent explaining the protractedness of both police interviews and courtroom testimony (Cotterill 2004: 147). Among all of these contexts and discussions, the suspect is questioned repeatedly, and therefore must reiterate the same story multiple times. Witnesses and suspects must be re-interviewed and must relive and repeat the same discussions in order to test the consistency of their accounts. Forensic linguists as expert witnesses must aid in assessing the stability and constancy of the story and the language used to reiterate a crime. ‘Narratives must be both internally consistent and must demonstrate consistency between versions in order to optimise their credibility and plausibility’ (Bennett and Feldman in Cotterill 2004: 148). Forensic linguists are called upon in order to provide an expert opinion, using their knowledge of semantics, pragmatics and the schemata within their particular speech community. Linguists delve into the use of; distinctive language and lexis; vocabulary; generic features of cross examination and their understanding of norms of politeness and interruption (Coulthard, Jonhson & Wright 2016: 10), which all allow them to provide a practiced opinion on the analysis and credibility of a statement. Eades (in Coutlhard, Johnson & Wright 2016: 11) took part in a case involving inequality and injustice, which was uncovered by analysis showing that police took part in verballing; ‘a term used […] referring to police putting words into their [suspects] mouths or inserting them into written confessions’ (2016: 11). Police used their knowledge of a suspect’s distinctive language and lexis to attempt to pose the man’s identity. However, the policemen involved used English differently to the man’s personal idiolect. Forensic linguists are able to use patterns such as those in Eade’s study to compare a person’s distinctive language and lexis and compare it to generic language features. One of the qualities of authorship attribution, is that no persons’ speech, handwriting, voice or idiolect is identical.
An area in which the validity of a forensic linguist as an expert witness can be questioned, is regarding the lack of quantifiability in the field. Danielewicz-Betz states that the restrictions of linguistic expertise in the law are because of ‘varying degrees of reliability related to shortcomings such as the brevity of documents, small data samples and general characteristics of language’ (2012: 94). The meaning and understanding of a word and/or term falls under the category of general characteristics of language. Understanding the lexicon that is spoken in a courtroom is one of the simplest, yet common flaws in the legal linguistic system. ‘Legislation is a linguistic entity, with no existence outside of language’(Gibbons 2004: 285), therefore if somebody does not understand the language of the law, they have less chance of constructing a skilled argument. Law is an important institution with an immense amount of influence and power. Therefore, the language which is used within a courtroom consists of legal jargon and lexis that those who are unfamiliar with the legal frameworks may not understand. Providing the same treatment for everyone linguistically falls in the hands of the forensic linguist. Gibbons states that within language and law it is pivotal to be aware that not everybody is advanced enough to possess understanding of legal lexical fields, and therefore are disadvantaged in terms of discourse conventions of legal proceedings (1994: 196). In order for every subject, witness and member of the jury to have the same opportunities within a courtroom, they must all have a similar level of understanding.
Freegood (2004: 116) states that failure to comprehend linguistic frameworks such as pragmatic markers and propositional content could mislead the lawyer’s question and the witnesses answer. Coulthard’s explanation of responsibility that lies with the linguist as an expert witness (2010: 16) – arguably the most important role of a forensic linguist in a court context. The role of the forensic linguist as an expert witness involves expressing opinions on authorship, meanings and definitions and general understanding. Forensic linguists work closely with interpreters in order to achieve the best technique in assisting those less familiar with legal language. However, validity decreases when interpreters are called upon in order to aid these issues, due to the ‘lack of sufficiently well-trained interpreters’ (Coulthard 2010: 18). Forensic linguists work with interpreters to ensure that every member of a courtroom experiences the same opportunities and understanding. However, as stated by Coulthard, actively training legal professionals and interpreters can be difficult, consequently resulting in a lack of specialists integral to a court procedure.
Forensic phonetic analysis plays a large role in the duties of a forensic linguist in a courtroom context. Forensic phonetic analysis is more commonly known as ‘speaker identification’ (Durant and Leung 2016: 97), which involves the process of comparing two or more speech samples in question, for example; hoax calls. The recording in question is typically compared to a speech sample provided by a suspect or a witness and is compared using auditory analysis. The comparison is carried out by an ‘Automatic Forensic Recognition (ASR) system, which works by taking a known recording and using mathematical transformation to reduce it to a statistic a statistic’ (Coulthard, Johnson & Write: 2017: 144). In terms of validity, using a machine which allows a recording to be analysed automatically and not rely on human interpretation, the findings are more prone to objectivity and replicability. The difference in forensic phonetic analysis being found and examined by a person compared to a technological development can be seen by the amount of mathematical, and therefore quantifiable data which can be exerted from the latter. Coulthard states that ASR can perform an analysis in seconds, whereas an auditory-acoustic approach would take hours. As well as the advantage of time, the ASR has been established as being very accurate in comparing and recognising voices (Coulthard, Johnson and Wright 2017: 144). In terms of reliability, quantifiably and therefore, reliability – in terms of forensic phonetic analysis – there is an established advantage of using technology in order to get the get the most precise and quickest results.
Forensic linguists are also trained to look out for prosodic features that accompany spoken English. Prosodic features can be a pivotal part of detecting how a speaker is really thinking or feeling without the use of words; body language, tone of voice and vocal emphasis (Haigh 2007: 79). Non-lexical features can reveal a lot about the mood or attitude of a speaker which is not identifiable in written English. All of these features can be performed by a judge or suspect in a courtroom, given the context of familiarity and unfamiliarity. Matilla expresses that prosodic features and semiotic acts are important in the legal system for illustrating behaviour. ‘Modern examples are illustrated by the gavel struck by the chairman of a meeting, to confirm a decision taken, and the handshaking of negotiators on concluding an agreement’ (2016: 43). Non-spoken acts are not typically easy to identify and examine, however they can be considered in terms of solidifying behaviour and pragmatics in language. Forensic linguists are trained in the framework of prosodic features, tones of voice, emphasis and body language. As an expert witness in a courtroom, forensic linguists can apply these features to speech, or analyse them in isolation in order to assess the behaviour of someone. Though, analysis of non-spoken language can be difficult to record and quantify, subsequently lessening the validity of the evidence.
Overall, when analysing the role of a forensic linguist within the context of a court procedure, it is evident that they have a pivotal role in aiding understanding of language in the law, and general understanding in dialect differences; the comprehensibility of legal documents; the identification of authors and speakers, and more (Tiersma and Solan 2002: 221). The role of a forensic linguist is to allow every member of the court to possess the same opportunity, as well as to support evidence in terms of linguistic frameworks such as phonetics, morphology and syntax, semantics, discourse, psycholinguistics and dialectology. In terms of validity when using a forensic linguist as an expert witness relies on how the evidence is found and carried out. As previously stated, the ASR has been recognised as being reliable in terms of quantifiability and objectivity (Coulthard, Johnson & Write: 2017: 144), whereas solely using a forensic linguist to identify and examine linguistic evidence, whether it is written or audible, can be argued to lack validity due to the inability to quantify and rapidly identify problems. Despite the disadvantages in terms of validity when using forensic linguists in a court procedure, they are still extremely beneficial due to their extensive knowledge with linguistic frameworks.