Analyzing Language Evidence
We all know that DNA, fingerprints, and other physical evidence can be used to help solve crimes. But did you know that language evidence can be a powerful tool, too? In cases involving language evidence, investigators and attorneys can turn to expert witnesses in linguistics, the scientific study of language.
Forensic linguists use their expertise in language structure, meaning, and usage patterns to assess language evidence in cases involving criminal and other nefarious communications, from online manifestos by potential violent actors to text messages of disputed authorship to anonymous bomb threats to confession statements whose truthfulness is in dispute. In cases involving written communications, linguists examine grammar, punctuation, spelling, vocabulary, and subtle patterns of co-occurrence to assess authorship, intent, truthfulness, and other matters; with verbal communications, they can also consider pronunciations, pitch, tone and intonation, and voice quality.
The task of forensic linguists may involve the following:
(1) author/speaker profiling – assessing linguistic features of anonymous or pseudonymous communications, written or spoken, to determine demographic and other author characteristics, for example, gender, age, nationality, regionality, ethnicity, intent, personality
In 1981, 13-year-old Mary Day goes missing in Seaside, CA. 20-plus years later, a woman claiming to be “Mary” surfaces in Phoenix, AZ. But there’s a big problem – her accent doesn’t match what we’d expect, given Mary’s background; Natalie Schilling and her team prepare a linguistic profile.
(2) authorship attribution/speaker identification – comparing linguistic features in communications of questioned origin to determine whether they’re written or spoken by a particular suspect
Criminal
A 13-year-old girl writes a note telling her mother that her stepfather is sexually abusing her. The stepfather is charged; his defense team claims that the note could not have been written by a child the girl’s age without help from an adult – perhaps someone intent on framing the defendant. Dr. Schilling assesses the note, and the report of an opposing expert linguist, and determines that, in fact, there’s nothing in the note that’s beyond the writing capabilities of a young teen.
Corporate
A series of anonymous highly negative reviews of a major international company are posted on a high-profile job site. The company hires Dr. Schilling to assess whether the reviews come from a disgruntled former employee they suspect of defaming the company. She determines that most of the anonymous postings share a highly distinctive writing style with the suspect author, characterized by distinguishing punctuation patterns, word choices, and non-nativelike usages.
Academic
A promising young college student is accused of copying a fellow student’s work during an important exam and faces major disciplinary action. The student contends that his answers are similar to his friend’s because they studied together, using detailed notes they both worked to prepare. Based on linguistic analysis of the exam questions, students’ answers, study notes, and other course materials, Dr. Schilling determines that the similarities in the two exams are not evidence of cheating but are to be expected, given the nature of the class, the exam, and the study process.
(3) disputed utterance analysis – examining (often noisy) audio data for linguistic indicators of what was said, or who said what
A stabbing victim utters a friend’s name as he lays dying, surrounded by police and emergency medical personnel. But is he exonerating or implicating his friend? Dr. Schilling assists the police investigation through acoustic phonetic and sociolinguistic analysis of the dying declaration, concluding that the utterance in question likely doesn’t contain the friend’s name at all.
(4) analysis of interviews and witness statements to assess potential evasiveness, deception, or undue influence on witnesses from outside sources
Prosecution
A man imprisoned for decades for the rape and murder of a 12-year-old girl claims his long-ago confession was false, fed to him by police. Dr. Schilling examines the confession, statements from other witnesses, known writings by the defendant, and an opposing expert’s report. In a pre-trial hearing, the judge concludes that Dr. Schilling is correct in maintaining that even though witness statements are often shaped by the police interview content, this doesn’t mean they’re necessarily untrue.
Defense
A man imprisoned for nearly 40 years for a triple murder maintains his innocence the whole time. In connection with the Making an Exoneree project at Georgetown University, Dr. Schilling and her team assess decades-old police interview discourse for possible evidence that the police fed the convicted man details about the crime that only those at the scene could have known.
(5) threat assessment – analyzing threatening communications for linguistic indicators of commitment, including risk factors (personality disorders, suicidal or homicidal ideation, etc.) and warning behaviors (escalating grievance, increasing fixation, heightened negativity, increasing identification as a ‘warrior’, etc.); assessing threatening communications against known linguistic characteristics of realized vs. non-realized threats
(6) assessment of meaning, similarity of mark, and strength of mark in trademark cases
Dr. Schilling regularly serves as an expert linguist in trademark dispute cases; visit her post on trademarks to learn more.
Are you an attorney or an investigator involved in a case that includes language evidence? With 20-plus years’ experience as an expert linguist in a wide range of criminal and civil matters, Dr. Natalie Schilling may be able to help. Contact her today to learn more.