Jordan Toone and Dr. Cynthia Hallen, Linguistics

Linguistics has provided critical and clarifying evidence in the courtroom for decades. Not only have linguists and linguistic theory assisted the upholding of U.S. law but both have provided professional expertise in disputes throughout the world. The exciting correlation between linguistics and law has long been developing, while the assessment and evaluation of the relationship is in its infant stage and is yet to be fully established in professional research and publication.

What contributions can linguistics provide in the courtroom? The answer to this question is becoming increasingly varied as many judges and attorneys are becoming aware of the importance and relativity of linguistics in the courtroom. However, the core contributions remain the same. Linguists read and clarify legal documents, interpret for non-native witnesses, provide voice analysis, or clarify errors in police interviews with second-language speakers. In addition, linguistic thought alone can assist counsel in determining the meaning behind statements or interpret words of letters, wills and statements.

My research consisted of comprising an annotated bibliography of U.S. state and federal cases which utilized linguistic evidence—provided by a professional linguist or utilizing linguistic theory. I had hypothesized that I would sort through a sufficient composition of cases and comprise concise and encompassing overview of cases involving linguistic theory. I began my research and ultimately separated it into four stages:

1- Locating primary cases involving linguistic theory
2- Tracking each case to locate other cases that referred to primary case
3- Analyzing and annotating cases
4- Comprising the cases into a bibliography

Step one proved to be much more extensive then originally thought. To begin with, little prior research has been organized or published regarding actual cases where linguistics and law are combined. I was able to contact leading researchers at the University of Florida and the University of Melbourne, Australia, who have extensive experience with linguistics and law, yet both experts recognized the immature status of notable publication and research. In addition, numerous cases are not reported in law journals or reports. Hence, cases may include linguistic testimony, yet may not be reported in journals or reports if no significant alterations or decisions are made regarding state or federal law. For example, I was able to locate cases that linguists participated in, but since nothing was reported in a law journal or report, little is accessible regarding the actual significance of the linguistic theory.

Despite the difficulty of accessing a solid and varied collection of cases, I was able to locate numerous cases that were not only fascinating to research but also fascinating to find. The internet provided great information about the application of linguistics in the courtroom, however, did not provide necessary cases or reports of which I could locate and track. Law databases proved to be the greatest asset. Lexis-Nexis and Westlaw were the most beneficial. It was from these databases that most of my primary cases were located.

Step two proved to be where I learned the most about legal research. After I had established a base of primary cases, I learned how to “shepardize” cases, or, in other words, I learned how to analyze and locate cases related to the primary cases I had and track the history of the primary case as it is cited in other cases and decisions. It was during this stage that a few dozen other cases were located which resembled, in varying degrees, my primary cases. It was with these cases that my research took a turn and I decided to include with my primary cases a list of secondary cases that can be referenced, yet are not unique in regard to the primary cases. My primary cases represent a healthy overview of linguistics combined with law, but due to inquisition and because I extremely enjoyed researching secondary cases, I decided to incorporate nearly three dozen secondary cases in my bibliography. I have located the secondary cases, and will finish annotating them and organizing them during my first five weeks of Fall Semester at BYU, where I can utilize the Howard W. Hunter Law library. George Mason Law School has started classes, therefore accessibility to the library here in Virginia is limited.

Step three was enjoyable compared to the first two steps. All of my primary cases have been analyzed, annotated, and organized. It was interesting to notice the varying degrees of linguistic input, yet recognize the relevance of linguistic theory, regardless of the degree of importance to the actual decision.

The final step was altered due to my incorporation of secondary cases. The bibliography itself is simply an introduction to the relevance of linguistic theory in American law. It represents an introductory composition of cases which can assist future students preparing for law school who are involved, or thinking of becoming involved, in the field of linguistics. It can also act as a reference for any linguistic professors teaching applied linguistics in the classroom. Whatever the use, it hopefully can assist future research.

My preparation for law school was greatly enhanced as I learned how to find, track, and research cases. I didn’t expect to begin law school with an excitement for legal research, but my professors might be shocked when I arrive. I often found myself taking dramatic detours as I began to locate and track other exciting cases related to linguistics. My experience, overall, was challenging, enjoyable, and rewarding. I expect to benefit from not only the findings of my research, but the experience gained.