Chapter 6

Forensic Linguistics and Pedagogical

Implications in Multilingual Contexts

Effie Papatzikou Cochran

Abstract After defining Forensic Linguistics, this chapter discusses the various

areas that forensic linguistics is applied in the pursuit of justice. Citing several
examples, the chapter shows how language can be used as a powerful tool, espe-
cially in multilingual contexts, where it can often be abused to the detriment of the
nonnative speaker of English. Therefore, it is recommended that forensic linguistics
be part of every curriculum for the purpose of raising students’ consciousness of
how the legal system is reflected and embedded in the English language. The chap-
ter concludes with teaching applications and offers a sample lesson of how to teach
our multilingual students to avoid being trapped by the law or even being caught in
legally unpleasant or threatening situations. In general, the knowledge of forensic
linguistics is highly recommended in order for us all to combat injustice in society.
Keywords  Forensic linguistics · Discourse analysis · Miranda warnings/rights ·
Language in legal interaction · Linguistic evidence · Language crimes · Linguistic
misconceptions · Coerced or false confessions · Ear witness · Digital fingerprints ·
Stylometry

6.1 Introduction

Forensic Linguistics is a relatively new branch of linguistics, and it was Australian

and British linguists who first saw the value of the use of linguistic analyses and so-
lutions as applied to the law. More recently, due to successful and reliable solutions
to legal questions, forensic linguistics has also gained legitimacy in the once reti-
cent American courtroom, and now linguists are in demand as expert witnesses by
judges, lawyers, and juries both for civil and criminal cases. The two succinct defi-
nitions of forensic linguistics according to Coulthard (1994) are (a) the techniques
used by linguists to reveal evidence and (b) the language used in legal interaction.

E. P. Cochran ()
Department of English, John Jay College of Criminal Justice
of The City University of New York, New York, NY, USA
e-mail: ecochran@jjay.cuny.edu
A. Mahboob, L. Barratt (eds.), Englishes in Multilingual Contexts, Multilingual Education 10, 81
DOI 10.1007/978-94-017-8869-4_6, © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014
82 E. P. Cochran

In exploring the complex relationship between linguistics and the law, forensic
linguistics looks critically at the power and the role of language in the legal process,
from the collection of evidence to arrest to trial and beyond. Thus, it examines
discourse in police questioning and interviews, analyzes written statements such
as confessions, and studies the comprehensibility of legal language to juries. Such
written statements might be crimes that are committed directly in unlawful speech
acts such as threats, bribery, or fraudulent claims, but they may also be more subtle
injustices deliberately or inadvertently committed through language. Thus, forensic
linguistic study can shed light on how oral and written argumentation can be used or
misused by speakers of the privileged language/variety to the disadvantage of less
powerful social groups and their language varieties. This chapter examines forensic
linguistics in multilingual contexts.
As both Wolfram (2014) and Derwing et al. (2014) argue, an individual’s lan-
guage has social implications. Wolfram points out that learners of English acquire
individualized varieties of the language as they form their identities. Derwing et al.
(2014) demonstrate that certain accents and language dialects and varieties can stig-
matize and that nonnative English speakers (whether learners or proficient speakers)
may therefore face prejudice and discrimination on many levels but particularly
with respect to their pronunciation (accent). Accents and dialects can stereotype us-
ers, often resulting in entrapment. Awareness and acceptance of various Englishes,
through the teaching of forensic linguistics, can prevent linguistic offenses.
As we aim to explore the relationship between language and the law, we demon-
strate how forensic linguistics is applied in the pursuit of justice and offer an argu-
ment for forensic linguistics to be taught in schools. Specific areas to be covered
are as follows:
• Prejudice from Misconceptions about Language
• Ways Forensic Linguistics is Used in the Pursuit of Justice
− Digital fingerprints?
− Graphology and Ear Witness Testimony
− Use of Forensic Linguists as Expert Witnesses in Court
• Legal Protection in Multicultural Contexts
• Confessions Within the North American and Australian Contexts
• Raising Awareness of Forensic Linguistics: Cultivating Legal Savvy in Multilin-
gual Contexts
• Teaching Applications
− Teaching Forensic Linguistics Courses

6.2 Prejudice from Misconceptions about Language

In some cases, prejudice against language varieties and their users is the result of
misconceptions about language. People are stereotyped based on their accents and
the perceived prestige of their dialect. In multilingual contexts, the additional layer
6  Forensic Linguistics and Pedagogical Implications in Multilingual Contexts 83

