The Morbid Linguist

One of the first things I learned in studying Forensic Linguistics is that I should never say I have "identified" the author or speaker of my language evidence. That advice comes from  a scientist who has investigated several murders . As Dr. Leonard explains it: Even if you have enough evidence to implicate a single suspect, there's still a chance that among the seven billion humans in the world, one of them might happen to use language in the exact same way as your suspect. There's no room for that "scientific certainty" bullshit in his department. The goal of Forensic Linguistic investigation, rather, is to determine the probable creator(s) of language evidence. As an investigator, I would only say, based on the language examined, which suspect(s) I might interpret to be its most likely creator. Maybe even least likely creator, if it's an Authorship Attribution case. All of this hedging - avoidance of certainty or commitment - is intentional. I...

I realize it's only fair if I explain forensic linguistics, as it is the theme of my blog (and my life, to be honest). My professor, Dr. Rob Leonard, is fond of explaining it like this: "Forensic linguistics is the intersection of language and the law." Instead of describing the entire science, this post is my attempt at explaining where forensic linguistic analysis fits within the legal system. In attempting so, I am writing from my own experience and education. I am an American, and I attend only one of the world's few graduate programs for forensic linguistics. The fact is, criminal cases are only half of forensic linguistics. The other half is civil cases; such as those that concern plagiarism or copyright infringement. Legal documents such as laws, legislation, contracts, and testimony can also require forensic linguistic analysis. The word "forensic" comes from the Latin "forum" and related "forensis"; the latter meaning "o...