文档介绍：Language Crimes
The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom
Roger W. Shuy
Introduction
Here the author tells the story of his getting into the field of forensic linguistics. (Accidentally he came into conversation with an attorney on a flight to Dallas and two weeks later one of the attorney’s colleagues asked him to be an expert witness...) He introduces the term “conversational contamination”. To define it he brings the example of telling an ethnic joke. We would assume that both parties are guilty but we have to be conscious of identifying the person who introduced the topic and see how the listener responded to it. He explains that he works on the basis of tape recordings. He argues for the expertise of linguists, so that they can be used in the courtroom as expert witnesses despite scepticism of various persons. pares the listening of a linguist to X-ray analysis. The linguist can hear out evidence from conversations that other people cannot. He says that the main problem is that when a linguist is too technical plex the jury would not understand. If they are not technical at all, what they say is judged as little more mon sense, so the judge considers the testimony unnecessary. One has to find the way in between. Rule 702 of the Federal Rules says: “If the scientific, technical, or other specialised knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the