Course Description



Course DescriptionLanguage as Evidence: Forensic LinguisticsRobert A. Leonard, Hofstra University?Tanya K. Christensen, University of CopenhagenCourse descriptionThis course in forensic linguistics has an interdisciplinary focus on the intersection of linguistic analysis and the realities of police work, court procedures, case law, intelligence analysis, and the US Constitution. Forensic linguistics?augments investigative and legal analysis by applying rigorous principles of language analysis to linguistic evidence, and thus seeks to help further the cause of justice, whether consulting for the defense or for the prosecution.We draw on well-established linguistic theories and analytical tools, including variationist sociolinguistics, functionalist semantics, pragmatic inference, schemata, the cooperative principle, speech events, conversational strategies, topic management and support, narrative construction, and speech acts.As well as being introduced to theory and methodology relevant for forensic linguistics, students will replicate analyses of real-world criminal, civil, and intelligence cases in which language itself was crucial evidence.?These cases are all ones on which one or both of the two instructors consulted, and involve:death threat and suicide lettersauthorship analyses in murder caseslinguistic concepts in trademark cases such as Apple v. Microsoftlanguage crimes such asbriberyextortionsolicitation to murderperjurythe language of interrogations and investigative interviewsfalse confessionsWarning:?some case studies contain very strong language, themes, and distressing, violent, and gruesome details of crimes and pathological motivations that will not be possible for students to avoid seeing, hearing, or analyzing.Motivation for the courseLanguage is pervasive in people’s dealings with the law. The U.S. legal system is based upon language and its use: to write contracts, promulgate laws, question suspects, give testimony, confess and deny. Indeed, what in the law is not language?Nonetheless, much of the information conveyed by language is overlooked or misinterpreted by legal practitioners, sometimes with dire consequences for victims or defendants.Among current concerns in Forensic Linguistics are translation issues for people with a limited command of English, threat assessment of possible domestic and foreign terrorists online, wrongful incarceration due to false confessions or misinterpretation of linguistic evidence, and how to address courts’ acceptance of linguistic analyses.InstructorsThis course is co-taught byProfessor Robert A. Leonard, Hofstra University, who has extensive experience as a consultant and expert witness in U.S. and foreign cases (qualified under both Daubert and Frye standards as an expert in linguistics in five Federal District courts, 12 US States, and two international tribunals),andAssociate Professor Tanya K. Christensen, University of Copenhagen, who is introducing Forensic Linguistics as an academic and applied discipline in Denmark, consulting for police and private clients as well as teaching the subject at BA and MA levels.Welcome! [Home Page]This course will introduce you to forensic linguistics, the application of linguistic theory and methodology to language evidence in criminal and civil cases.Using theoretical and methodological principles of?variationist sociolinguistics,?dialectology,?corpus linguistics,?discourse analysis,?pragmatics, conversation analysis?and?semantics,?we delve into the intricacies of actual case data. As we shall see, such data are complex and often call for many different types of linguistic analyses.?Be aware and prepare?for the fact that some case studies contain very strong language, themes, and distressing, violent, and often gruesome details of crimes and pathological motivations that it will not be possible for students to avoid seeing, hearing or analyzing.?Preliminary readingsAs a first glimpse of what forensic linguists do, we suggest you browse the texts below.?Leonard, Robert A. 2004.?Forensic Linguistics in NYPD Blue. In: Yeffeth, G. (Ed.)?What Would Sipowicz Do?: Race, Rights and Redemption in NYPD Blue. Benbella Books, 91-119.?(A non-technical article that discusses the cooperative principle, schemas, pragmatics, inference, dialect and idiolect, the sociolinguistics of language as identity, code-switching, and linguistic accommodation as tools for analyzing courtroom procedure, police interrogation, and how memories can be shaped by questioning.)Perkins, Ria & Tim Grant. 2013.?Forensic Linguistics. Siegel, J. A. & Saukko, P. J. (Eds.).?Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences. Academic Press, 174-177.?(A brief overview.)Svartvik, Jan. 1968.?The Evans statements. University of Gothenburg.?(This case is the origin of the term ”forensic linguistics.”)??????????(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.?Other useful links and resourcesThe International Association of Forensic Linguists??(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.The International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics??(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Professor Roger Shuy’s website (a treasure trove of articles and inside information)??