of culture only serves to intensify the misunderstandings. In the past, the erroneous
presumption that so-called standard English was exclusively “owned” by European
descendants compelled schools to only hire native ESOL teachers whose “native-
ness” of English was taken for granted. It is now acknowledged that there are many
world Englishes and is further understood that “nativeness” of language is both a
linguistic, as well as a socio-political matter, tied to identity. (Nero, 2014).
Shuy (1993/1996) addressed some of these misconceptions:
• “Meaning is formed primarily in WORDS.”
− On the contrary, meaning is conveyed in many ways besides words. Par-
ticularly in multilingual, and in many cases in multicultural environments,
non-verbal expression is of paramount importance. More specifically, it is
generally accepted by body language communication experts, that as high as
93 % of human communication is delivered by body language and most of it is
facial. According to Darn (2005), less than 10 % of interpersonal communica-
tion involves words. Attributed to St. Jerome is the following, “The face is the
mirror of the mind, and the eyes, without speaking, confess the secrets of the
heart.”
• “Written transcripts NOT audio/video recordings are the evidence.”
− This is not true. Written transcripts do not provide such clues as stress, intona-
tion, pauses, interruption patterns, overlapping speech, and body language.
• “Listening to a tape or even viewing a videotape ONCE is adequate for memory
and for understanding its content.”
− Multiple viewings are necessary for remembering and for picking up linguis-
tic nuances.
• “Participants in a conversation understand the same things by the words that
were spoken.”
− This is not true. The misuse of pronouns can create ambiguity, as is common
in multilingual contexts. The use of a term that has a different connotation in
another language can be misapplied, or a cognate can be used for entrapment
when translated literally. (See the Roy and Pavlenko examples below.)
• “People say what they mean and intend.”
− This is not always the case: People often hide their intentions. Meaning is not
conveyed in a vacuum; there must always be a context within which words
can be interpreted. In multilingual settings, there is a danger of misinterpreta-
tion because there is not only one cultural or linguistic context.
Shuy (1993/1996) examines some commonly used undercover strategies, such as
the use of hypotheticals and allusion that are based at least on moral ambiguity.
Ambiguity can be cleverly used by cooperating witnesses to help the authority’s
case. But the state-condoned use of such ambiguity in obtaining evidence in order to
convict goes against the moral and legal establishment of truth, which is itself being
manipulated. Furthermore, such “legalese” confuses defendants, as well as juries,
84 E. P. Cochran

especially if some of the members are nonnative speakers themselves. For example,
sometimes apologizing or assenting to a statement or question does not indicate
guilt but is in fact a request of clarification as in “Yes” or “uh-huh,” meaning tell
me more so that I can understand, or “I’m thinking; continue.” Therefore, “uh-huh”
uttered by a nonnative speaker of English does not equal “consent.”
An example of the above can be found in Roy (1990), who describes such dif-
ficulties in his article, Limited English Proficient Individuals in Legal Settings. Roy
analyzes the cases of two nonnative speakers accused of illegal activities. The first,
a native Greek speaker, misunderstood the term “to fix” his taxes, and by assenting
“yeah” repeatedly to his interlocutors, he wasn’t agreeing but was requesting further
information. The authorities were trying to entrap him into agreeing to payment
under the table. The other had native literacy in Spanish and little knowledge of
English. She was not advised of her rights in her native language and ultimately did
not understand what she was agreeing to upon interrogation. Due to Roy’s forensic
linguistic study of the two cases, both convictions were reversed. This is an excel-
lent example of how forensic linguistics is used to protect multilinguals.

6.3 Ways Forensic Linguistics is Used in the Pursuit

of Justice

In an attempt to assist the legal profession, forensic linguists, in addition to employ-

ing discourse analysis, also use phonology and computer science, and, to a lesser
extent graphology. Below are some examples where techniques from these areas
have contributed to crime solving.

6.4 Digital Fingerprints?

In addition to detecting authorship of handwritten documents and audio recorded

speech, techniques for detecting keyboard authorship have been recently developed,
though it is difficult for digital writing to leave fingerprints or type-prints. Of spe-
cial note is Chaski (2001) on detecting authorship of ransom or suicide notes when
typed or written on the computer. Chaski uses stylometry, which refers to computing
countable language features, from length of sentences to the frequency of certain
words. Chaski’s (2005) ALIAS program, for which she claims a 95 % success rate,
employs a syntactic method. This program can scan and sort documents according
to a number of set linguistic variables.
Zimmer (2011) reported that Concordia University in Canada attempted a differ-
ent method for discovering e-mail authorship based on a large number of e-mails
written by former Enron employees. The Concordia group claims 80–90 % accura-
cy. However, Zimmer also refers to Chaski’s “keyboard dilemma” of multiple users
of a particular computer when he, along with many linguists, wonders whether there
is such a thing as a person’s “write-print,” which may be equivalent to a fingerprint.
6  Forensic Linguistics and Pedagogical Implications in Multilingual Contexts 85

Stylometry is possible because language varies not only by race, ethnicity, gen-
der, age, and by geography, but also by social group. In addition to language varia-
tion, people have their own idiolect (the language system of an individual speaker).
So a person’s own language can be interpreted or used for various strategic reasons.
Stylometry, while a useful technique, can also be used to create the appearance of
innocence or guilt. Hence people can go to prison because they appear guilty due to
an undercover agents’ manipulative or coercive speech.
Nonnative speakers are especially vulnerable to these techniques (Pavlenko
2008). An example of this would be the use of the double negative, including the
hidden negative with “unless” “forbid” or “deny,” that further negates the mean-
ing of a sentence in most languages except English. For example, in most foreign
languages, the statement, “I don’t have no time.” means I don’t have any time. Gib-
bons (2001) in revising the language procedures for the police in South Wales, U.K.,
recommends the use of plain language as preferable to linguistic complexities, by
avoiding passive constructions, subordination, or nominalization. Therefore, foren-
sic linguistic analysis must be available to juries in cases where understanding of
language practices—such as ambiguity or vagueness of language—is crucial to a
just verdict, especially when physical evidence of guilt is lacking.

