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-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:18:28.650Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
Series:   Elements in Forensic Linguistics

Forensic Linguistics in Australia

Origins, Progress and Prospects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 May 2023

Diana Eades ,
Helen Fraser  and
Georgina Heydon
Diana Eades
Affiliation:
University of New England, Maine
Helen Fraser
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne and University of New England, Maine
Georgina Heydon
Affiliation:
Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology

Summary

This Element presents an account of forensic linguistics in Australia since the first expert linguistic evidence in 1959, through early work in the 1970s-1980s, the defining of the discipline in the 1990s, and into the current era. It starts with a consideration of some widespread misconceptions about language that affect the field and some problematic ideologies in the law, which underly much of the discussion throughout the Element. The authors' report of forensic linguists' work is structured in terms of the linguistic, interactional and sociocultural contexts of the language data being analysed, whether in expert evidence, in research, or in practical applications of linguistics in a range of legal settings. The Element concludes by highlighting mutual engagement between forensic linguistic practitioners and both the judiciary and legal scholars, and outlines some of the key factors which support a critical forensic linguistics approach in much of the work in the authors' country.
Get access

Keywords

language and the lawforensic linguisticsAustralian linguisticsapplied linguisticslanguage and justice
Type
Element
Information
Series: Elements in Forensic Linguistics
Online ISBN: 9781009168090
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication: 22 June 2023

