Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:48:57.141Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Forensic Linguistics

Spoken Threats from Production to Perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2023

James Tompkinson
James Tompkinson
Affiliation:
University of York

Summary

Spoken threats are a common but linguistically complex language crime. Although threatening language has been examined from different linguistic perspectives, there is limited research which critically addresses how people perceive spoken threats and infer traits such as threat and intent from speakers' voices. There is also minimal linguistic research addressing differences between written and spoken threats. By specifically analysing threats delivered in both written and spoken modalities, as well as integrating perceptual phonetic analysis into discussions on spoken threats, this Element offers perspectives on these two under-researched areas. It highlights the dangers of assuming that the way in which someone sounds correlates with, for example, their intention to commit harm, and explores potential problems in assuming that written and spoken threats are equivalent to one another. The goal of the Element is to advance linguistic knowledge and understanding around spoken threats, as well as promote further research in the area.
Get access

Keywords

forensic linguisticsspeech perceptionlanguage crimesthreatslanguage and law
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Forensic Linguistics
Online ISBN: 9781009292986
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 18 January 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allport, G. W. & Cantril, H. (1934). Judging personality from voice. The Journal of Social Psychology, 5(1), 37–55.Google Scholar
Al-Shorafat, M. O. (1988). Indirect threats. Word, 39(3), 225–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Antoniou, M. (2010). Scale Intensity (Energy) with Output. Northwestern University. Script for Praat.Google Scholar
Bachorowski, J. A. (1999). Vocal expression and perception of emotion. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8(2), 53–7.Google Scholar
BBC News. (2016). EgyptAir Hijack: Man Surrenders at Larnaca Airport. www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-35915139. [Accessed 11 May 2023].Google Scholar
Bestelmeyer, P. E. G. (2019). Linguistic ‘first impressions’: Accents as a cue to person perception. In Früholz, S. & Belin, P. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Voice Perception. Oxford University Press, pp. 667–82.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G. et al. (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English (Vol. 2). MIT Press.Google Scholar
Bojsen-Møller, M., Auken, S., Devitt, A. J., & Christensen, T. K. (2020). Illicit genres: The case of threatening communications. Sakprosa, 12(1), 1–53.Google Scholar
Bunn, & Foxen, . (2015). Forensic Language Analysis. POSTnote Number 509. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/POST-PN-0509 [Accessed 21 October 2022].Google Scholar
Chuenwattanapranithi, S., Xu, Y., Thipakorn, B., & Maneewongvatana, S. (2009). Encoding emotions in speech with the size code. Phonetica, 65(4), 210–30.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. Routledge.Google Scholar
Coupland, N. & Bishop, H. (2007). Ideologised values for British accents. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(1), 74–93.Google Scholar
Danet, B., Hoffman, K. B., & Kermish, N. C. (1980). Threats to the life of the president: An analysis of linguistic issues. Journal of Media Law and Practice, 1(2), 180–90.Google Scholar
Eckert, H. & Laver, J. (1994). Menschen und ihre Stimmen: Aspekte der Vokalen Kommunikation. Weinheim: Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.Google Scholar
Fecher, N. (2015). Praat Pitch Alteration Script. Department of Language and Linguistics, University of York. Script for Praat.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1975). Warning and threatening. Centrum, 3(2), 169–80.Google Scholar
Fraser, B. (1998). Threatening revisited. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 5(2), 159–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
French, P. & Watt, D. (2018). Assessing research impact in forensic speech science casework. In McIntyre, D. & Price, H. (Eds.). Applying Linguistics: Language and the Impact Agenda. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
French, P., Harrison, P., & Windsor Lewis, J. (2007). R v John Samuel humble: The Yorkshire ripper hoaxer trial. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 13(2), 255–73.Google Scholar
Gales, T., Nini, A., & Symonds, E. (2022). The Threatening English Language (TEL) Corpus (v1.0) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.6815671.Google Scholar
Gales, T. (2010). Ideologies of Violence: A Corpus and Discourse Analytic Approach to Stance in Threatening Communications. PhD Thesis. University Of California, Davis.Google Scholar
Gales, T. (2011). Identifying interpersonal stance in threatening discourse: An appraisal analysis. Discourse Studies, 13(1), 27–46.Google Scholar
Gales, T. (2015). The stance of stalking: A corpus-based analysis of grammatical markers of stance in threatening communications. Corpora, 10(2), 171–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gales, T. (2016). Threatening Stances: A corpus analysis of realized vs. non-realized threats. Language and Law, 2(2), 1–25.Google Scholar
Gales, T. (2021). Julia Muschalik, threatening in English: A mixed method approach (Pragmatics & Beyond 284). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2018. Pp. xiv 246. ISBN 9789027256898. English Language & Linguistics, 25(1), 211–17.Google Scholar
Gales, T. & Hurt, M. (2023). Linguistic analysis of disputed meanings: Threats. In Chapelle, C. (Ed.). The Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Giles, H. (1970). Evaluative reactions to accents. Educational Review, (22), 211–27.Google Scholar
Gingiss, P. (1986). Indirect threats. Word, 37(3), 153–8.Google Scholar
Gobl, C. & Chasaide, A. N. (2003). The role of voice quality in communicating emotion, mood and attitude. Speech communication, 40(1–2), 189–212.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, K. (1989). Speech, Crime, and the Uses of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gussenhoven, C. (2004). The Phonology of Tone and Intonation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hudson, T., De Jong, G., McDougall, K., Harrison, P., & Nolan, F. (2007). F0 statistics for 100 young male speakers of standard Southern British English. Proceedings of the 16th International Congress of Phonetic Science, Saarbrücken: Germany, pp. 1809–12.Google Scholar
Kaplan, J. P. (2016). Case report: Elonis v. United States. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 23(2), 275-92.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. (2014). An Analysis of the Prosodic Properties of Neutrally-Worded Threat Productions. MSc Dissertation, University of York.Google Scholar
Kelly, S. (2018). Investigating the Phonetic and Linguistic Features Used by Speakers to Communicate an Intent to Harm. PhD Dissertation. University of York.Google Scholar
Kirchhübel, C. (2013). The Acoustic and Temporal Characteristics of Deceptive Speech. PhD Thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Künzel, H. J. (1989). How well does average fundamental frequency correlate with speaker height and weight? Phonetica, 46(1–3), 117–25.Google Scholar
Labov, W. (1972). Sociolinguistic Patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Labov, W. & Fanshel, D. (1977). Therapeutic Discourse: Psychotherapy as Conversation. Academic Press.Google Scholar
Larner, S. (2015). From intellectual challenges to established corpus techniques: Introduction to the special issue on forensic linguistics. Corpora, 10(2), 131–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laver, J. (1980). The Phonetic Description of Voice Quality. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laver, J. (1994). Principles of Phonetics. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Law, J. & Martin, E. A. (2009). Oxford Dictionary of Law [7th ed.]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindh, J. (2006). Preliminary F0 statistics and forensic phonetics. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Association of Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics Conference, Department of Linguistics, Göteborg University: Sweden.Google Scholar
Love, R. (2021). Swearing in informal spoken English: 1990s–2010s. Text & Talk, 41(5–6), 739–62.Google Scholar
Mackenzie Beck, J. (2007). Vocal Profile Analysis Scheme: A User’s Manual. Edinburgh: Queen Margaret University College-QMUC, Speech Science Research Centre.Google Scholar
Milburn, T. W. & Watman, K. H. (1981). On the Nature of Threat: A Social Psychological Analysis. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Muschalik, J. (2018). Threatening in English: A Mixed Method Approach. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Nini, A. (2017). Register variation in malicious forensic texts. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 24(1).Google Scholar
Nini, A. (2019). Corpus analysis in forensic linguistics. In Chapelle, C. A. (Ed.),The Concise Encyclopedia of Applied Linguistics. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 313–20.Google Scholar
Ohala, J. J. (1984). An ethological perspective on common cross-language utilization of F0 of voice. Phonetica, 41(1), 1–16.Google Scholar
Pear, T. H. (1931). Voice and Personality, as Applied to Radio Broadcasting. Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
Preston, D. R. (2002). Language with an attitude. In Chambers, J. K., Trudgill, P., & Schilling-Estes, N. (Eds). The Handbook of Language Variation and Change. Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 40–66.Google Scholar
Scherer, K. R. (2003). Vocal communication of emotion: A review of research paradigms. Speech communication, 40(1), 227–56.Google Scholar
Searle, J. R. (1979). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W. (1993). Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. & Tiersma, P. M. (2015). Threats. Speaking of Language and Law: Conversations on the Work of Peter Tiersma, 223–9.Google Scholar
Storey, K. (1995). The language of threats. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law. 2(1), 74–80.Google Scholar
Tompkinson, J. (2016). Accent Evaluation and the Perception of Spoken Threats. MSc Dissertation. University of York.Google Scholar
Tompkinson, J. (2018). Assessing the Influence of Phonetic Variation on the Perception of Spoken Threats. PhD Thesis, University of York.Google Scholar
Tompkinson, J., Gales, T., & Watt, D. (2021). Investigating variation in threatening communication registers: A corpus analysis of written & spoken threats. International Association of Forensic and Legal Linguistics conference, Aston University.Google Scholar
Tompkinson, J., Mileva, M., Watt, D., & Burton, A. M. (2023). Perception of threat and intent to harm from vocal and facial cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1177/17470218231169952.Google Scholar
Traunmüller, H. & Eriksson, A. (1995). The frequency range of the voice fundamental in the speech of male and female adults. Unpublished manuscript. www2.ling.su.se/staff/hartmut/f0_m&f.pdf.Google Scholar
Tusing, K. J. & Dillard, J. P. (2000). The sounds of dominance. Human Communication Research, 26, 148–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watt, D., & Burns, J. (2012). Verbal descriptions of voice quality differences among untrained listeners. York Papers in Linguistics Series, 2, 1–28.Google Scholar
Watt, D., Kelly, S., & Llamas, C. (2013). Inference of threat from neutrally-worded utterances in familiar and unfamiliar languages. York Papers in Linguistics, (13), 99–120.Google Scholar
Watt, D., Kelly, S., Tompkinson, J., & Weinberg, K. (2016) Anyone for menace? Babel magazine, 14, 18–23.Google Scholar
Xu, Y. (2013). ProsodyPro – A tool for large-scale systematic prosody analysis. Proceedings of Tools and Resources for the Analysis of Speech Prosody (TRASP 2013), Aix-en-Provence, France. 7–10.Google Scholar
Yamanaka, N. (1995). On indirect threats. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 8(2), 37–52.Google Scholar

Save element to Kindle

To save this element to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Spoken Threats from Production to Perception
Available formats
×

Save element to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Spoken Threats from Production to Perception
Available formats
×

Save element to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Spoken Threats from Production to Perception
Available formats
×