6.5 Graphology and Ear Witness Testimony

Handwriting analysis or graphology used to be conducted extensively in earlier

years. Graphology, like physical document analysis, is also concerned with linguis-
tics but to a lesser extent. It is about comparing “known” or “requested samples”
of a suspect’s handwriting with the handwritten document in question in order to
determine likelihood of authorship.
Dialectologists, Creolists, and handwriting analysts have used linguistic evidence
to interpret blackmail or ransom notes or tapes since the early part of the twentieth
century. Further, early voice analysis and spectograms have been somewhat helpful
for earwitness identification. Of course we have the infamous, extensive handwrit-
ten ransom notes of Bruno Hauptmann, the kidnapper and killer of the Charles
Lindbergh baby in the 1920s in the U.S. The Hauptmann handwriting documents,
both known and conceded, were thoroughly examined and written about, including
his idiomorphic signature of the two overlapping circles with a hole in the middle.
In fact, his ransom notes helped convict and sentence him to death. But in addition
to Hauptmann’s handwriting, during his trial the earwitness question arose when
Hauptmann called, “Hey, doctor. Over here, over here.” But Lindbergh testified that
he could identify the voice even after a long time had lapsed. It has actually been
determined that people remember exactly and accurately what they hear only for
2–3 seconds after hearing it. After that, accuracy decreases over time. [Solan and
Tiersma (2005).] Therefore, Lingbergh’s remembering the voice after months and
clearly identifying it as Hauptmann’s, is highly unlikely. According to Solan and
Tiersma (2005), “While the reliability of eyewitness identification has been a focal
86 E. P. Cochran

point in the news media, the scholarly literature, and the courts, the unreliability of
earwitness identification has gone virtually unnoticed” (pp. 118–119).
Leonard (2009) claims that memory is malleable and is reinvented every time
it is called upon. Testimony to this is the Loftus and Palmer (1974) study of the
interaction between language and memory. In experiments of viewing films of au-
tomobile crashes, this study found that people remember things based not just on
what they hear or see but also on what is inferred from what they hear or see. Hence,
when subjects were asked after viewing cars involved in accidents “About how
fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?,” the answers were of
higher speed estimates than when the question was asked using less violent verbs
such as collided, bumped, or hit in place of smashed. Further, a week later when the
subjects were questioned again, the subjects who were asked the question with the
verb smashed, answered “Yes” to the question “Did you see any broken glass?” The
researchers concluded that suggested descriptive words affect how people remem-
ber things.
Studies such as these demonstrate how easy it is to steer a witness by semantic
manipulation. The difficulties for both interviewer and witness obviously increase
in multilingual contexts when one of the speakers (interviewer or witness) has a
limited English vocabulary and lacks the ability to access nuance in speech or pro-
cess it in comprehension.

6.6 Use of Forensic Linguists as Expert Witnesses

in Court

Law professionals have long accepted Mellinkoff’s (1963) statement that “Law is
a profession of words.” Eades (1996a) further declares, “Manipulation of language
is the key to ALL participation in the legal system, at any level, by any person”
(p. 113).
Forensic linguistics is about examining the role of linguists’ involvement in the
legal process, especially when they serve as expert witnesses on the stand or when
working as consultants behind the scenes for either the defense or the prosecution.
According to Candlin (2002), not only are awareness and vigilance needed but “in-
formed vigilance,” i.e. “linguistic evidence” is needed in the monitoring of the law
practices.
Forensic linguists focus on what is normal or typical and work from primary
sources, i.e. the actual audiotape, written text, or the videotaped event. They testify
about how language operates ordinarily and how memory works. Simply put, acting
as expert witnesses, forensic linguists examine what language users know and do in
court by interpreting and analyzing language, even interpreting body language and
silences. Forensic linguists read between the lines and look for meaning or intent
under the surface of an utterance. Why is the use of forensic linguists as expert
witnesses in court important for the non-English speaker or those in multilingual
contexts? Because the forensic linguist not only reads between the lines of what
6  Forensic Linguistics and Pedagogical Implications in Multilingual Contexts 87

has been written or said but also accurately represents the intent of the non-English
speaker. In this manner, they protect the rights of nonnative speakers.

6.7 Legal Protection in Multicultural Contexts

There have been many attempts to protect vulnerable groups from injustices. Diane
Eades discloses the problematic silencing of Aboriginal witnesses in a New South
Wales country court. Her study “focuses on how and why witnesses are silenced in
examination, both by their own lawyers and by the judge. The analysis questions the
assumption in previous sociolinguistic research that the syntactic form of questions
is inherently related to the way in which power is exercised in court. Further, the
article highlights how witness silencing in these cases appears to occur particularly
in situations where legal professionals are seriously ignorant about fundamental
aspects of the everyday cultural values and practices of Aboriginal people. Socio-
linguistic microanalysis gives a glimpse of one aspect of the process by which the
powerlessness and domination of Aboriginal people is perpetuated through the legal
system” (Eades 2000).
Another example of this type of suppression is the reversal of an Aboriginal’s
death sentence, which was the landmark case for the abolition of the death penalty
in Australia, was the Rupert Max Stuart sentencing whose confession was deemed
coerced (Perlez 2002).
In the United States, The Southern Poverty Law Center is “dedicated to fighting
hate and bigotry, and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our so-
ciety. Using litigation, education and other forms of advocacy, (they) work toward
the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality.”
The Southern Poverty Law Center regularly uses the courts and has shown innova-
tion in their legal efforts as they battle racial and social injustices. Also in the U.S.,
defendants from ethnic minority groups, statistically poor and undereducated, are
being silenced by the criminal system. This silencing is a misguided effort to protect
through legal representation but is effectively removing the most vulnerable and
disadvantaged voices from the public discourse.
The restorative justice efforts of Barry C. Scheck & Peter J. Neufeld’s American
Innocence Project, that has spread throughout the country and abroad, have been
dedicated to exonerating wrongfully convicted people through DNA testing and
reforming the criminal justice system to prevent future injustice. Since the found-
ing of this pro bono legal clinic in 1992, 292 people have been exonerated through
DNA testing in the U.S., including 17 who were at one time sentenced to death. As
is evidenced by the above examples, legal systems in many countries are taking an-
other look at the way they apprehend, interrogate, and sentence alleged perpetrators.
One outstanding example of how crucial language can be in a legal context is in
the United States where officers of the law are required to recite a Miranda warning
of perpetrators’ rights when being apprehended. In the U.K., the Miranda equivalent
is called “the [police] caution” and is recited to suspects upon their arrest. Reporting
on one of its most significant rulings of the American Supreme Court, Einesman
88 E. P. Cochran

