Book announced at https://linguistlist.org/issues/34.3280

AUTHOR: Diana Eades
AUTHOR: Helen Fraser
AUTHOR: Georgina Heydon
TITLE: Forensic Linguistics in Australia
SUBTITLE: Origins, Progress and Prospects
SERIES TITLE: Elements in Forensic Linguistics
PUBLISHER: Cambridge University Press
YEAR: 2023

REVIEWER: Marijana Javornik Čubrić

SUMMARY

The Elements in Forensic Linguistics series from Cambridge University Press provides high-quality accessible writing across four main topic areas: investigative and forensic text analysis, the study of spoken linguistic practices in legal contexts, the linguistic analysis of written legal texts and explorations of the origins, the development and scope of forensic linguistics in various countries. Forensic Linguistics in Australia: Origins, Progress and Prospects is the second Element in the area of forensic linguistics.

All the authors contributed to the development of forensic linguistics in Australia. Diana Eades from the University of New England specializes in critical sociolinguistics, language in the legal process, and intercultural communication, particularly involving Australian Aboriginal people who speak varieties of English. She documented the linguistic and cultural differences between their societies and English-speaking societies. Helen Fraser from the University of Melbourne is an expert in forensic translation and transcription, and her phonetic and phonological work was focused on issues of contested transcription of covert audio for use of evidence. Georgina Heydon from the RMIT University is a Professor in Criminology and Justice Studies and a forensic linguist whose work on the police interview led to attempts to reform interviewing practices across Australia.

The volume aims to present an account of the origins, development and current state of forensic linguistics in Australia since the first expert linguistic evidence in 1959, through early work in the 1970s and 1980s, the defining of the discipline in the 1990s to the present day. It consists of an Introduction and five chapters. It also includes a list of abbreviations, an appendix about the engagement of the judiciary and legal profession with forensic linguistics and recognition in law of specific Australian forensic linguistics work in legal proceedings, commissioned reports and similar.

In the Introduction, the authors explain that they do not intend to cover the field of forensic linguistics outside Australia and that they intended to bring together the work of Australian linguists on language and law. The introductory part offers a definition of forensic linguistics, and then briefly describes the history of forensic linguistics in Australia, outlining its main characteristics. In the volume, forensic linguistics is defined as a branch of applied linguistics that uses expertise in linguistics for applications related to legal context. The authors note that Jan Svartvik was the first to use the term ‘forensic linguistics’ in The Evans Statements. A Case for Forensic Linguistics that was published in 1968. However, in Australia, linguistic evidence was first presented in a legal matter in 1959, almost a decade before Svartvik coined the term ‘forensic linguistics’. Although it is a relatively young discipline, it has grown into a prominent and expanding interdisciplinary field. Forensic linguistics develops methods for analyzing and evaluating language to be used as evidence in courtroom hearings, evidence such as written documents or recorded conversations that provide information relevant to judicial decisions. Then the authors proceed to describe the history of the discipline in Australia from its very beginnings in the 1950s, the early days in the 1970s and 1980s, and the period of defining the discipline in the 1990s up to the 21st century. By the late 1990s forensic linguistics and forensic phonetics were well established in Australia, with expanding research across various branches and increased interaction with international colleagues.

In the next section titled Misconceptions and Problematic Ideologies, the authors focus on the issue of ignorance and misconceptions, both misconceptions held by many linguists about how the law works and also misconceptions in the law about language, speech, and problematic language ideologies. Some important research focusing on these misconceptions and ideologies is mentioned. A particularly important issue in Australia is the assumption that monolingualism is, and should be, a norm in society. As Australia is a country in which more than 300 languages are spoken, and 21 per cent of Australians speak a language other than English at home, this issue is of tremendous importance, and many Australian linguists have worked to counter that assumption. Among the most prominent authors who are internationally recognized for their work in this field are Sandra Hale, Ludmila Stern, Michale Walsh and Michael Cooke.

The third section examines forensic linguistics, which involves analysis of the linguistic context of the language data, using expertise in phonetics, syntax, semantics and other analytical branches of linguistic science. It discusses the legal history of forensic transcriptions and the contribution of Helen Fraser and others in minimising the risk to justice posed by the use of police transcripts. An experiment led by Fraser in 2011 attracted considerable interest from linguists: in this experiment audio from a real murder trial was used to demonstrate how an inaccurate transcript can mislead listeners into 'hearing' incriminating words that have actually not been spoken. A number of linguists who contributed to the field of forensic phonetics are mentioned, such as Alex Jones who was the first to provide speaker identification evidence in Australia, Heather Bowe, who established the Monash Speaker Identification Unit, and Phil Rose, who advocated the use of Likelihood Ratio (LR) in speaker comparison and trained several graduate students in the use of LR. Another branch of forensic linguistics in which Australian scholars have played an important role is LADO – Language Analysis for the Determination of the Origin of asylum seekers. The Guidelines intended to assist governments in choosing appropriate LADO analysts and procedures were developed by an international group of linguists that included Australians Diana Eades, Helen Fraser, Tim McNamara and Jeff Siegel. Australia is recognised internationally in the plain language and law movement, especially because of Robert Eagleson who was one of its pioneers. Plain English is especially important in situations involving speakers of English as an additional language, and many Australian linguists have worked with lawyers and legal organisations to improve access to justice by attempting to make the legal language more understandable. The most prolific Australian linguistic researcher on legal issues impacting users of languages other than English is Sandra Hale, whose contributions are internationally recognised. Her study of lawyers' discourse markers and question types in interpreted proceedings shows how and why it is difficult for interpreters to achieve pragmatic accuracy.