(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Hofstra University’s studies in FL??(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Robert Leonard Associates??(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.Documentaries on cases including FL analyses”Too pretty to live” (2016) - about the “Facebook Murders” on which Rob worked for over a year??(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.MTV’s exoneration series?Unlocking the Truth, a 2:06 clip showing other aspects of language evidence, and the excellent work done by Hofstra Innocence Project student interns??(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.?About your instructors?Dr.?Tanya Christensen?is an Associate professor at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark, where she teaches grammar, linguistic theory, and forensic linguistics on the undergraduate and graduate levels. She consults to police and private clients, and is the first linguist to be registered on the Danish National Police’s list of forensic experts.Dr.?Robert Leonard?is a Professor at Hofstra University, New York, where he teaches, and directs theGraduate Program in Linguistics: Forensic LinguisticsForensic Linguistics Capital Case Innocence ProjectInstitute for Forensic Linguistics, Threat Assessment, and Strategic AnalysisCourse SyllabusCourse co-taught by Dr. Robert A. Leonard and Dr. Tanya K. Christensen.Classes Tuesday and Friday 11-12:50 in 114?JSB (Jacobs Science Building).The?LSA Ethics Statement?The?LSA Statement on sexual harassment.Note:?This syllabus?is subject to change.* = required readingsDateTopicReadingsFri July 7FL as Applied (Socio)linguisticsSvartvik, 1968. The Evans Statements…*Perkins & Grant. 2013. Forensic LinguisticsTue July 11Deception*Picornell, 2013. Analysing deception in written…*McCornack, 1992. Information manipulation theory.AssignmentInformation Manipulation ExperimentFri July 14Profiling*Shuy, 2014. Linguistic Profiling.?Eckert, 2006. Communities of practice.Tue July 18Authorship*Coulthard, 1994. On the use of corpora…Wright, 2013. Stylistic variation within genre…AssignmentCubie Q and KFri July 21Language crimes;?Threats*Solan & Tiersma, 2010. Speaking of Crime, Chapt. 10.?*Fraser, 1998. Threatening revisited.Simons & Tunkel, 2013. The assessment of anonymous...Tue July 25Forensic discourse analysis*Shuy, 2015. Discourse Analysis in the Legal ContextAssignmentSyrian warrior instant messagesFri July 28Police interviews and warnings*Ainsworth, 2008. You have the right to remain…Haworth, 2006. The Dynamics of Power…Davis & Leo, 2012. Interrogation through…Tue Aug 1Civil law*Shuy, 2011. Using Linguistics in Trademark Cases.?Shuy, 2008. Toxic Shock Syndrome from Tampons.AssignmentWarning labels and instructions??Course Summary:?DateDetailsFri Jul 7, 2017?FL as Applied (Socio)linguistics11am?to?12:50pmMon Jul 10, 2017?Information Manipulation Experimentdue by?6pmTue Jul 11, 2017?Deception11am?to?12:50pmFri Jul 14, 2017?Profiling11am?to?12:50pmMon Jul 17, 2017?Authorship analysisdue by?7pmTue Jul 18, 2017?Authorship analysis11am?to?12:50pmFri Jul 21, 2017?Language crimes: Threats11am?to?12:50pmMon Jul 24, 2017?Syrian warrior casedue by?9pmTue Jul 25, 2017?Forensic discourse analysis11am?to?12:50pmFri Jul 28, 2017?Police interviews and warnings11am?to?12:50pmMon Jul 31, 2017?Civil law: Product liabilitydue by?8pmTue Aug 1, 2017?Civil law11am?to?12:50pmFri Aug 11, 2017?Final gradesdue by?11:59pmCOURSE MODULES (chronological)Overview of courseLanguage as Evidence: Forensic Linguistics [HOME/WELCOME PAGE]Forensic Linguistics as Applied (Socio)linguisticsIntroduction: FL as Applied (Socio)linguisticsFor this first class, we expect you to have read the short?intro to forensic linguistics?by Perkins and Grant, and at least?browsed? HYPERLINK "" \t "_blank" Svartvik's The Evans Statements?(Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..Also, please?let us know whether you will need a grade for this course and what type of grade you prefer by taking this?quick survey?(also to be found under Quizzes).?Language as Evidence. LSA 2017. 1st class. Intro.pdfDeceptionASSIGNMENT: Information Manipulation ExperimentTestimony before the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission .docxLSA course 2017. 2nd class. Deception.pdfProfilingLSA course 2017. 3rd class. Profiling.pdfAuthorship?ASSIGNMENT: Authorship analysisStudent analyses of Cubie.xlsxHummert stalker.docHummert serial.docLSA course 2017. 4th class. Authorship.pdfLanguage crimes - threatsLSA course 2017. 5th class. Threats_Canvas version.pdfForensic discourse analysisASSIGNMENT: Forensic discourse analysisQUIZ: Syrian warrior caseLSA course 2017. 6th class. Discourse analysis_Canvas.pdfPolice interviews and warningsLSA course 2017. 7th class. Police nterviews and warnings.pptxCivil lawASSIGNMENT: Civil law: Product liabilityLSA course 2017. 8th class. Civil law.pptxReadingsAinsworth. 2008. You have the right to remain silent.pdfCoulthard1994CorporaAnalysisForensicTexts.pdfDavis&Leo.2012.InterrogationthroughPragmaticImplication.pdfEckert. 2006. Community of practice.pdfFraser. 1998. Threatening revisited.pdfHaworth.2006.DynamicsPowerResistancePoliceInterviews.pdfLeonard. Forensic Linguistics in NYPD Blue.pdfMcCornack1992_InfManipTheory.pdfPerkins_Grant_FL_Encyclopedia of Forensic Sciences.pdfPicornell.2013.AnalysingDeceptionInWrittenWitnessStatements.pdfShuy.2008.ToxicShockSyndrome.pdfShuy2011.Using_Linguistics_in_Trademark_Cases.pdfShuy. 