(1999–2000) discusses the case of Miranda v. Arizona in great detail, pointing to the
fact that it guards against “devious techniques to extract confessions.” It is further
noted that the Court relied on the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimina-
tion, emphasizing that the suspects’ statements cannot be used against them unless
the same suspects waived their rights “knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily.”
In the last 45 plus years, since Miranda v. Arizona and since other countries’
establishment of similar rulings or cautions, many unforeseen changes have taken
place in the linguistic landscape as well as in the cultural composition of Ameri-
can, Australian, British, New Zealand, and European countries. Therefore, linguis-
tic adjustments had to be effected on the Miranda in addition to other countries’
warnings, taking the suspects’ or population’s cultural heritage into account. As is
the case with the Miranda warnings, according to Cotterill (2007), the ‘caution’
has also undergone several linguistic revisions for improved comprehensibility in
the U.K.
The U.S. legal system has recently taken another look at the difficult-to-under-
stand language of its Miranda rights, whose level of comprehensibility is at about
the 7th to 8th grade reading level. According to Grisso’s 1980 forensic evaluation of
juveniles, children under 15 are unlikely to understand their legal rights adequately.
Grisso also tested 260 adult parolees and custodial hospital workers and found that
words like attorney, entitled, appoint, consult, and even right were not thoroughly
understood by his subjects. The U.S. Supreme Court has subsequently made minor
changes to the Miranda warnings that have been somewhat simplified to replace at-
torney with its more common synonym lawyer and prior to with before, and so on.
A simpler version of the Miranda warnings/rights that officers now read to sus-
pects when they arrest them follows:
1. You have the right to remain silent.
2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.
3. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you
are being questioned.
4. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you
before any questioning, if you wish one.
In order to ensure that the waiver for legal assistance is upheld, the two questions
officers must ask after they administer the Miranda warning are: “Do you under-
stand each of these rights I’ve explained to you?” and “Having these rights in mind,
do you wish to talk to us now?”
In her paper about nonnative speakers of English vis-a-vis the Miranda warn-
ings, Pavlenko (2008) advocates for even advanced speakers of English as a second
language being given the warnings/rights in their native tongue for clearer under-
standing. She gives the example of a Russian college student who was finally im-
plicated in a murder even though the student initially thought she was being inter-
rogated as a witness.
1. Pavlenko’s Russian student, Natasha, believed she was assisting the police as a
witness. She was never informed that she was a suspect, yet she was read her
Miranda rights. (It should be noted that witnesses are not Mirandized.)
6  Forensic Linguistics and Pedagogical Implications in Multilingual Contexts 89

2. Pavlenko (2008), who served as the expert witness in Natasha’s case, claimed
that Natasha misused cognates like “procedure” that led to her misunderstanding
of her waiver of her rights. Yet, her interrogator (overlooked or) ignored this.
When Natasha finally, and after long chats with her “friendly” police officer, real-
ized that she was being treated as a suspect, she asked for permission to call her
father in Russia to pay for a lawyer, subsequent to being read her Miranda rights.
Hence, it is obvious she did not understand that she could be provided with the free
services of an attorney.
Interrogators do mention vaguely to perpetrators whom they are questioning that
they would stop questioning them if the perpetrators request an attorney. But again,
as we have seen above, even the unfamiliar words can sometimes be troublesome
for the arrested nonnative speaker.
LaCarrubba (2011) noted rather pessimistically, “The Miranda ruling, after all,
holds a special place as the proverbial ‘Holy Grail’ to the rights of those accused,
and to admit or capitulate to any recommendations to alter this system would be to
admit—at least somewhat—its grave level of ineffectiveness, and perhaps even to
begin to reveal yet unforeseen reasons for the landmark Supreme Court ruling to be
brought into question and possibly altered.”

6.8 Confessions Within the North American

and Australian Contexts

According to Kassin (1985), who along with Wrightman researched the topic of
confessions, there are three categories of confessions: (a) voluntary confessions,
(b) internalized false confessions, and (c) compliant false confessions.
The authors claim that when one confesses voluntarily s/he may wish to protect
someone, is delusional, or seeks notoriety. An example of voluntary confession is
the U.S. 1996 case of the child beauty pageant contestant, Jon Benét Ramsey, who
was found murdered in the basement of her home. Her parents, especially her moth-
er, were prime suspects but were never convicted. John Mark Karr falsely confessed
to committing the murder, simply seeking notoriety. This crime has remained un-
solved to this day. Another example pertains to the Lindbergh baby kidnapping case
mentioned above, where 200 individuals came forth claiming to be the kidnappers.
In the case of internalized false confession, the person may be vulnerable, grieves
over the loss of a loved one, or thinks, “I must have done it.” They may even think
that it is legally permissible to lie. In the final category of compliant false confes-
sion, suspects confess because they were promised leniency, or because of the threat
or promise of a lesser punishment. In this category belong the 13 and 14 year-old
youths, as seen in the 2013 Ken Burns documentary, originally found guilty of the
New York City Central Park Jogger rape, who were eventually exonerated in their
mid-thirties with the help of the Innocence Project.
In the early 1920s, it was considered almost unthinkable for anyone to confess
falsely to a crime s/he did not commit. Wigmore (1923) wrote that false confessions
90 E. P. Cochran

