The Forensic Linguist’s Professional Credentials

Abstract

Under current court practice, it is not di cult for anyone with a PhD in English or linguistics to be allowed to testify as a 'linguistics expert' in many types of cases. Linguists and professors of English may, however, nd themselves in ethically questionable and professionally embarrassing situations if they attempt to assert expertise in sub elds at the margins of their linguistic specialization. is paper brie y describes some such situations and suggests ways in which linguists, through such organizations as the International Association of Forensic Linguists (IAFL), the American Association for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics (IAFPA), and the Linguistic Society of America (LSA), can improve the quali cations of linguistics legal consultants without getting into the business of actually licensing experts or attempting to maintain registries of approved forensic experts. A Code of Practice could recommend such attributes of the quali ed forensic linguist as specialized publication in forensic linguistics, teaching courses in forensic domains, and active membership in specialized forensic linguistic organizations and professional organizations dedicated to sub elds that are most relevant to one's area of forensic testimony (for example, for trademark expertise, organizations devoted to the study of lexicography). e pros and cons of incorporating credentialing criteria into any 'Guidelines for Consultants' are also presented.

‘I consider myself to be a service provider’: Discursive identity construction of the forensic linguistic expert

“…Among the topics one can find in the reports are the choice of method (e.g. Olsson 2012), limitations of the data (Coulthard et al 2010;Grant 2013 and2017), working relationship with the instructing lawyers (Shuy 2002(Shuy , 2006 and ethical issues (Butters 2009, Shuy 2009. Interestingly, aspects of the identity are often discussed through orientation to another group (similar to Li and Ran 2016): other forensic linguists, non-expert witnesses or lawyers/advocates.…”

“…Therefore, there is an expectation from the law that expert witnesses should be unbiased educators rather than advocates of their own moral ethics or their hiring party's values (Sacks 1990). Butters (2009) also raised the issue of remuneration for expert witness work, in particular the practice of those linguists who make a living out of expert witness work and those who provide investigative assistance pro bono. While the law expects impartiality, in reality, experts in adversarial systems are purposely and strategically selected by lawyers (Sack 1990), and are largely influenced by their hiring parties (Ainsworth 2010), and sometimes their own moral ethics (Butters 2009).…”

“…Butters (2009) also raised the issue of remuneration for expert witness work, in particular the practice of those linguists who make a living out of expert witness work and those who provide investigative assistance pro bono. While the law expects impartiality, in reality, experts in adversarial systems are purposely and strategically selected by lawyers (Sack 1990), and are largely influenced by their hiring parties (Ainsworth 2010), and sometimes their own moral ethics (Butters 2009). For example, Finegan (2009), a linguist, talks about how he is often approached with a request to assist one party in a proceeding, rather than the court.…”

“…Our informants show unanimity in seeing themselves as objective and independent providers of linguistic expertise whose duty is to assist the court. While remuneration was not raised specifically, some did acknowledge the ethical issues with being paid by the hiring party and doing pro bono work, which could affect impartiality, as discussed by Butters (2009) and Nunberg (2009). Nevertheless, those working in adversarial systems reject the idea of the 'hired gun', i.e.…”

Linguistic Analysis of Disputed Meanings: Trademarks

“…Federal trademark law disallows registration of marks that are deemed immoral, deceptive, scandalous, or disparaging. In one such case, a group of Native Americans attempted (unsuccessfully) to cancel the registered and long-established trademark of a sports team, the Washington Redskins, on the grounds that it was derogatory (see Butters, 1997Butters, , 2007cButters, , 2009a. Baron (1989) reports on a case in which "Glass Wax, a glass cleaner which contains no wax, successfully defended its trademark against a charge that the name was deceptive."…”