Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T09:30:04.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Forensic Linguistics?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 June 2016

Michael Canale ,
Raymond Mougeon  and
Terry J. Klokeid
Michael Canale
Affiliation:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Raymond Mougeon
Affiliation:
Ontario Institute for Studies in Education
Terry J. Klokeid
Affiliation:
Saskatchewan Indian Federated College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The application of linguistics to legal issues—what some have labelled “forensic linguistics”—has become increasingly common, varied and consequential (see Brackenridge 1981 for a brief overview). Recently, we three served as language experts in Toronto’s first bilingual jury trial (Regina vs. Lapointe and Sicotte, 1981). Since each of us was assigned a different linguistic problem and since our roles were partially adversary ones (two of us worked for the defence and the other for the prosecution), we were able to draw upon a variety of linguistic concepts and analyses as well as to assess their effectiveness when applied to legal issues. The present paper reports not only on the nature of our involvement but, more importantly, on our joint perception of disturbing language-related problems in the legal process and of equally disturbing inadequacies in the responses that linguistics can currently offer to many of these problems.

Type
Remarks/Remarques
Information
Canadian Journal of Linguistics/Revue canadienne de linguistique , Volume 27 , Issue 2 , Fall 1982 , pp. 150 - 155
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Linguistic Association 1982

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This paper was first presented at the 1982 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Linguistics Association at the University of Ottawa in June. We are grateful to those members of the Association who shared their own experiences in applying linguistics to legal issues and who encouraged us to write up our own experiences; we thank Jack Chambers, Dan Wilson and David M. Perlmutter for particularly stimulating discussions. All errors and opinions here are, of course, our own responsibility.

References

Bialystok, E., and Ryan, E. B. (in press) “A metacognitive framework for the development of first and second language skills.” In Forest-Pressley, D. L., MacKinnon, G. E. and Waller, T. G., eds. Meta-Cognition, Cognition and Human Performance. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Brackenridge, L. (1981) “Linguistics and the professions: Overview on the law.” The Linguistic Reporter 24.2:2–4.Google Scholar
Ervin-Tripp, S. (1979) “Children’s sociolinguistic competence and dialect diversity.” In Pride, J. B., ed.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1979) “A grammarian looks to sociolinguistics.” In Pride, J. B., ed.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. J. (1981) “Ideal readers and real readers.” Keynote address at the Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics, March. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Freedle, R. O., ed. (1979) New Directions in Discourse Processing, Vol. 2: Advances in Discourse Processes. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex Publishing Co.Google Scholar
Menyuk, P. (1969) Sentences Children Use. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mougeon, R., et al. (1982) Le français parlé en situation minoritaire (volume 1). Quebec City: CIRB, Laval University.Google Scholar
Pride, J. B., ed. (1979) Sociolinguistic Aspects of Language Learning and Teaching. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Regina vs. Lapointe and Sicotte. (1981) “Reasons for judgement at the Voir-Dire before his Honor Judge Lloyd Graburn.” Toronto: County Court of the County of York.Google Scholar
Richards, J. C., ed. (1974) Error Analysis: Perspectives on Second language Acquisition. London: Longman.Google Scholar