Forensic Linguistic Analysis of Court Room Language
EMA Project
‘A comparative register analysis of two legal examination transcripts involving the same witness.
One the Friendly Counsel; the other the Cross-Examination: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Approach.’
After further research since the research proposal (Ferguson, 2012), the terminology has been altered. The terminology is now in accordance with An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence (Coulthard and Johnson, 2007). Friendly Counsel indicates that the witness being questioned is their witness. Cross-Examination indicates that the opposing side is questioning the witness. In this case the Friendly Counsel is the prosecution and the Cross-Examination the defence.
1. The aims of the investigation.
This research project analyses two texts from opposing legal sides. They both involve the questioning of a prosecution witness. The texts are from An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence (Coulthard and Johnson, 2007, p.107 – 110). This project builds upon the research already conducted by the authors. This incremental research utilizes the Hallidayan systemic function linguistic framework in Unit 8 Ways of Speaking – Exploring Linguistic Variability (White, 2005, p.46), however it also employs the critical linguistic approach in Unit 20 Critical Linguistic Approaches (White, 2005), particularly the recommended guidelines (p.123) for conducting a small-scale research project. As the link between language choices and social context is crucial to critical linguistics (White, 2005, Unit 20, p121), the approach taken in this project has been refined since the research proposal to provide more relevant links between language and social context.
.
2. The rationale and main conceptual themes for the investigation
Although legal texts were not mentioned in the E303 material, applicable frameworks were. The rationale for choosing text from the legal register is based on current
‘A comparative register analysis of two legal examination transcripts involving the same witness.
One the Friendly Counsel; the other the Cross-Examination: A Systemic Functional Linguistic Approach.’
After further research since the research proposal (Ferguson, 2012), the terminology has been altered. The terminology is now in accordance with An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence (Coulthard and Johnson, 2007). Friendly Counsel indicates that the witness being questioned is their witness. Cross-Examination indicates that the opposing side is questioning the witness. In this case the Friendly Counsel is the prosecution and the Cross-Examination the defence.
1. The aims of the investigation.
This research project analyses two texts from opposing legal sides. They both involve the questioning of a prosecution witness. The texts are from An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence (Coulthard and Johnson, 2007, p.107 – 110). This project builds upon the research already conducted by the authors. This incremental research utilizes the Hallidayan systemic function linguistic framework in Unit 8 Ways of Speaking – Exploring Linguistic Variability (White, 2005, p.46), however it also employs the critical linguistic approach in Unit 20 Critical Linguistic Approaches (White, 2005), particularly the recommended guidelines (p.123) for conducting a small-scale research project. As the link between language choices and social context is crucial to critical linguistics (White, 2005, Unit 20, p121), the approach taken in this project has been refined since the research proposal to provide more relevant links between language and social context.
.
2. The rationale and main conceptual themes for the investigation
Although legal texts were not mentioned in the E303 material, applicable frameworks were. The rationale for choosing text from the legal register is based on current
Bibliography: (2012) ‘Profile: Wikileaks founder Julian Assange’, BBC, [online] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-11047811 (Accessed 23 August 2012) Biber, D., Conrad, S Coffin, C. (2005) ‘Making a text hang together: the role of lexical cohesion’, in Coffin, C. (eds), Evaluating everyday texts, Milton Keynes, The Open University Coffin, C Coulthard, M. and Johnson, J. (2007) ‘An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence, Oxon, Routledge Ferguson, D O’Halloran, K . A. and Peter, W. (2005) ‘The angle on the world’, in O’Halloran, K . A. (eds), Getting inside English, Milton Keynes, The Open University Peter, W Peter, W. (2005) ‘Getting interpersonal: the grammar of social roles and relationships, in Coffin, C (eds). Getting Practical, Milton Keynes, The Open University Peter, W Grant, T. (2009) Developing investigative linguistics as a forensic science [online], Birmingham, Aston University Centre for Forensic Linguistics http http://www.forensiclinguistics.net/msc.html (Accessed 23 August 2012). Sandford, D. (2012) ‘Pussy Riot jail terms condemned as disproportionate ', BBC, [online] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-19302986 (Accessed 23 August 2012).