Ordet fanger. Retslingvistik i en dansk kontekst

Forfattere

  • Tanya Karoli Christensen Institut for Nordiske Studier og Sprogvidenskab Københavns Universitet

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v1i52-53.26334

Nøgleord:

Anvendt lingvistik, ophavsanalyse, profilering, kriminalret, civilret

Resumé

Denne artikel introducerer til feltet retslingvistik, eller mere specifikt til det delfelt som beskæftiger sig med analyser af sprogligt bevismateriale i kriminalsager. Kriminalretslingvistikkens historie og anvendelsesområder opridses, og der gives eksempler på danske sager hvortil sprogforskere har bidraget med ekspertudtalelser. Med udgangspunkt i en autentisk dansk trusselssag illustreres en række mulige analysegreb der kan være relevante i efterforskning og bevisførelse, men med et klart fokus på nærsproglige analyser. Hovedvægten ligger på en introduktion til den helt centrale opgavetype, ophavsanalysen (eng.: authorship analysis), som sammenligner en eller flere inkriminerende tekster med tekster der er skrevet af mistænkte i sagen. Formålet er at undersøge om der er sproglige, ortografiske og formateringsmæssige træk som går igen i begge sæt tekster, og derved kan støtte en hypotese om at de har fælles ophav.

Referencer

Atkinson, J.M. & P. Drew. 1979. Order in court : The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: Macmillan. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-349-04057-5. Berk-Seligson, S. 1999. The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. Forensic Linguistics 6. 30-56. DOI: 10.1558/sll.1999.6.1.30. Berk-Seligson, S. 2002. The miranda warnings and linguistic coercion: The role of footing in the interrogation of a limited-english-speaking murder suspect. J. Cotterill (red.). Language in the legal process, 127-143. London, Palgrave Macmillan UK. Brøndum-Nielsen, J. 1914. Sproglig forfatterbestemmelse: Studier over dansk sprog i det 16. Århundredes begyndelse. København/Kristiania: Gyldendal. Butters, R.R. 2012. Retiring president’s closing address: Ethics, best practices, and standards. Proceedings of the International Association of Forensic Linguists’ Tenth Biennial Conference 10. 351-361. Chaski, C.E. 2001. Empirical evaluations of language-based author identification techniques. Forensic Linguistics 8. 1-65. DOI: 10.1558/sll.2001.8.1.1. Chaski, C.E. 2007. The keyboard dilemma and authorship identification. Advances in Digital Forensics III 242. 133-146. DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-73742-3_9. Cotterill, J. 2000. Reading the rights: A cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics 7(1). 4–25. DOI: 10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.4. Coulthard, M. 2000. Whose text is it? On the linguistic investigation of authorship. S. Sarangi & M. Coulthard (red.). Discourse and social life, 270-287, Longman. Coulthard, M. 2002. Whose voice is it? Invented and concealed dialogue in written records of verbal evidence produced by the police. J. Cotterill (red.). Language in the legal process, 19-34, Palgrave Macmillan. Coulthard, M. 2004. Author identification, idiolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics 25(4). 431-447. DOI: 10.1093/applin/25.4.431. Coulthard, M., A. Johnson & D. Wright. 2017. An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence: Routledge. Eades, D. 2005. Applied linguistics and language analysis in asylum seeker cases. Applied Linguistics 26(4). 503-526. DOI: 10.1093/applin/ami021. Ehrhardt, S. 2013. Forensic linguistics accredited: Four years of experiences with ISO 17020 in authorship analysis. Bridging the Gap(s) between Language and the Law: Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference of the International Association of Forensic Linguists. Porto, Portugal. Faculdade de Letras da Universidade do Porto. 64-75. Ehrhardt, S. 2016. Forensic linguistics at the german bundeskriminalamt. Foredrag ved IV Jornadas de Lingüística Forense, Madrid. Farstad Eriksen, P.K. 2013. Avhørsrapporten som rekontekstualisering av avhøret. En studie av en simulert avhørssituasjon gjennomført av studenter ved politihøgskolen. Institutt for språk- og kommunikasjonsstudie. Trondheim: NTNU. MA. Fisher, S.Z. 1993. Just the facts, ma’am: Lying and the omission of exculpatory evidence in police reports. New England Law Review 28(1). 1-62. Fraser, B. 1998. Threatening revisited. Forensic Linguistics 5. 159-173. DOI: 10.1558/sll.1998.5.2.159 Gnisci, A. & C. Pontecorvo. 2004. The organization of questions and answers in the thematic phases of hostile examination: Turn-by-turn manipulation of meaning. Journal of Pragmatics 36(5). 965-995. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2003.10.005. Grant, T. 2012. Txt 4n6: Method, consistency, and distinctiveness in the analysis of sms text messages. Journal of Law and Policy 21(2). 467-494. Grice, H.P. 1975. Logic and conversation. P. Cole & J.L. Morgen (red.). Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 41-58. Harris, S. 2001. Fragmented narratives and multiple tellers: Witness and defendant accounts in trials. Discourse studies 3(1). 53-74. DOI: 10.1177/1461445601003001003. Haworth, K. 2006. The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse & Society 17(6). 739-759. DOI: 10.1177/0957926506068430. Heltoft, L. & E. Hansen. 2011. Grammatik over det danske sprog: Det Danske Sprog- og Litteraturselskab. Jarvad, P. 2014. Juridisk sprog. Spørg om sprog. 