were “scarcely conceivable” and “of the rarest occurrence.” However, at present
the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to suppress involuntary confessions. It has fur-
ther ruled that all confessions must not only be “voluntary,” but also “knowing and
intelligent.” In order to avoid coerced confessions, at last all interrogations must be
at least audio-recorded if not videotaped. Although this is still not enforced 100 %,
there has been a marked compliance due again to the number of exonerations based
on DNA evidence. But it should be noted that even with audio recordings, and
despite the advanced technology, one can easily stop and start the recording at stra-
tegic places that favors the police, thus still manipulating the outcome of the inter-
rogation.
Garrett (2011) discusses Frank Sterling’s false conviction in the U.S., which
was overturned after he had served for 18  years and 9  months. Garrett points to
“the faulty investigative procedures that lead to false, coerced confessions whose
intricate details pose a puzzle.” He argues for “recording interrogations in their
totality for it (a) protects the innocent, (b) aids the police and prosecutors, and (c)
provides judges and jurors with the clearest evidence of what transpired during the
investigation.”
Further, as described by Berlow (2007), the notorious Virginia, U.S. case of “The
Norfolk Four” reveals that even able-bodied young English-speaking American
sailors can not only be coerced but also threatened into false confessions—one even
came to believe he was guilty of what he had confessed (see also Wells and Leo
2007). In this 1997 case, an interrogator used linguistic and psychological meth-
ods to extract false confessions and later false accusations against others, one after
another, until ultimately he had charged seven navy men. Although the sailors re-
canted, and there was no evidence against any of them except their own coached
and coerced confessions and accusations, jurists found the taped confessions more
compelling, disbelieving that anyone would falsely confess to a horrific crime. As
the jury foreman in the trial against one of them said of the guilty verdict, “Nothing
could blunt the force of that taped confession” (p. 43). Clearly, the legal system has
not progressed much since Wigmore’s observation in the 1920s.
If this can happen to healthy adult native English speakers, how much more
vulnerable and apt to be coerced (and thus confess falsely) are minors, the mentally
impaired, learning disabled, native English speakers with poor language skills, non-
native English speakers, and people not familiar with the local legal system, e.g.
recent immigrants of multicultural backgrounds or international students?
It is because of this vulnerability noted above that educators take the opportu-
nity to teach about the legal system of the countries in which students live. In the
forensic linguistics classroom, exploration of the studies outlined above (digital
fingerprinting, graphology, ear-witness testimony, and memory semantic manipu-
lation) contributes to the students’ understanding and ultimate successful cultural
integration. Practically, teachers can first make students aware of the intricacies
of language in legal settings and open their eyes to potential pitfalls. Second, once
students understand the issues, linguistic and socio-political, techniques can be in-
troduced to manipulate language to their advantage. Finally, the use of role-play in
class can be effective in giving students in multilingual and multicultural settings
experience seeing how others perceive their statements.language only
6  Forensic Linguistics and Pedagogical Implications in Multilingual Contexts 91

6.9 Raising Awareness of Forensic Linguistics:

Cultivating Legal Savvy in Multilingual Contexts

In a world where a wide range of Englishes is used, can the findings of forensic
linguistics help students, who speak English as an additional language, advocate for
themselves, defend themselves, or protect themselves in matters potentially involv-
ing the law? For example, they should know that if a traffic police officer stops them
while driving and asks them, “Does the trunk open?” [Solan and Tiersma (2005)—
the R. Bustamonte case], they should not automatically open their trunk, assuming
that this is a command and not a simple informational question. In the U.S., for
example, the person who is stopped should know that without a search warrant, the
police does not have the right to search anything because the 4th Amendment pro-
hibits “unreasonable searches and seizures.” The person can simply answer the of-
ficer’s question affirmatively but not proceed to open their trunk, especially if they
have contraband in the trunk to incriminate them. However, without knowledge
of the law or forensic linguistics, the person stopped would take a simple question
coming from an officer of the law as an order to open the trunk and either would
comply or not comply, inviting trouble in either case.

6.10 Teaching Applications

The following are a few suggestions for practical classroom work.

Let us take for example, the skill of recognizing and answering Yes/No
questions—a basic issue in both fields—TESOL and forensic linguistics. Yes/No
questions are asked using the first auxiliaries or “X-Words” of the English lan-
guage. They are all forms of the verbs to Be (am, is, are, was, were), to Have (have
has, had), to Do (do, does, did), and the Modals (may/might, can/could, will/would,
shall/should, must and ought). It should be noted that both Yes/No questions as well
as Tag Questions are considered the most coercive questions during interrogation
due to their ambiguous nature. Therefore, it is best to answer a seeming Yes/No
question not with yes or no only but with a complete affirmative or negative state-
ment that indicates the respondent’s interpretation of the question, so that it is clear
what question the respondent is answering.
Heuristic exercise:
• Ask students to discover the twenty “X-Words” of the English language and write
questions with them to which the answers can only be Yes, No (or Maybe). Each
question should start with a different auxiliary. Then have them respond in full
sentences.
In addition to the Miranda rights addressed above, it should also be pointed out
that when one is arrested, asking for a lawyer to be present during interrogation is
a tricky undertaking. One must know the magic words which should not be vague,
but direct as in “I need a lawyer.” Requesting or hedging or being unsure or even
92 E. P. Cochran

