Applied linguistics and language use
SOME FACTORS IN FORENSIC LINGUISTICS
Example 2
When the applied linguist acts as consultant in a police case, the task set is often to compare different versions of what purport to be texts from the same person. These may be different accounts by the police and by the accused of the events in question; they may be two texts which may or may not have been produced by the same person, one perhaps written and the other perhaps spoken. What the applied linguist is called on for is to provide expert evidence on an individual’s speech behavior where this is relevant to the crime of which he/she is accused.
John Gibbons reports on an Australian case in which he was involved:
The man involved immigrated from Lebanon in adulthood and spoke a limited amount of English as a second language. He was arrested by police and charged in relation to an alleged drug deal in his house which involved friends and relatives. He was interviewed by police and the interview was recorded in typed form – the police record of interview (PRI). When the case came to trial I was contacted by the man’s defense to check the fidelity of the PRI. In order to obtain comparison data I recorded two interviews with him and transcribed them – the Transcript. Soon after, a third description of events was obtained by his counsel using the services of an interpreter – the Statement. (Gibbons 1995: 175–6)
Gibbons was able to show that the PRI and the Transcript were sufficiently different for the defense to be able to question the veracity of the PRI:
There are two characteristics that differentiate these accounts. In the Transcript the speaker’s limited proficiency in English means that he has difficulty in linking clauses, so he presents them in a string, and depends on the listener to construct their relationships. To add the linkages found in the PRI risks misrepresenting the relationships between ideas. The other noticeable difference lies in the frequent repetitions in the Transcript, for example ‘I never seen him in my home’ is repeated three times, and ‘No visitor’ is given in addition. This appears highly redundant, but it is of course a common form of emphasis, particularly among second language speakers; and indeed, repetition is a codified form of emphasis in some languages. So, similarly, this omission risks misrepresentation … a related difference between the Transcript and the PRI is that the PRI is entirely lacking in affect or rhetorical effects. By comparison the Transcript is more vivid. (ibid: 183)
Gibbons points also to the clarity and dignity of the speaker when interviewed in his first language through an interpreter. All in all there is good reason to query the PRI as being a doctored version by the police of the accused’s account of what happened. He concludes: ‘allowing second language speakers to communicate their version of events is not a simple matter … there is a risk of misrepresentation if their words are not accurately transcribed’.
The police force with which Gibbons was working (New South Wales) have been influenced by advice such as his and have introduced videorecording of statements. Gibbons hopes that they will also accept the need for interpreters, difficult though it may be to arrange, ‘to reveal a second language speaker’s full and accurate account of events (as well as giving a more accurate impression of their intellectual maturity)’ (ibid: 183–4).
Gibbons concludes his chapter on ‘Language and the Law’ (2004) thus:
Language and the law (sometimes also known as Forensic Linguistics) is an important and fast developing area of applied linguistic concerns. All the issues discussed here are of major significance to those involved, whether they are people who cannot understand the legislation impacting on their lives, witnesses whose testimony is distorted by linguistic pressure tactics, minorities whose language cannot be used or who are subject to group vilification, or the guilty or innocent convicted by language evidence. All these areas are open to examination and action by applied linguists. (Gibbons 2004: 300)
