5, Ria Perkins undertakes Other Language Influence Detection (OLID), linguistic profiling intended to indicate the first language of an author based on how they write in a second language. The section ends with Chapter 6, in which Rui Sousa Silva addresses a different type of authorship problem: detecting and analyzing for plagiarism. Sousa Silva’s discussion around the different strategies that plagiarists employ to steal other people’s written productions extends to the non-English-speaking world and highlights the growing problem of translingual plagiarism.
Section 2: Meaning and Interpretation
These chapters are concerned with casework covering linguistic analysis of how language is produced and how we derive meaning from it. In Chapter 7, Gerald McMenamin provides a strong opening to this section on how immigrant and multilingual communities are denied their constitutional rights and due process because of their lack of understanding of the English language. In this American court case centering on the admissibility of evidence provided during police interviews, judges in the trial and appellate courts concluded that a Hispanic woman understood English sufficiently well to waive her Miranda rights to not self-incriminate, in spite of linguistic evidence to the contrary.
This is followed by Chapter 8 on linguistic “oddities,” in which Isabel Picornell and Malcolm Coulthard discuss how language design alerts linguists to the possibility that the context in which it has been produced has been faked. Coulthard addresses the linguistics of faked confessions, while Picornell demonstrates how being alert to linguistic red flags can identify falsified contexts that are not initially apparent.
From identifying language that is wrong for its context, we move to assessing purpose and the implicit meanings conveyed by an utterance. Deriving meaning from language in context is central to Tanya Karoli Christensen’s analysis in Chapter 9 of ISIS recruitment chat logs to assist the police in understanding what the individuals concerned were discussing.
Finally, I. M. Nick concludes with an analysis of the language of suicide. Chapter 10 demonstrates the increasing cross-disciplinary mix of linguistics and forensic behavioral sciences to create new areas of research—in this case, suicidology.
FORENSIC LINGUISTIC CASEWORK
Traditionally, forensics has been defined as relating to the legal (civil or criminal) field, or a legal context setting. This association can be seen with other fields that contain the term “forensic” in their name, such as forensic sciences or forensic psychology. The self-definitions of such fields virtually always highlight their application within legal settings. For example, the stated aim of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences is to “advance science and its application to the legal system” (American Academy of Forensic Sciences, n.d.); the British Academy of Forensic Sciences defines forensic science as “the application of science to the law, both civil and criminal” (British Academy of Forensic Sciences, n.d.).
The question arises as to whether it is the data, the analysis, or the application that makes a linguistic analysis forensic. Much valid work considered to be forensic linguistics would not immediately fall under the legal association of “forensic”. Areas of work such as understanding the language of mis- or disinformation or influence and radicalization for defense and security purposes do not have such a clear and direct legal association, yet they may easily be considered forensic.
In dictionaries, the word casework is normally associated with social work involving an individual’s personal history or circumstances (e.g., OED third edition, 2014). In the context of forensic linguistics, analysts also apply their skills, experience, and knowledge to direct considerations of a particular personal situation. However, rather than relating to information on the personal circumstances of a specific individual or group, it instead relates to language data, created by individuals or groups, that is examined in investigatory situations.
The requirement for forensic linguistic expertise is one that arguably evolved from necessity. Early work in forensic linguistics was exceedingly casework driven. Investigators and lawyers were encountering the need to analyze language as evidence or challenge linguistic perceptions and interpretation, and it was clear that analysis grounded in linguistic theory had the potential to assist lawyers and judges in their work.
Svartvik’s The Evans Statements (1968) is often considered to be the first organized call for the creation of a forensic linguistic science, a field that undertook systematic analysis of language data in forensic settings. His monograph demonstrated how linguistics and casework-oriented linguistic analysis based on the study of observed data could contribute to an improvement in justice and how a better understanding of how language worked could help.
Other publications followed, revolving around how practitioners applied their linguistic knowledge in legal and courtroom setting. Articles and books such as Roger Shuy’s Language Crimes (1993), Coulthard’s A Failed Appeal (1997), and Lawrence M. Solan and Peter M. Tiersma’s Speaking of Crime (2005) were seminal works that introduced readers to evidential shortcomings and misconceptions related to language within the criminal justice system. Reviewing their own and other legal cases and the linguistic evidence relevant to their determination, these pioneering practitioners demonstrated how linguistic knowledge and approaches could be applied in new, varied, and (most importantly) useful ways to assist the legal system and improve the delivery of justice.
Although the academic field of linguistics was not formalized until the early 1970s, there is evidence of forms of linguistic analysis being used in forensic contexts from much earlier periods. The identification of perceived enemies on the basis of their language can be traced back to as early as the biblical story of Shibboleth:
And the Gileadites took the passages of Jordan before the Ephraimites: and it was so, that when those Ephraimites which were escaped said, Let me go over; that the men of Gilead said unto him, Art thou an Ephraimite? If he said, Nay; Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Then they took him and slew him at the passages of Jordan: and there fell at that time of the Ephraimites forty and two thousand. (Judges 12:5–6)
Similarly, in World War II, Dutch border patrols sought to identity Germans pretending to be Dutch travelers by requiring them to say the city name Scheveningen. Dutch and German grammar have different phonetic rules for pronouncing the word-initial “s,” much less “s” + “ch,” which would make it largely unpronounceable to anyone except a native Dutch speaker. Although this is arguably forensic phonetics rather than forensic linguistics, it does demonstrate how deeply ingrained language analysis is in society. Today, the term shibboleth applies to any word that identifies a person as belonging (or not belonging) to a particular group.
Perhaps the earliest example of a type of forensic linguistics being proactively applied is to the Donation of Constantine, an eighth-century falsification of a fourth-century document. The papacy had claimed vast territories and spiritual and temporal powers on the basis of a grant by the Roman emperor, Constantine the Great. In 1440, the Italian philosopher and literary critic Lorenzo Valla applied his knowledge of Latin grammar and rhetoric to analyzing the Donation. Valla demonstrated that the document could not have originated in the fourth century as the Latin in it was inconsistent linguistically and stylistically with that of the period. Consensus now has the Donation to be an eighth-century ce creation, probably originating from within the papacy itself (Frontini et al., 2008).
In 1628, a similar analysis by the Calvinist theologian David Blondel concluded that the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore, a collection of 500 years of letters and decrees providing the legal basis for papal independence and powers, was also falsified. Blondel