polite by saying, “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer!” will not stop the interrogation.
Ambiguity, as addressed by Shuy, and vagueness when requesting a lawyer, works
against a person being interrogated. So indirectness is to be avoided and directness
is a must.
Role-play exercise:
• Have students exchange the role of arresting officer and alleged perpetrator,
practicing from their own scripts based on imaginary or real scenarios.
Suppose you are driving a delivery truck, have an Arabic sounding last name and
a Middle Eastern accent, and are stopped by a police officer who questions you
about the putative existence of a suitcase in the back of the truck. To the best of
your knowledge,you have no such suitcase in your truck besides the merchandise
you transport. The officer may pose Yes/No questions in a variety of ways, some of
which, as lawyers and forensic linguists know, would not be permissible in court.
Below follow various potentially confusing ways of questioning a suspect:
“Is there a suitcase in the back of your truck?” This Yes/No question assumes
you can answer yes or no with confidence in being correct.
“Do you have a suitcase back there?” Another Yes/No question. However, “back
there” is indefinite and open to several interpretations. Back where, behind the
truck, or even back in the person’s house or country?
“You have a suitcase back there, don’t you?” Tag question: Don’t you? It is
common for speakers of other languages to misunderstand which part they should
respond to. Such a person with no suitcase in the truck might answer, “Yes,” mean-
ing “Yes, I don’t.” When a Tag Question begins with a positive verb and ends in a
negative question, e.g. “It is raining, isn’t it?” The answer is expected to be positive;
i.e. a negative tag is still a positive question. The reverse is also true, e.g. “It isn’t
raining, is it?” Here the answer is expected to be negative despite the positive tag.
Tag questions are also leading questions, as the tag question is commonly used to
indicate a rhetorical question where the expected answer is in the statement preced-
ing the tag: “You have a suitcase.” The authority figure is stating his/her official
belief that there is a suitcase—and expects you to confirm it.
“You have a suitcase here?” Time and modality are unclear: Did you? Will
you?Do you? Ever? Would you?
“You got a suitcase here?” “Got” could imply have? Or obtain? Or somehow
managed to bring?
“Where is the suitcase?” This question asserts the existence of the suitcase and
knowledge of it. One is in the position of telling this authority figure he/she is
wrong.
“Do you know if there’s a suitcase in this truck?” There are actually two ques-
tions here. Do you know and if you do know, is there one? If one simply answers
“yes” to the first, the response might be construed as "yes" to both. The same prob-
lem arises with “No.”
“Do you have a suitcase in the truck or did you leave it somewhere?” Here
we have two questions. Moreover, the second one assumes a circumstance not yet
confirmed. If there was never a suitcase in the truck, it could not have been left any-
where. The second question is thus not honestly answerable with yes or no.
6  Forensic Linguistics and Pedagogical Implications in Multilingual Contexts 93

“Are you going to pretend there is no suitcase here?” Because of the semanti-
cally charged “pretend,” there is not a safe yes or no answer to this question.
“I think there is a suitcase in this truck.” This is not a question. One is put in the
position of contradicting this authority figure or remaining silent.
“If I look in the back of your truck, am I going to see a suitcase?” This is asking
for speculation. Perhaps the traffic officer has already placed a suitcase in the back
without being noticed.
“It will be better for you to tell me now if there’s a suitcase in the back of this
truck.” This can be understood as a threat if we consider the opposite. That is,
“It will be worse for you if you do not tell me there is a suitcase,” or perhaps even
“It will be worse for you if there is no suitcase.”
If one states there is no suitcase in the truck and the officer asks “Are you sure?”
the subjects are being invited to doubt themselves or change their response. They
may infer that their first answer is disbelieved, or that the officer has other informa-
tion and the subjects might be mistaken, or that the officer is soliciting a response
more agreeable to the officer’s purposes, inviting them to please the authority figure
by changing their response.
Therefore, in critical situations, it is important for one never to answer questions
monolectically, (with just one word—yes or no). It is safer to answer periphrasti-
cally, with more than one word or in a full sentence as a statement, answering the
complete question as one understood it.
• In class, practice the various ways to answer the question about the possibility of
the existence of a suitcase in the truck.
“There is no suitcase in this truck.”
“I have a suitcase back in my country.”
“I have a suitcase in my rented apartment here.”
“I did not bring a suitcase here but I have one at home.”
“My suitcase is in my house.”
OR
“I don’t know if there is a suitcase in the back because I can’t see the back.”
In order to avoid incriminating oneself and when in doubt, one can even ask for
a rephrasing or rewording of the question.
“I don’t understand your question. Could you please say it in a different way?”
Or one can even say “I beg your pardon?” in order to gain more time to think a
response through when in such a tight spot. With this one simple example, we see
how an awareness of forensic linguistics issues can help students, especially nonna-
tive students, defend themselves and negotiate situations that might otherwise lead
to unjust results.
Yes, in our hypothetical case the officer might perceive the person as uncoop-
erative. If arrested, it would be important that the person arrested have a firm un-
derstanding of his/her rights pertaining to the arrest. Once in court, the defendant’s
attorney would be able to show that the defendant’s answer was an honest response
94 E. P. Cochran

to the question the person believed he/she was being asked, that it was the formula-
tion of the question that was flawed, not the response.
Therefore, forensic linguistic knowledge will enable nonnative learners to speak
strategically and with a purpose. In general, English language learners should learn
how the skills they acquire relate to the law.

6.11 Teaching Forensic Linguistics Courses

In his review of Shuy’s 1993 book on Language Crimes, attorney Doyle (1993) rec-
ommends avoiding language snarls that lead to legal challenges. Given that forensic
linguistics can help students self-advocate—speak in a way that keeps them from
falling prey to legal language traps—how can it be taught?
One way is to simply point out the forensic linguistic legal application of each lan-
guage skill as it is taught in an ESOL or EFL class. Another way is to teach English
skills through forensic linguistics. A course titled “Forensic Linguistics and the Non-
native English Speaker: English Language Skills as Applied to the Law” can teach
college level English skills and relate them to the law. Such a course, slightly simpli-
fied, could also be offered even as early as 11th or 12 grades, especially in big urban
high schools, packed with bilingual and generation 1.5 students. Additional applica-
tions could be workshops for specific professions, such as court interpreters, legal,
and medical professionals, similar to ESP (English for Special Purposes) courses.
Clearly many agree, and forensic linguistics is now offered as a separate course,
having gained popularity at colleges in a number of countries, including Australia,
New Zealand, Spain, the U.K., and the U.S., presumably because it has some prac-
tical application, whether students are linguistics majors or not. In fact, Hofstra
University on Long Island, NY offers a Masters degree in Forensic Linguistics, and
several universities offer courses in Forensic Linguistics as part of their linguistics
departments. It is especially helpful to speakers of all Englishes, including AAVE
(African American Vernacular English), the Aboriginal dialects, and Pidgins and
Creoles, among others. Likewise, an awareness of forensic linguistics could be as
useful to World Englishes speakers or English language learners for the same rea-
sons. In fact, some of those practicalities may be more crucial to nonnative students
than to native English speakers, who may pick up nuance, trick questions and other
rhetorical devices more naturally.
As supplementary readings to a forensic linguistics class, the Edgar Alan Poe
mysteries are highly recommended, the Purloined Letter being among them. But
what gets the students’ attention when it comes to ear witnesses and accent iden-
tification, is The Murders in the Rue Morgue, where putative accents and several
perceptions and interpretations of various languages are discussed in an attempt to
solve the horrendous murders of this suspenseful Poe mystery.
Exercises in text analysis, studying ransom or suicide notes, are fascinating to
students. Students in such a class can learn various aspects of discourse analysis.
For example, in general, as a written text topic moves from casual to formal, the
6  Forensic Linguistics and Pedagogical Implications in Multilingual Contexts 95

grammatical tenor or lexical choices will change. However, there are other features,
some of which are ingrained in the writer that will remain constant. Those individ-
ual characteristics, such as the way one writes dates or places periods between city
and state when addressing an envelope, may lead to the apprehension of the culprit.
• As a classroom exercise, students can compare a suicide note with the deceased
person’s “known” writings as well as with another suspect’s “requested” writings,
and look for and compare consistencies in spelling, capitalization, and punctuation.
Another area to look for consistencies is that of grammatical morphology, such
as past tense forms or 3rd person singular “–s.” Syntax or sentence structure is
another area to be looked at as well. Finally, idiomatic expressions and asides can
also be compared for inconsistencies as well as repetition of specific phrases.
Pavlenko (2008), who served as the forensic linguist expert witness in Natasha’s
case introduced above, is a strong advocate for legal terms and other concept in-
struction in the adult ESOL curriculum. Continuing the work of Briere (1978), Pav-
lenko has written extensively on how often nonnative subjects’ interrogations go
awry and result in false confessions. Having served as an expert witness in several
cases, she believes “conceptual complexity of police cautions, such as the Miranda
warnings, complicates even high level proficiency nonnative speakers.” She further
argues that the warning should be given in the nonnative speakers’ native language.
Many go further than Pavlenko to say that not only common legal texts should be
placed in ESOL curricula but a course in forensic linguistics should be part of the
TESOL teacher preparation and, as described above, a course or two in forensic
linguistics should be incorporated in all university linguistics departments as well
as in English departments.
Thus far, we have addressed how awareness of forensic linguistics assists speak-
ers of all Englishes. Clearly, an awareness of forensic linguistics can also help fac-
ulty and administrators advocate for their students. It enables them to ask the right
questions, to supply accurate information to the lawyers of students who become
entangled with the law, and to show students how they can defend or promote them-
selves when dealing with the law and the government.
The main goal of a forensic linguistics course is that through the discipline of
linguistics students will gain an awareness of the positive and negative manipula-
tion of language in the pursuit of justice. In addition to their own student advocacy,
some other objectives or aims of such a course would be to
• consider how language influences thought (the Sapir/Whorf hypothesis) and the
implication of this notion for the legal process. The Edward Sapir and Benja-
min Lee Whorf hypothesis in its strong definition states that language dictates
thought. (In this text, the hypothesis is presented in its less intense form that
language only influences thought.)
• practice conducting discourse analysis to examine skillful use of language in
order to get out of difficult situations; examine interactional patterns (both verbal
and non-verbal) of potential offenders.
96 E. P. Cochran

As mentioned above, due to successful solutions to legal questions, forensic lin-

guistics has gained legitimacy in many countries. In general, although linguistic
expertise has not reached the ultimate level of reliability, it is, according to Solan
and Tiersma, “most useful in eliminating a suspect or perpetrator….A better appre-
ciation of how a legal system works, not only helps us recognize the problems it has
in dealing with language, but also points out the way to solve them….” so that, “the
guilty receive their just desserts and the innocent remain free.” Solan and Tiersma
(2005, p. 243)

6.12 Final Thoughts

In conclusion and based upon the research cited throughout this chapter, it is
strongly recommended that forensic linguistics be part of every curriculum for the
purpose of raising the consciousness of how the legal system, reflected and embed-
ded in the English language, privileges certain varieties of English while placing
others in distinct disadvantage in all multilingual contexts. Globalization, which
has brought various cultures even closer together, necessitates more urgently the
teaching of forensic linguistics in order to combat injustice and bias in courts and
in the multilingual contexts of society in general, keeping in mind that language is
a powerful tool that can be used or abused strategically for various purposes either
to the aid or to the detriment of the speaker.

