discourse and the law

[Georgina Heydon]

> From: Mary Bucholtz <bucholtz at TAMU.EDU>
...
> The reference for the first piece is "Language in Evidence: The
Pragmatics
> of Translation in the Judicial Process," in Marshall Morris (ed.),
> Translation in the Law, John Benjamins, 1995, pp. 115-129. The second
piece
> is part of a larger article called "The Politics of Transcription" (an
> issue I'd love to delve into on the list, if anyone's interested). That
> article is under review, but I'm happy to send out a copy to you or
anyone
> else who wants one.
...


I've tracked down the first reference, and I'd love a copy of the second -
thanks very much.

I agree utterly - how can transcription be anything other than a form of
interpretation and how can interpretation avoid being shaped by the
socio-political milieu of the transcriber/interpretor (or perhaps the
transcription-methodologist)?

I find many of the methods used by the police to analyse or at least
present (eg. as evidence) the language of citizens ignores the impact of
subjectivity in interpretation, especially where socio-political difference
colours the relationship between officer and citizen.

There's a method of 'lie detection' called statement analysis which takes
as a premise that there is a 'norm' in language use, against which all
other language use can be measured.  And this norm is quite specific -
frequency of personal pronouns in a suspect's statement, that sort of
thing.  If you're interested, try this site on for size:

<http://www.fbi.gov/leb/oct964.txt>

What I find fascinating is that this 'statement analysis' methodology is
credited to German researchers, with no attention paid to possible
discursive differences between German and English.  Hmm...

Georgina




Georgina Heydon
Department of Linguistics and Applied Linguistics
University of Melbourne
Parkville   Victoria    3052
Australia

Ph: 61 3 9344 5488

email: g.heydon at linguistics.unimelb.edu.au