Broadly defined, forensic linguistics is concerned with all points at which language and the law intersect and “draws on the scientific study of language to solve forensic problems” (McMenamin 2002: 41). Forensic linguistic work can approach language and the law from a range of perspectives; language-oriented (see Solan 1993; Tiersma 1999; Solan & Tiersma 2005), law-oriented (Gibbons 2003), with a social scientific approach (Conley & O’Barr 2005), with a focus on methodological developments, or from one that seeks to improve the quality of forensic linguistic evidence including its dissemination to courtroom and other legal audiences. Forensic linguistics as a discipline that also links up with wider concepts and themes such as ethics, power and vulnerability, and the inherent conflict within legal systems across the world between securing a conviction and protecting the rights of suspects, victims and witnesses. Much like many other interdisciplinary areas of linguistics and social sciences, forensic linguistics is not defined by the use of any one particular methodological framework; rather the most appropriate framework is applied to the type of data, the context in which it sits and the purpose of the analysis. The development of appropriate analytic techniques, or the modification of existing ones, is itself part of the work within the discipline. A feature of forensic linguistic research is that it is generally applied research that is used to examine interactional practices, to understand more about language and its use and application, or inform practice in some way. It is sometimes referred to as a branch of applied linguistics, and the nomenclatures applied linguistics and forensic linguistics are at times used interchangeably. Although there are no clear differentiating factors on methodological, conceptual or theoretical levels between applied and forensic linguistics, a key difference between the two is the latter’s specific focus on “the application of linguistic knowledge to a particular social setting, namely the legal forum (from which the word forensic is derived)” (Olsson 2008: 3).
Benneworth, K. M.
2010 “Negotiating paedophilia: How sexual offences are constructed in the investigative interview.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, 139–154. Abingdon: Routledge.
2012 “History of forensic linguistics.” In The Blackwell Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics, ed. by C. A. Chapelle. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
2013“‘So tell me what happened!’: Interpreting the free recall segment of the investigative interview’. Translation and Interpreting Studies 8 (1): 112–136.
2010 “Trademark Linguistics – Trademarks: Language that one owns.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, 351–364. Abingdon: Routledge.
2008Policing Talk: An Investigation into the Interaction of the Officer and the Suspect in the Police Interview. University of Essex PhD dissertation.
2011Analysing Police Interviews: Laughter, Confessions and the Tape. London: Continuum.
2014 “When is a lie not a lie? When it’s divergent: Examining lies and deceptive responses in a police interview.” Language and Law (Linguagem e Direto) 1(1).
Conley, J. M. and W. M. O’Barr
2005Just Words: Law, Language, and Power (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2000 “Whose text is it? On the linguistic investigation of authorship.” In Discourse and Social Life, ed. by S. Sarangi and M. Coulthard, 270–287. London: Longman.
2004 “Author identification, idiolect and linguistic uniqueness.” Applied Linguistics 25 (4): 431–447. BoP
Coulthard, M. and A. Johnson
2007An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London: Routledge.
Coulthard, M. and A. Johnson
(eds)2010The Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge.
Coulthard, M., T. Grant and K. Kredens
2011 “Forensic Linguistics.” In The SAGE Handbook of Sociolinguistics, ed. by R. Wodak, B. Johnstone, and P. L. Kerswill. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
2010 “The cultural defense as courtroom drama: The enactment of identity, sameness and difference in criminal trial discourse.” Law and social enquiry 35 (1): 67–98.
1992 “Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape.” In Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, ed. by P. Drew and J. Heritage, 470–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Dumas, B. K.
2000“US Pattern Jury Instructions: Problems and proposals.” The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 7 (1): 49–71.
2000 “I don’t think it’s an answer to the question: Silencing Aboriginal witnesses in court.” Language in Society 29: 161–195. BoP
2010 “Txt 4n6: Idiolect free authorship analysis.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, 508–522. Abingdon: Routledge.
2003Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Oxford: Blackwell. BoP
Gibbons, J. and M. Teresa Turell
(eds)2008Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. BoP
2010 “Police interviews in the judicial process: Police interviews as evidence.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by M. Coulthard, and A. Johnson, 169–181. Abingdon: Routledge.
2008 “The language and communication of jury instruction.” In Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by J. Gibbons and M. Teresa Turell. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. BoP
Heffer, C., F. Rock and J. Conley
2013Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2005The Language of Police Interviewing: A Critical Analysis. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
1984Codes of Practice. Order 1988. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office.
2010 “Witnesses and suspects in interviews.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, 138–152. New York: Routledge.
Shuy, R. W.
1999The Language of Confession, Interrogation and Deception. London: Sage.
Shuy, R. W.
2002Linguistic Battles in Trademark Disputes. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Shuy, R. W.
2002 “Breaking into language and law: The trials of the insider-linguist.” In Round Table on Language and Linguistics: Linguistics, Language and the Professions, ed. by J. E. Alatis, H. E. Hamilton and A. Tan. Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.
Solan, L. M.
1993The Language of Judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Solan, L. M. and P. M. Tiersma
2005Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sousa Silva, R., G. Laboreiro, T. Grant, E. Oliveira and B. Maia
2011“‘Twazn me!!! ;(’ Automatic authorship analysis of micro-blogging messages.” Natural Language Processing and Information Systems. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 6716: 161–168.
1997 “KISSing the Jury – the advantages and limitations of the ‘keep it simple’ principle in the presentation of expert evidence to courts and juries.” International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 4: 280–286.
2010 “Complex documents/average and not-so-average readers.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, 333–347. London: Routledge.
2002 “The linguist on the witness stand: Forensic linguistics in American courts.” Language 78: 221–39.
2010a “Lay people as cross-examiners: A linguistic analysis of the libel case McDonald’s Corporation v. Helen Steel and David Morris.” PhD Abstract. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law X: 307–310.
2010b “Representing oneself. Cross-examination questioning: Lay people as cross-examiners.” In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, ed. by M. Coulthard and A. Johnson, 333–347. London: Routledge.
Wheatcroft, J. M., G. F. Wagstaff and M. R. Kebbell
2004 “The influence of courtroom questioning style on actual and perceived eyewitness confidence and accuracy.” Legal and Criminal Psychology 9: 83–101.