Qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwerty

uiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasd
fghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzx
Forensic discourse analysis
cvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
A Brief Introduction
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfg
hjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxc
vbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmq
wertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyui
opasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertpresented
bypryuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopa
sdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjkl
zxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbn
Supervised by: Mr Karim Iyadi

Presented by: Imene Bensalem ; Achour Zohra; Hobar Gamra ; Kamel Messoudi

 Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction

Forensic linguistics, as an emerging sub-discipline of forensic science, is an
interdisciplinary field of applied/descriptive linguistics which comprises the study,
analysis and measurement of language in the context of crime, judicial procedures or
disputes in law. The interface between language, crime and the law can be detected, for
instance, in the analysis of courtroom discourse, courtroom interpreting and translating,
the readability/comprehensibility of legal documents, the comprehensibility of the
police caution issued to suspects, and authorship attribution.
Forensic discourse analysis
It is the process by which The analysis of forensic discourse is based on the study,
understanding and use of the LANGUAGE in forensic contexts.
Linguistic Stylistics

Style is a reflection of group or individual variation in written language. Individual

variation is a result of the writers choices of one form out of the array of all
available forms. Choices represent variations within a norm (different correct
ways of saying the same thing), deviations from a norm (mistakes), and
idiosyncrasies (author-specific forms). The style of a writer is demonstrated by
his or her unique aggregate set of grammatical patterns, which is usually the
result of the writers recurrent (habitual) use of some or all of the forms in the
set.
Linguistic stylistics is the scientific analysis of individual style-markers as
observed and described in the idiolect of a single writer, as well as class stylemarkers as identified in the language or dialect of groups of writers. Linguistic
variation, whether variation within a norm or deviation away from a norm,
presupposes the existence and identification of a norm.

Forensic Applications of Linguistic Stylistics

Forensic stylistics is the application of the science of linguistic stylistics to forensic
contexts. The focus of forensic stylistics is written language and, sometimes, spoken
language represented in writing, e.g., transcripts of tape recorded conversations,
depositions, interviews, etc. The primary application of forensic stylistics is in the area
of questioned authorship. Other frequent applications relate to the analysis of meaning
in documents such as wills, insurance policies, contracts, agreements, laws, and the
analysis of meaning in spoken discourse.

 Authorship Attribution
Authorship attribution is the science of inferring characteristics of the author from
the characteristics of documents produced by that author. The key task is to establish
who said or wrote something which is to be used as evidence. Attribution is facilitated
by measuring word length average, average number of syllables per word,
article/determiner frequency, and type-token ratio (a measure of lexical variety).
Furthermore, punctuation in terms of overall density, syntactic boundaries and the
measurement of unique words in a text, contribute to solving the task.

Models of stylistic analysis for author identification

1) The resemblance model is the most frequently used paradigm for authorship
studies. When nonlinguistic evidence narrows the field of suspect authors to just
one or a small number of writers, the authorship question is defined to exclude or
identify just the one suspect writer.
2) The consistency model is used to determine whether two or more writings were
written by the same author.
3) The population model is occasionally used in forensic contexts that do not
provide external (nonlinguistic) evidence suggesting just one or two candidate
writers.
What is the method of analysis?
1. Get organized: arrange and organize questioned and known writings into manageable
sets.
2. State the problem: articulate the authorship problem as you see it. Articulate the
research questions for descriptive analysis and quantitative analysis. Select the
appropriate authorship models.
3. Procedural steps: assemble all questioned and known writings with the same or
similar context of writing. Assess the range of stylistic variation in each set. Identify
style-markers: deviations from or variations within any appropriate norm. Note single
occurrences of variation as well as habitual variation. If the writings are extensive,
make a KWIC concordance to help identify variables. If variation so indicates, make a
KPIC concordance of the punctuation in the writings.
4. Specify descriptive results: specify individual style-markers at all linguistic levels.
Specify the range of variation: the aggregate set of all deviations and variations.
Identify and separate style-markers that are class and individual characteristics.
5. Specify quantitative results: give results of statistical tests used to evaluate the
significance of variables. Estimate the joint probability of occurrence of variables in