40 år i dansk sprognævn. 43-59. København, Dansk Sprognævn. Jessen, M. 2008. Forensic phonetics. Language and Linguistics Compass 2. 671–711. DOI: 10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00066.x. Julien, M. 2016. Possessive predicational vocatives in scandinavian. The Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 19(2). 75-108. DOI: 10.1007/s10828-016-9081-x. Juola, P. 2008. Authorship attribution. Foundations and Trends in Information Retrieval 1(3). 233-334. DOI: 10.1561/1500000005. Juola, P. 2016. Did aunt prunella really write that will? A simple and understandable computational assessment of authorial likelihood. Proceedings of A Workshop on Legal Text, Document, and Corpus Analytics (LTDCA 2016). 37–41. Jönsson, L. & P. Linell. 1991. Story generations: From dialogical interviews to written reports in police interrogations. Text - Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 11(3). 419-440. Kassin, L. 2008. Confession evidence: Commonsense myths and misconceptions. Criminal Justice and Behavior 35(10). 1309-1322. DOI: 10.1177/0093854808321557. Komter, M.L. 1994. Accusations and defences in courtroom interaction. Discourse & Society 5(2). 165-187. DOI: 10.1177/0957926594005002002. Koppel, M., J. Schler & S. Argamon. 2009. Computational methods in authorship attribution. Journal of the American Society for information Science and Technology 60(1). 9-26. DOI: 10.1002/asi.20961. Københavns Kommune. 1991. Kan "staveplade" anvendes som kommunikationsmiddel for egne, viljesbestemte udsagn? En undersøgelse af stavepladekommunikation mellem klienter med vidtgående psykisk og eventuelt fysisk handicap og deres pædagoger. Københavns Amt. Larsen, P.H. 1973. Om ”offentligt at tilskynde til forbrydelse”. En studie i forholdet mellem sprog, jura og politik. Nydanske Sprogstudier (NyS) 5. 5-39. DOI: 10.7146/nys.v5i5.10339. Leonard, R.A., J.E.R. Ford & T.K. Christensen. 2017. Forensic linguistics: Applying the science of linguistics to issues of the law. Hofstra Law Review 45. 501-517. McMenamin, G.R. 2002. Forensic linguistics: Advances in forensic stylistics: CRC Press. DOI: 10.1201/9781420041170. Nakane, I. 2011. The role of silence in interpreted police interviews. Journal of Pragmatics 43(9). 2317-2330. DOI: 10.1016/j.pragma.2010.11.013. Olsson, J. & J. Luchjenbroers. 2014. Forensic linguistics: Bloomsbury Academic Press. Patrick, P.L. 2012. Language analysis for determination of origin: Objective evidence for refugee status determination. M.S. Lawrence, M.T. Peter & L.P. Peter (red.), The oxford handbook of language and law, 1-15. Oxford, Oxford University Press. Picornell, I. 2013. Cues to deception in a textual narrative context: Lying in written witness statements. Ph.D.-afhandling ved School for Languages and Social Sciences. Aston: Aston University. Schack, J. 2008. Varemærker i den sproglige rådgivning. Sprog i Norden 39(1). 223-229. Searle, J.R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language: Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139173438. Shuy, R.W. 2006. Linguistics in the courtroom: A practical guide. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Shuy, R.W. 2008. Fighting over words: Language and civil law cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328837.001.0001. Shuy, R.W. 2008. ‘Or’ in a group insurance policy, Fighting over words: Language and civil law cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195328837.001.0001. Shuy, R.W. 2013. The language of bribery cases. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199945139.001.0001. Shuy, R.W. 2015. Discourse analysis in the legal context. D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen & H.E. Hamilton (red.). The handbook of discourse analysis, 822-840. Shuy, R.W. 2017. Language and law. M. Aronoff & J. Rees-Miller (red.) Simons, A. & R. Tunkel. 2013. The assessment of anonymous threatening communications. J.R. Meloy & J. Hoffmann, International handbook of threat assessment, 195-213. Oxford Oxford University Press. Solan, L.M. & P.M. Tiersma. 2010. Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice: University of Chicago Press. Solan, L.M. 2013. Intuition versus algorithm: The case of forensic authorship attribution. Brooklyn Journal of Law and Policy 21(2). 551-576. Svartvik, J. 1968. The evans statements: A case for forensic linguistics. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. Tabron, J. 2016. Linguistic features of phone scams: A qualitative survey. 11th Annual Symposium on Information Assurance (ASIA ’16), Albany, New York. Tagliamonte, S. 2011. Variationist sociolinguistics: Change, observation, interpretation. West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Togeby, O. 1993. Praxt pragmatisk tekstteori. Aarhus: Aarhus Universitetsforlag. Verrips, M. 2011. Lado and the pressure to draw strong conclusions. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law 18(1). 131-143. DOI: 10.1558/ijsll.v18i1.131. Walton, D. 2013. Scare tactics: Arguments that appeal to fear and threats. Dordrecht/Boston/London: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Downloads

Yderligere filer

Publiceret

2017-12-15

Citation/Eksport

Christensen, T. K. (2017). Ordet fanger. Retslingvistik i en dansk kontekst. NyS, Nydanske Sprogstudier, 1(52-53), 169–206. https://doi.org/10.7146/nys.v1i52-53.26334

Nummer

Sektion

Artikler