2014. Linguistic Profiling.pdfSimons&Tunkel. 2013. The assessment of anonymous threatening communications.pdfSolan and Tiersma. 2010. Speaking_of_Crime_Threats.pdfWright. 2013. Stylistic variation within genre conventions in the Enron email corpus.pdfSupplementary readingsChambers. Language Variation.pdfHolmes. Introduction to Sociolinguistics.pdfSchilling 2006--Dialect Variation.pdfForensic Linguistics in NYPD Blue.pdfLabov.UncoveringEventStructureNarrative.pdfEckert. 2006. Community of practice.pdfMeyerhoff. Communities of practice.pdfSchilling and Marsters 2015--Unmasking Identity, speaker profiling.pdfAssignmentsInformation Manipulation ExperimentWorking in?groups?of three to five and based on? HYPERLINK "" \o "McCornack1992_InfManipTheory.pdf" \t "" McCornack?(1992), you will design and perform an experiment on your fellow LSA students (not in this class) or other people you come by.1. Pick two scenarios and let your informants write their possible utterance?in the given situation. Feel free to use online survey tools to collect?more answers.2. Pick three or more answers and analyse them according to Grice's conversational maxims. What maxims are violated to perform a lie?3.?Upload?a short description of your design and results (1-2 pages).4.?Optional:?Based on your findings, consider?how you might extend this study to a more comprehensive one.RubricInformation Manipulation ExperimentCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Experiment designTemplate design. Informant selection. Number of informants.3.0?ptsFull Marks2.0?ptsRating Description1.0?ptsRating Description0.0?ptsNo Marks3.0?ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome AnalysisClear references to Grice and McCornack. Convincing analysis. Number of answers analysed.3.0?ptsFull Marks2.0?ptsRating Description1.0?ptsRating Description0.0?ptsNo Marks3.0?ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Extension of studyExtension related to validity and representativity. Correction of problems in the design.2.0?ptsFull Marks0.0?ptsNo Marks2.0?ptsTotal Points:?8.0Authorship analysisWorking in groups, you will analyse Q and K docs from the Antwaun Cubie case. You will look at the?confession?(Q),?contemporaneous writings of Cubie?(KC), and the trial testimony of one of the arresting detectives,?part 1?and?part 2?(KD).Group 1 and 3 will focus on vocabulary (word choice)Group 4 and 6 will focus on grammar (morphology and syntax)Is the language in the confession (Q) closer to the known writings of Cubie (KC) or of the detective (KD)? ?Put more precisely, which of the following two hypotheses is better supported by the data?Hypothesis 1: the language patterns in the Q can better be explained as instances of the language patterns in KC; Hypothesis 2: the language? patterns in the Q can better be explained as? instances of the language patterns in KD.Upload?your examples (with clear references to the data) and be prepared to engage in a discussion of them in class.RubricAuthorship analysisCriteriaRatingsPtsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Selection of supporting examplesDiversity of examples. Exact references. Clear formating.3.0?ptsFull Marks2.0?ptsRating Description1.0?ptsRating Description0.0?ptsNo Marks3.0?ptsThis criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Selection of non-supporting examplesDiversity of examples. Exact references. Clear formating.3.0?ptsFull Marks0.0?ptsNo Marks3.0?ptsTotal Points:?6.0Forensic discourse analysisWorking in groups, you will perform (part of) a discourse analysis of text messages in the?Syrian warrior case.Group 1 will focus on?places?mentioned or implied by the two participantsGroups 3 and 4 will focus on?relationship hierarchies?mentioned or implied by the two participantsGroup 6 will focus on?terms of religion and war?used by?the two participants1. Identify relevant sections of the messages for your focus point.2. Consider?what these sections tell us about the defendant and prepare for a class discussion.?NB! You are not meant to?upload your answers, instead you must:3. Answer this short?quiz?regarding the Syrian warrior case.Syrian warrior caseInstructionsAnswer as best you can, on the basis of your understanding of the data.?Give short answers, e.g. in the form of bullet points.?Question 13?/ 3?ptsDo you believe the participants have known each other for more than a couple of weeks when the first text message in this thread is sent? Why??Question 23?/ 3?ptsIs it possible to tell whether one of the participants is higher ranking than the other? How?Question 33?/ 3?ptsWhere do you think A plans to go? And what might his purpose be?Civil law: Product liabilityIndividually, you will find one example of a product that has both instructions and warnings, either on a label on the outside of the product or as a leaflet inside the package.Take a clear photo of both and upload them here (if Canvas won't accept a picture file for upload, copy it onto a doc-file or the like, or pdf it).Be prepared to discuss?linguistic and formatting differences between them in class Tuesday. ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download