The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts

Tiersma, Peter; Solan, Lawrence M.

doi:10.1353/lan.2002.0135

Cited by 57 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Why then should specialists be called upon when language is central in a trial? What would a proper linguistic analysis bring that would not be already found in a simple reading of the text (Tiersma & Solan 2002)? Most of all, magistrates and solicitors do feel they are language specialists; and indeed, they are, but in the language of their own field.…”

Section: France and The Forensic Linguist: A Delayed Encounter? (The mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Such a statement involves a different position for the speaker: now s/he is involved in a pragmatic frame that conditions his/her performance (as pointed out by Finegan 2009). The ethical dimension of the expertise-giving is an important point here (see for instance Shuy 1993Shuy , 2010Tiersma and Solan 2002;Ainsworth 2009;Finegan 2009;Lagorgette 2010b); it has consequences not only for the entire trial, but also for the pragmatic frame of interactions in the courtroom. Whereas a witness's voice is understood as carrying a personal view of the facts, the expert's analysis is supposed to remain objective and neutral.…”

Section: France and The Forensic Linguist: A Delayed Encounter? (The mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Pragmatics in the courtroom

Lagorgette

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: France and The Forensic Linguist: A Delayed Encounter? (The mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: France and The Forensic Linguist: A Delayed Encounter? (The mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatics in the courtroom

Lagorgette

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In America and elsewhere, trial judges themselves are given a great deal of power in allowing or disallowing expert testimony (Ainsworth 2006, Howald 2006, Tiersma and Solan 2002, Wallace 1986. e trial judge's ruling is generally nal and is based on several factors: 1) What sort of precedent is there for allowing this particular kind of testimony?…”

Section: The Trial Judge As 'Gatekeeper'mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Forensic Linguist’s Professional Credentials

Butters

2010

IJSLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

“…The final issue I will mention concerns the role of language understanding in legal proceedings. Peter Tiersma and Lawrence Solan have shown that the reception of expert linguistic testimony in court cases is mixed: sometimes linguistic testimony is admitted without dispute, but other times it is refused (Tiersma & Solan, 2002). Linguistic experts are often allowed to testify about the meaning of text in a foreign language.…”

Section: Directions For Further Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tacit and accessible understanding of language

Johnson

2007

Synthese

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The empirical nature of our understanding of language is explored. I first show that there are several important and different distinctions between tacit and accessible awareness. I then present empirical evidence concerning our understanding of language. The data suggests that our awareness of sentence-meanings is sometimes merely tacit according to one of these distinctions, but is accessible according to another. I present and defend an interpretation of this mixed view. The present project is shown to impact on several diverse areas, including inferential role semantics and holism, the nature of learning, and the role of linguistics in the law.

show abstract

The Linguist on the Witness Stand: Forensic Linguistics in American Courts

Cited by 57 publications

References 19 publications

Pragmatics in the courtroom

Pragmatics in the courtroom

The Forensic Linguist’s Professional Credentials

Tacit and accessible understanding of language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About