compared writings. Apply other appropriate quantitative approaches to style marker

identification.
6. Specify exclusion conclusion: identify dissimilarities between the stylemarkers of
questioned and known writings. Determine linguistic or statistical significance of
dissimilarities. Determine to what degree the candidate writer can be excluded.
7. Specify identification conclusion: identify similarities between the stylemarkers of
questioned and known writings. Determine linguistic or statistical significance of
similarities. Determine to what degree the candidate writer can be identified.
forensic phoneticians and forensic linguists.
For the phonetician this is a question of decoding words and phrases from
tape-recordings - when a recording is of poor quality the non-expert may hear
one thing, while the expert with a trained ear and the help of sophisticated
equipment and software may perceive something entirely different. A man with a
strong West Indian accent was transcribed as saying that he got onto a train
and then shot a man to kill whereas the phonetician was able to demonstrate
that what he had actually said was the innocuous and contextually much more
plausible showed a man ticket.
The forensic linguist is concerned not with deciphering words, but rather with
their interpretation. The meaning of phrases or even individual words can be of
crucial importance in some trials. Perhaps the most famous British example comes
from the 1950s, the case of Derek Bentley and Chris Craig. Bentley, already
under arrest at the time, was said to have shouted to Craig, who had a revolver
in his hand, let him have it, Chris; shortly afterwards Craig fired several times
and killed a policeman. There was a long debate in court over the interpretation
of Bentleys ambiguous utterance, which was resolved in favour of the
prosecutions incriminating interpretation, shoot him rather than the defences
mitigating give him the gun; this made Bentley an accessory to murder, for
which he was convicted and later hanged.
Language of the legal processes
Plicespeak
I.

Definition: Policespeak is the spoken language of police communication, or the

language used by police in the execution of their duties.

II.

Characteristcs:

1. Control over topic and interactional focus:

Police language will often be oriented towards maintaining control of the direction
taken in an interaction.As police will seek to maintain a focus on relevant information,

when interviewing suspects,relevant is likely to include some or all of the following:

motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake
or accident.
1.1. Establishmotive':
Example : Police:On little Rikki*.I want to know why you did it, I want to know what
made you do it. / Suspect: I didnt do it.
Here, the interviewing officer is asking questions which explicitly seek to establish a
motive for the murder of a young girl, repeatedly using variants of what made you do
it.
2. Use of characteristic vocabulary and set phrases:
Pol:Do you recall having a conversation with a middle-aged female being the driver of
a vehicle stopped in front of you at the intersection of
Brown*RoadandtheGreen*Highway Town borough*,at that time and date?
2.1.Variations on the fixed phrase :
A. Statements as questions
Pol: And you agree?

Pol: You agree?

B. Hypotheticals
Pol: Would you also agree that if someone was kneed to the stomach it would be likely
that that person would also receive injuries?
C. Negotiated agreement
Pol: You told me you were born in1971.Is that correct?
Sus: Thats the one
Pol: And do you agree
Pol: Well, would you agree with me if I told you that you were 26 years of age...today?
Sus: Yeah,all right.
3. Rapport building:
Analyzing policespeak when gathering information when questioning, analysts found that
Police officers may choose terms of address that they believe will help establish a

friendly and cooperative atmosphere. The police interviewers introduction of a new

vocabulary item,mate, into the interview; and the suspects recycling of the introduced
term as a form of accommodation.
Pol: How you going mate?
Sus: Im pretty good mate.
4. Control of topic navigation:
The fact that the police interviewers role is essentially information seeking, and the
suspects or interviewees role is information giving, places control over topic
navigation/management in the interviewers handsquestions are initiating moves,
answers are responding moves.
Language of forensic evidence
The focus is The study of written and spoken material that are admitted as a proof in
legal investigations.
Types of forensic texts :
i.

