Advertisement

Linguistic Analysis of Conversation as Evidence Regarding the Interpretation of Speech Events

  • Georgia M. Green
Part of the Law, Society and Policy book series (LSPO, volume 5)

Abstract

The phenomenon of an academic linguist1 testifying in court as an expert witness is relatively recent. Linguists’ testimony has concerned many aspects of language, but one which has arisen with increasing frequency is the analysis of conversation. Most frequently this has involved conversations recorded surreptitiously and used as evidence to support charges of such criminal activity as bribery, conspiracy, racketeering, and sale of controlled substances, among others. Both laymen and judges commonly assume that expert testimony is not needed to analyze conversations because conversations are so familiar a part of our daily lives. Consequently, linguistic testimony about conversations is often excluded.2 Because the opposition to admitting expert testimony by linguists concerning the analysis of conversation is often based on incomplete understanding of that sort of analysis,3 it is the purpose of this chapter to describe what linguistic analysis of conversation comprises and to propose that linguistic analysis of conversation does in fact qualify as a proper subject of expert testimony.

Keywords

Discourse Analysis Linguistic Analysis Expert Testimony Expert Witness Appellate Court 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Austin, John. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bach, Kent, & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bransford, John D., & Johnson, M. K. (1973). Consideration of some problems in comprehension. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual processing. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, Penelope, & Levinson, S. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In Esther Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56–311). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Cohen, Philip R., & Perrault, C. R. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3, 177–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Conley, John. (1982). The law. In William O’Barr (Ed.), Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom (pp. 41–47). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  7. Di Paolo, Marianna, & Green, G. M. (1988). The interpretation of conversational evidence by laypersons.Google Scholar
  8. Di Paolo, Marianna, & Green, G. M. (1989). Juror beliefs about the interpretation of speaking style.Google Scholar
  9. Erickson, Bonnie, Lind, E. A., Johnson, B. C, & O’Barr, W. M. (1978). Speech style and impression formation in a court setting: The effects of powerful and powerless speech. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 266–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Green, Georgia M. (1982). Linguistics and the pragmatics of language use. Poetics, 11, 45–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Green, Georgia M. (1987). Some remarks on why there is implicature. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 17(2), 77–92.Google Scholar
  12. Green, Georgia M. (1988). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, N. J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  13. Green, Georgia M., & Di Paolo, M. (forthcoming). Inter-rater reliability in analysis of conversational interaction.Google Scholar
  14. Green, Georgia M., & Morgan, J. L. (1981). Pragmatics, grammar, and discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 167–181). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Grice, H. Paul (1975). Logic and conversation. In P Cole & J. L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics, Vol. 3: Speech acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hall, Edward T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  17. Hall, Edward T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City: Doubleday.Google Scholar
  18. Horn, Laurence. (1986). Presupposition: Variations on a theme. In A. Farley, P. Farley, & K.-E. McCullough (Eds.), Papers from the parasession on pragmatics and grammatical theory (pp. 168–1). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic SocietyGoogle Scholar
  19. Labov, William. (1969). The logic of nonstandard English. Reprinted in W. Labov, Language in the inner city (pp. 201–240). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press (1972).Google Scholar
  20. Lakoff, Robin. (1972). Language in context. Language, 48, 907–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lakoff, Robin. (1973a). The logic of politeness, or minding your p’s and q’s. In C. Corum, T. C. Smith-Stark, & A. Weiser (Eds.), Papers from the 9th regional meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society (pp. 292–305). Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.Google Scholar
  22. Lakoff, Robin (1973b). Questionable answers and answerable questions. In Braj B. Kachru, Robert B. Lees, YakovMalkiel, Angelina Pietrangeli, & Sol Saporta (Eds.), Issues in linguistics: Papers in linguistics in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane (pp. 453–567). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lakoff, Robin. (1985). My life in court. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1985, pp. 171–179. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Levinson, Stephen, (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Mack, Molly A., & Gold, B. (1985). The intelligibility of non-vocoded and vocoded semantically anomalous sentences. Tech. Rep. 703. Lincoln Laboratory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  26. McCormick, Charles T. (1954). Handbook of the law of evidence. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  27. Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.Google Scholar
  28. O’Barr, William M., & Lind, E. A. (1981). Ethnography and experimentation; partners in legal research. In Bruce D. Sales (Ed.), The trial process (pp. 181–207). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Prince, Ellen. (1984). Language and the law: Reference, stress, and context. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1984, pp. 240–250. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Sacks, Harvey, M., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Searle, John. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Shuy, Roger. (1981a). Can linguistic evidence build a defense theory in a criminal case? .Studia linguistica 35(1–2), 33–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Shuy, Roger. (1981b). Topic as the unit of analysis in a criminal law case. In Deborah Tannen (Ed.) Analyzing discourse: text and talk (pp. 113–126). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Shuy, Roger. (1986). Some linguistic contributions to a criminal court case. In Susan Fisher & A. Todd (Eds.), Discourse and institutional authority: Medicine, education, and law (pp. 234–249). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  35. Shuy, Roger. (1987). Conversational power in FBI covert tape recordings. In Leah Kedar (Ed.), Power through discourse (pp. 43–56) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  36. Sperber, Dan, & Wilson, Deirdre. (1986). Relevance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Stone, Irving. (1941). Clarence Darrow for the defense. New York: New American Library.Google Scholar
  38. Tannen, Deborah. (1984). Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
  39. Walker, Anne G. (1982). Discourse rights of witnesses: Their circumscription in trial. Sociolinguistic Working Paper 95. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.Google Scholar
  40. Wallace, William D. (1986). The admissibility of expert testimony on the discourse analysis of recorded conversations. University of Florida Law Review, 38, 69–115.Google Scholar

6. Cases Cited

  1. Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923)Google Scholar
  2. State v. Conway, 472 A.2d 588 (N.J. Super.A.D. 1984)Google Scholar
  3. United States v. Alfonso, 552 F.2d 605 (1977)Google Scholar
  4. United States v. Bailey, 607 F.2d 237 (1979)Google Scholar
  5. United States v. Barletta, 565 F.2d 985 (1977)Google Scholar
  6. United States v. Cirillo, 499 F.2d 872 (1974)Google Scholar
  7. United States v. Clifford, 704 F.2d 86, 88–91 (1983), 543 ESupp. 424 (W.D. Pa. 1982)Google Scholar
  8. United States v. Deluna, 763 F.2d 897 (1985)Google Scholar
  9. United States v. Fosher, 590 F.2d 381 (1979)Google Scholar
  10. United States v. Hajal, 555 F.2d 558 (1977)Google Scholar
  11. United States v. Hearst, 412 E Supp. 893, 895 (N.D. Cai 1976), aff’d 563 F.2d 1331 (9th Cir. 1977), cert. denied 435 US. 1000 (1978)Google Scholar
  12. United States v. McCoy, 539 E2d 1063 (1976)Google Scholar
  13. United States v. Milton, 555 F.2d 1198 (1977)Google Scholar
  14. United States v. Schmidt, 711 E2d 595 (1983)Google Scholar
  15. United States v. Williams, 583 E2d 1194 (1978)Google Scholar

7. Statutes Cited

  1. Fed. R. Evid. 403, 702, 704.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Georgia M. Green
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of LinguisticsUniversity of IllinoisUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations