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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Austin, John. (1962). How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bach, Kent, & Harnish, R. (1979). Linguistic communication and speech acts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Bransford, John D., & Johnson, M. K. (1973). Consideration of some problems in comprehension. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual processing. New York: Academic Press.
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.
Cohen, Philip R., & Perrault, C. R. (1979). Elements of a plan-based theory of speech acts. Cognitive Science, 3, 177–212.
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.
Di Paolo, Marianna, & Green, G. M. (1988). The interpretation of conversational evidence by laypersons.
Di Paolo, Marianna, & Green, G. M. (1989). Juror beliefs about the interpretation of speaking style.
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.
Green, Georgia M. (1982). Linguistics and the pragmatics of language use. Poetics, 11, 45–76.
Green, Georgia M. (1987). Some remarks on why there is implicature. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences, 17(2), 77–92.
Green, Georgia M. (1988). Pragmatics and natural language understanding. Hillsdale, N. J.: L. Erlbaum Associates.
Green, Georgia M., & Di Paolo, M. (forthcoming). Inter-rater reliability in analysis of conversational interaction.
Green, Georgia M., & Morgan, J. L. (1981). Pragmatics, grammar, and discourse. In P. Cole (Ed.), Radical pragmatics (pp. 167–181). New York: Academic Press.
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.
Hall, Edward T. (1959). The silent language. Garden City: Doubleday.
Hall, Edward T. (1966). The hidden dimension. Garden City: Doubleday.
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 Society
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).
Lakoff, Robin. (1972). Language in context. Language, 48, 907–927.
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.
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.
Lakoff, Robin. (1985). My life in court. Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics 1985, pp. 171–179. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Levinson, Stephen, (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
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.
McCormick, Charles T. (1954). Handbook of the law of evidence. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Company.
Nunberg, Geoffrey. (1978). The pragmatics of reference. Ph.D. dissertation, CUNY.
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.
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.
Sacks, Harvey, M., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking in conversation. Language, 50, 696–735.
Searle, John. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Shuy, Roger. (1981a). Can linguistic evidence build a defense theory in a criminal case? .Studia linguistica 35(1–2), 33–49.
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.
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.
Shuy, Roger. (1987). Conversational power in FBI covert tape recordings. In Leah Kedar (Ed.), Power through discourse (pp. 43–56) Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Sperber, Dan, & Wilson, Deirdre. (1986). Relevance. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Stone, Irving. (1941). Clarence Darrow for the defense. New York: New American Library.
Tannen, Deborah. (1984). Analyzing talk among friends. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Walker, Anne G. (1982). Discourse rights of witnesses: Their circumscription in trial. Sociolinguistic Working Paper 95. Austin, Texas: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
Wallace, William D. (1986). The admissibility of expert testimony on the discourse analysis of recorded conversations. University of Florida Law Review, 38, 69–115.
6. Cases Cited
Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (1923)
State v. Conway, 472 A.2d 588 (N.J. Super.A.D. 1984)
United States v. Alfonso, 552 F.2d 605 (1977)
United States v. Bailey, 607 F.2d 237 (1979)
United States v. Barletta, 565 F.2d 985 (1977)
United States v. Cirillo, 499 F.2d 872 (1974)
United States v. Clifford, 704 F.2d 86, 88–91 (1983), 543 ESupp. 424 (W.D. Pa. 1982)
United States v. Deluna, 763 F.2d 897 (1985)
United States v. Fosher, 590 F.2d 381 (1979)
United States v. Hajal, 555 F.2d 558 (1977)
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)
United States v. McCoy, 539 E2d 1063 (1976)
United States v. Milton, 555 F.2d 1198 (1977)
United States v. Schmidt, 711 E2d 595 (1983)
United States v. Williams, 583 E2d 1194 (1978)
7. Statutes Cited
Fed. R. Evid. 403, 702, 704.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1990 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Green, G.M. (1990). Linguistic Analysis of Conversation as Evidence Regarding the Interpretation of Speech Events. In: Levi, J.N., Walker, A.G. (eds) Language in the Judicial Process. Law, Society and Policy, vol 5. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3719-3_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-3719-3_8
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-3721-6
Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-3719-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive