Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

The major issue referred to trademark litigation is that powerful spheres can use their

wealth to manipulate legal system and state that the terms used in their logos or mottos
belong to them (simply put, a common language expression can be restrained for no
aspiration than financial enrichment). Moreover, the author remembers that danger of
free speech arises when trademark litigation is used as means of asserting authority over
what can be said or written and what cannot from a censorship.

Thus, as lawyers, forensic linguists or language experts can become censorships


and work according for laws involving the existence of propriety in language.
Nevertheless, this figures can evade such cases if their moral forces them to disagree
with the accusations or positions of either sides; they have to discern when they must
truly act. For instance, I agree with the author when it is mentioned that an a abuse
occurs when dictionary writers cannot work since big companies defend that they own a
term or even a compositing element such as a prefix, as it certainly belongs to each
speaker lexicon. In that case, a forensic linguist ought to disesteem a legal problem.

So, what cases should the language expert avoid? As I see it, the expert would reject
those in which plagiarism does not manifest —when a text or a junior trademark does not
weak a senior one— and the integrity of an enterprise is not under risk. Certainly, it can be
said that a trademark is the message in the communication context of a sender, a message,
and a receiver, hence it is a sign that have relation to other signs, persons, and objects. In
addition, we can add that some disciplines (semantics, morphology, syntax or pragmatics
(as was shown in class) deal with this signs. Owing to this we can infer that:

a) The expert should act when a trademark is considered reprehensible and is blamed
for some groups due to offensive words or rude expressions. Vocabulary can be
relevant in situations when is used for segregation, curse or disrespect purposes
(among others).

b)Avoidance must not be made by the linguist when the relevant meaning,
implicatures or some semantic considerations are neglected. For instance, when a
logo or phrase evocates rude meanings or even leads to apologies of facts,
institutions, discourses considered taboo or catalogued as ‘illegal’ by the penal code.

c) The actuation of the expert has to occur when methaphors, simils, hyperboles,
litotes seem to hide moral questionable meanings, even syntactic structures can
manifest an intentioned homonomy or double senses.

Linguistic litigation also applies to situations when professionals use their jargon not
for academic or professional purposes, but for gossiping or boasting in detriment of
someone intentionally (as a patient or colleague), infringing professional codes. Simply
put, when use of language has been proven to be wilfully damaging. To sum up, the
activity framework of the expert linguist should only embrace those situations in which
the information given is ethically or morally neglecting —so as deplorable (as threats)–.
Evidently, the message misunderstanding or mishearing is not estimated and, of course,
nowadays it is not always clear what is morally or ethically rejectable. Besides, it could
even be feigned that the message has been missheard or missunderstood with regrettable
purposes —to gain legal or financial benefits—.