Acknowledgements  I am enormously grateful for Betina Cochran’s insights and assistance and
Linda Kent’s wonderful ideas. Above all, I appreciate Leslie Barratt’s and Ahmar Mahboob’s invi-
tation to collaborate and invaluable guidance.

References

Berlow, A. (19 August 2007, ). What happened in Norfolk. New York Times Magazine. http://www.
nytimes.com/2007/08/19/magazine/19Norfolk-t.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
Briere, E. (1978). Limited English speakers and the Miranda Rights. TESOL Quarterly, 12(3),
235–245.
Candlin, C. (2002). Research and practice in professional discourse. Hong Kong: The City Uni-
versity of Hong Kong.
Chaski, C. E. (2001). Language based author identification techniques. Forensic Linguistics, 8(1),
1–65.
Chaski, C. E. (2005). Who’s at the keyboard? Authorship attribution in digital evidence investiga-
tions. International Journal of Digital Evidence, 4, 1–13.
Cotterill, J. (2007). Reading the rights: A cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility.
International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 7(1), 4–25.
Coulthard, M. (1994a). On the use of Corpora in the analysis of forensic texts. Forensic Linguistic,
1(1), 27–43.
Coulthard, M. (1994b). Powerful evidence for the defense: An exercise in forensic discourse analy-
sis. Language and the Law (p. 414–427). London: Longman.
6  Forensic Linguistics and Pedagogical Implications in Multilingual Contexts 97

Darn, S. (2005). Aspects of nonverbal communication. The Internet TESL Journal, XI(2). www.
iteslj.org/Articles/Darn-Nonverbal/. Accessed 29 Jan 2006.
Derwing, T. M., Fraser, H., Kang, O., & Thomson, R. I. (2014). L2 accent and ethics: Issues that
merit attention. In A. Mahboob & L. Barratt (Eds.), Englishes in Multilingual Contexts: Lan-
guage variation and education.
Doyle, J. M. (1993). Help for innocent ears. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 84(1),
109–192.
Eades, D. (1996a). Legal recognition of cultural differences in communication: The case of Robin
Kina. Language and Communication, 16, 215–227.
Eades, D. (2000). I don’t think it’s an answer to the question: Silencing aboriginal witnesses in
court. Language in Society, 29, 161–196.
Eades, D. (2003). Participation of second language and second dialect speakers in the legal system.
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 23, 113–133.
Einesman, F. (1999–2000). Confessions and culture: The interaction of Miranda and diversity. The
Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90(1), 48–49.
Garrett, B. L. (11 April 2011). Getting it wrong: Convicting the innocent. Who confesses to a crime
they didn’t commit? www.slate.com.
Gibbons, J. (1994). Language and the law. London: Langman.
Gibbons, J. (2001). Revising the language of New South Wales police procedures: Applied linguis-
tics in action. Applied Linguistics, 22, 439–469.
Grisso, T. (1980). Juveniles’ capacities to waive Miranda rights: An empirical analysis. California
Law Review, 68, 1134.
Kassin, S. M., & Wrightsman, L. S. (1985). Confession evidence. The psychology of evidence and
trial procedure (pp. 37–94).
LaCarruba, S. (2011). Forensic linguistics: The Miranda rights. John Jay College of Criminal
Justice, New York. (Unpublished paper).
Leonard, R. (2009). Forensic linguistics for investigative practitioners. John Jay College of Crimi-
nal Justice, New York. (Unpublished paper).
Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the
interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior,
13, 585–589.
Melinkoff, D. (1963). The Language of the Law. Boston: Little Brown & Co.
Nero, S. (2014). Classroom encounters with Caribbean creole English: Language, identities, peda-
gogy. In A. Mahboob & L. Barratt (Eds.), Englishes in multilingual contexts: language varia-
tion and education.
Pavlenko, A. (2008). I’m very not about the law part: Nonnative speakers of English and the Mi-
randa warnings. TESOL Quarterly, 42(1), 1–30.
Perlez, J. (16 December 2002). Australia revisits a “Black and White” murder case. The New York
Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/16/world/canberra-journal-australia-revisits-a-black-
and-white-murder-case.html.
Roy, J. (1990). The difficulties of limited English proficiency individuals in legal settings. Annals
of the New York Academy of Sciences, 606, 73–83.
Shuy, R. W. (1993/1996). Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the court-
room. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shuy, R. W. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation, and deception. Thousand Oaks:
SAGE Publications, Incorporated.
Shuy, R. W. (2005). Creating language crimes: How law enforcement uses (and misuses) lan-
guage. USA: Oxford University Press.
Shuy, R. W. (2006). Linguistics in the courtroom: A practical guide. USA: Oxford University
Press.
Shuy, R. W. (2008). Fighting over words: Language and civil law cases. USA: Oxford University
Press.
98 E. P. Cochran

Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wigmore, J. H. (1923). Anglo-American system of evidence in trials at common law. Boston: Little
Brown.
Wells, T., & Leo, R. (18 August 2007). The New York Times Magazine. Sunday. “What Happened
in Norfolk?”
Wolfram, W. (2014). Integrating language variation into TESOL: Challenges from English global-
ization. In Mahboob, A., & Barratt, L. (Eds.), Englishes in Multilingual Contexts.
Zimmer, B. (23 July 2011). Decoding your e-mail personality. The New York Times. http://www.
nytimes.com/2011/07/24/opinion/sunday/24gray.html.