The fourth section titled International Contexts deals with the international contexts of the language data being analysed, primarily in interrogative interviews, courtroom hearings and refugee status determination interviews and related tribunal hearings. The multilingual context of legal interactions in Australia has provided a wealth of opportunities for research in these fields and yielded numerous important contributions. For example, the work of Miranda Lai on the relationship between cognitive interviewing strategies and interpreted interviewing was the first of its kind. The first Australian publication about the language in the courtroom was a handbook for lawyers written in 1992 by Diana Eades and titled Aboriginal English and the Law: Communicating with Aboriginal English Speaking Clients. The handbook suggested that lawyers could find ways to engage in more effective communication with Aboriginal clients and witnesses. Laura Smith-Khan's research on communication with and about asylum seekers resulted in extensive publications in legal and linguistic journals.

As language is always used in a cultural context, the authors devoted the next section to sociocultural contexts, in particular the context of language in the law and the culture of law(s). In Australia, the situations involving the participation of Aboriginal people have the greatest impact on sociocultural context on language in the law. The work of Alex Bowen offered evidence that many Aboriginal suspects in the Northern Territory often fail to understand their right to silence and that a key reason for this is the way in which that right is expressed in the law and by police, because it is centred on the expression 'you don't have to say anything' which is a vague way of providing legal information. He also argues that telling a suspect that a police interview can be used in evidence is only meaningful if the suspect knows the word 'evidence’ and has a prior contextual knowledge about how evidence is used in criminal trials, which is knowledge about the culture of the law.

The last section titled Engagement, Expansion and Expectation highlights some characteristics of forensic linguistics in Australia. The authors recognise the important role of some members of the judiciary and the legal profession in addressing language issues. For example, Justice Sir William Forster's judgment in R v Anunga set out and explained nine guidelines for police interrogation of Aboriginal people. In conclusion, the authors express their respect and appreciation for the linguists who broke new ground in applying linguistics to the law.

EVALUATION

Attempting to answer the question what is forensic linguistics, John Olsson concluded that it is the application of linguistic knowledge to a particular social setting, namely the legal forum (from which the word forensic is derived), and that in its broadest sense it is the interface between language, crime and law, where law includes law enforcement, judicial matters, legislation, disputes or proceedings in law, and even disputes which only potentially involve some infraction of law or some necessity to seek a legal remedy (Olsson, 3).

This Element outlines the development of forensic linguistics in Australia in a clear and well-organised manner, emphasising some of its specific characteristics, misconceptions related to it, linguistic contexts within which it has developed and major contributions to the field. It emphasises that a key feature of forensic linguistics in Australia is the way in which linguists draw on existing research, find their way within specific sociocultural contexts and enrich linguistic science through their work.

A very characteristic feature of forensic linguistics in Australia is the focus on the rights of individuals in the legal process, for example, the rights of Aboriginal people when being questioned by the police. It is therefore not surprising that most of the forensic linguistic work involving sociocultural context in Australia highlighted issues impacting the participation of Aboriginal people in the law. Australian linguists greatly contributed to the field of forensic linguistics in many ways, especially in the areas of forensic transcription and phonetics, research on court interpreting, courtroom communication and authorship attribution. They played an important role in responding to many misconceptions about language and law that can hinder access to justice and the right to a fair trial. The authors of the volume characterise the field in Australia as critical forensic linguistics, that is, forensic linguistics that engages with questions of power and inequality.

Australian linguists also played an important part in the Plain language for law movement. Plain language for law is the language which relies on clear and simple style, and which is consequently more understandable to the recipients. It refers to “the writing and setting out of essential information that gives a co-operative, motivated person a good chance of understanding it at first reading, and in the same sense that the writer meant it to be understood” (Cutts, 4). One of Australian contributors to the movement, Michele Asprey (who is not mentioned in the Element), explained from the position of a lawyer that things have changed and that “the public perception of lawyers has changed. We are no longer seen as the learned custodians of unknowable secrets. We are no longer immune to challenge on our own ground. Our clients are asking questions. They are demanding the right to understand the advice we give and they want to be able to read the documents we draft for them.” (Asprey, 3-4). This volume testifies that Australian linguists and lawyers are changing things for the better and fighting for linguistic rights of all people, not just native speakers of English.

Although this Element is elegantly slim, consisting of only 86 pages, it offers a wealth of information and provides insight into the development, history and specific characteristics of forensic linguistics in Australia. It is written in a clear and concise manner, and it should be read by anyone interested not only in the relationship between the language and the law but also in the very specific sociocultural context of Australia as a country in which more than 300 languages are spoken.

REFERENCES

Asprey, Michèle, 2003. Plain Language for Lawyers, Third edition, The Federation Press, Sydney.

Bowen, Alex, 2019. You don’t have to say anything. Modality and consequences in conversations about the right to silence in the Northern Territory. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 39(3).

Cutts, Martin, 2007. Oxford Guide to Plain English, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Olsson, John, 2008. Forensic Linguistics: Second Edition. Continuum, London.

ABOUT THE REVIEWER

Marijana Javornik Čubrić is a senior lecturer at the Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb. She holds a PhD in legal linguistics and has authored several LSP textbooks.