Suicide letters

A suicide note is typically brief, concise and highly propositional with a degree of
evasiveness.. The proposition of genuine suicide is thematic, directed to the addressee
(or addressees) and relevant to the relationship between them. Suicide notes generally
have sentences alluding to the act of killing oneself, or the method of suicide that was
undertaken. The contents of a suicide note could be intended to make the addressee
suffer or feel guilt. Genuine suicide letters are short, typically less than 300 words in
length.
ii.

Threat texts and ransom demands:

Threat texts (which can be spoken or written, or even videoed) have common
characteristics: the sender of the text or the person making the call is usually
anonymous. The recipient of the malicious text or call are both at a disadvantage:
violence of one form or another is being perpetrated against them by someone who is
unseen.
Threats are the counterparts of promises. If one person threatens to cause death or
injury to another unless x is done, then the person making the threat is implying that
they will not carry out the threat if the required condition is fulfilled. This is why
ransom demands are so complex: they appear to contain a conditional promise: 'If you do
X, or pay Y, we will return Z to you.' However, it is very important that the wording of
the condition should be considered carefully, because very often the kidnapper has no
intention of returning the hostage, alive or dead.

iii.

Public confessions and denials ( spoken discourse)

When suspects go publicly confessing or denying accusations , the job of forensic

linguistis is to determine whether they are lying or telling the truth.
There are two patterns of deception: Speech and Body Language.
1. SPEECH:
Non-contracted denial: A denial that is over-determined, i.e., employs formal,

instead of informal, language to deny, e.g., Bill Clinton said I did not have sex with
that woman . . . Miss Lewinsky.
Distancing language: Use of language that (unconsciously) distances the speaker
from the subject. Example: I did not have sexual relationship with that woman.
Qualifying language: e.g., saying to tell the truth or in all candor.
Repeating the question in its entirety: this is a tactic to buy the liar more time
to think of how to lie.
Over-sharing: Peppering ones account with too much detail.

2. BODY LANGUAGE:

Liars, instead of fidgeting, actually freeze their upper bodies when theyre
lying.
Liars look you in the eye a little too much, to compensate for the myth that
liars avoid eye contact.
Liars smile a fake smile, i.e., they smile only with their mouth, butnot with
their eyes, which cant be faked.
Attitude: An honest person is cooperative, on your side; enthusiastic, willing and
helpful in getting to the truth, willing to brainstorm, provide details; feels
infuriated if falsely accused, not just in flashes but throughout the entire course
of the interview or conversation; favors strict, instead of lenient punishment for
transgressors. A deceptive person is withdrawn; looks down; lowers his voice;
pauses; peppers his story with lots of and irrelevant details; tells the story in
strict chronological order.
Giveaway body language:
Shaking our head when we say yes
Shrugging our shoulders when we tell a convincing lie.
Duping delight: Smiling with delight at getting away with a
terriblecrime (e.g., O. J. Simpson)

references
Littlejohn, A., & Mehta, S. (2012). The role of forensic linguistics in crime investigation. In Language Studies
Stretching the Boundaries. Newcastle upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Pub.
McMenamin, G. (2002). Stylistics. In Forensic linguistics: Advances in forensic stylistics. Boca Raton, Fla.,
London: CRC Press.
McMenamin, G. (2002). Forensic stylistics. In Forensic linguistics: Advances in forensic stylistics. Boca Raton,
Fla.: CRC Press.
Coulthard, M. (n.d.). Some forensic applications of descriptive linguistics. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from
http://www.ufjf.br/revistaveredas/files/2009/12/artigo016.pdf
Gibbons, J. (2008). Policespeak. In Dimensions of forensic linguistics. Amsterdam, NL: John Benjamins Pub.
Forensic linguistics. (n.d.). Retrieved May 1, 2015, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forensic_linguistics
Meyer, P. (2014, July 6). How to Spot a Liar. Retrieved May 1, 2015, from
http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2014/07/06/how-to-spot-a-liar/