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

Aboriginal Resource and Development Services (ARDS). (2008). An Absence of Mutual Respect: Bäyŋu Ŋayaŋu-Ḏapmaranhamirr Rom ga Ŋorra. https://ards.com.au/resources/downloadable/an-absence-of-mutual-respect-b%C3%A4y%C5%8Bu-%C5%8Baya%C5%8Bu-%E1%B8%8Fapmaranhamirr-rom-ga-%C5%8Borra/.Google Scholar
Aboriginal Resource and Development Services (ARDS). (2015). Dhuwal Wäyukpuy: Rom Dhäruk Mala ga Mayali‘ [Legal Dictionary Djambarrpuyngu]. www.ards.com.au/resources-2/p/legal-dictionary-djambarrpuyngu.Google Scholar
Aboriginal Resource and Development Services (ARDS), North Australian Aboriginal Justice Agency (NAAJA), & Aboriginal Interpreter Service, Northern Territory Government (AIS). (2015). The Plain English Legal Dictionary: Northern Territory Criminal Law. A Resource for Judicial Officers, Aboriginal Interpreters and Legal Professionals Working with Speakers of Aboriginal Languages. https://ards.com.au/uploads/Downloads/15/39-15.Legal_Dictionary_plain_English_version.pdf.Google Scholar
Adam, L., & van Golde, C. (2020). Police practice and false confessions: A search for the implementation of investigative interviewing in Australia. Alternative Law Journal, 45(1), 52–9.Google Scholar
Alderman, T. (2005). Forensic Speaker Identification: A Likelihood Ratio-based Approach Using Vowel Formants. Munich: Lincom GmBH.Google Scholar
AUSIT (Australian Institute of Interpreters and Translators). (2012). AUSIT Code of Ethics and Code of Conduct. https://ausit.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Code_Of_Ethics_Full.pdf.Google Scholar
Baldwin, J. R., & French, P. (1990). Forensic Phonetics. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
Blommaert, J. (2005). Discourse: A Critical Introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowden, P., Henning, T., & Plater, D. (2014). Balancing fairness to victims, society and defendants in the cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses: An impossible triangulation? Melbourne University Law Review, 37, 539–84.Google Scholar
Bowe, H., & Storey, K. (1995). Linguistic analysis as evidence of speaker identification: Demand and response. In Eades, ed., pp. 187–200.Google Scholar
Bowen, A. (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), 347–74.Google Scholar
Bowen, A. (2021a). Explaining the right to silence under Anunga: 40 years of a policy about language. Griffith Law Review, 30(1), 18–49.Google Scholar
Bowen, A. (2021b). Intercultural translation of vague legal language: The right to silence in the Northern Territory of Australia. Target: International Journal of Translation Studies, 33(2), 308–40.Google Scholar
Bowen, A. (2021c). Supporting two-way communication with police in Western Australia: New translation app helps to identify need for Aboriginal interpreters. Brandeis University. Language, Culture and Justice Hub. Spotlight. www.brandeis.edu/ethics/international-justice/language-culture-justice/spotlight-oct-2021.html.Google Scholar
Bowen, A., & Eades, D. (2022). Forensic linguistics and pseudoscience: How to recognise the difference. Precedent, 172, 35–9.Google Scholar
Brennan, G. (1979). The Need for Interpreting and Translation Services for Australian Aboriginals, with Special Reference to the Northern Territory: A Research Report. Canberra: Department of Aboriginal Affairs.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. (1995). The discourse of denial: Cross-examining child victim witnesses. Journal of Pragmatics, 23, 71–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, M., & Brennan, R. (1988). Strange Language: Child Victims under Cross-Examination, 2nd ed. Wagga Wagga: Charles Sturt University.Google Scholar
Candlin, C., & Maley, Y. (1997). Intertextuality and interdiscursivity in the discourse of alternative dispute resolution. In Gunnarson, B.-L., Linell, P. & Nordberg, B., eds., The Construction of Professional Discourse. London: Longman, pp. 200–22.Google Scholar
Chan, R. (2020). The empirical psychological science behind ad hoc expert voice identification evidence. University of Tasmania Law Review, 39(1), 23–38.Google Scholar
Communication of Rights Group (CoRG). (2015). Guidelines for Communication of Rights to Non-native Speakers of English. www.aaal.org/guidelines-for-communication-rights.Google Scholar
Conley, J. M., O’Barr, W. M., & Conley Riner, R. (2019). Just Words: Law, Language, and Power, 3rd ed. London: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooke, M. (1995a). Aboriginal evidence in the cross-cultural courtroom. In Eades, ed., pp. 55–96.Google Scholar
Cooke, M. (1995b). Understood by all concerned? Anglo/Aboriginal legal translation. In Morris, M., ed., Translation and the Law. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, pp. 37–66.Google Scholar
Cooke, M. (1996). A different story: Narrative versus ‘question and answer’ in Aboriginal evidence. Forensic Linguistics, 3(2), 273–88.Google Scholar
Cooke, M. (2002). Indigenous Interpreting Issues for the Courts. Carlton: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.Google Scholar
Cooke, M. (2004). Caught in the Middle: Indigenous Interpreters and Customary Law. Background Paper No. 2. Law Reform Commission of Western Australia. www.lrc.justice.wa.gov.au/.Google Scholar
Cooke, M. (2009). Anglo/Aboriginal communication in the criminal justice process: A collective responsibility. Journal of Judicial Administration, 19(1), 26–35.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M., May, A., & Sousa-Silva, R. (eds.). (2020). The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, 2nd ed. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Criminal Justice Commission (CJC). (1996). Aboriginal Witnesses in Queensland’s Criminal Courts. Brisbane: Criminal Justice Commission.Google Scholar
Deamer, F., Fraser, H., Haworth, K. et al. (eds.). (2022). Capturing Talk: The Institutional Practices Surrounding the Transcription of Spoken Language. Frontiers in Communication. www.frontiersin.org/research-topics/19744/capturing-talk-the-institutional-practices-surrounding-the-transcription-of-spoken-language.Google Scholar
Dieckmann, C., & Rojas-Lizana, I. (2016). The pragmatics of legal advice services in a community legal centre in Australia: Domination or facilitation? International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 23(2), 167–93.Google Scholar
Dodson, M. (1995). From ‘lore’ to ‘law’: Indigenous rights and Australian legal systems. Aboriginal Law Bulletin, 72(3), 1–3.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (1992). Aboriginal English and the Law: Communicating with Aboriginal English Speaking Clients: A Handbook for Legal Practitioners. Brisbane: Queensland Law Society.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (1993). The case for Condren: Aboriginal English, pragmatics and the law. Journal of Pragmatics, 20(2), 141–62.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (1994). Forensic linguistics in Australia: An overview. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 1(2), 113–32.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (ed.). (1995). Language in Evidence: Issues Confronting Aboriginal and Multicultural Australia. Sydney: University of New South Wales Press.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2000). ‘I don’t think it’s an answer to the question’: Silencing Aboriginal witnesses in court. Language in Society, 29(2), 161–96.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2003). ‘I don’t think the lawyers were communicating with me’: Misunderstanding cultural differences in communicative style. Emory Law Journal, 52, 1109–34.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2005). Applied linguistics and language analysis in asylum seeker cases. Applied Linguistics, 26(4), 503–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eades, D. (2008a). Courtroom Talk and Neocolonial Control. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2008b). Telling and retelling your story in court: Questions, assumptions and intercultural implications. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 20(2), 209–30.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2009). Testing the claims of asylum seekers: The role of language analysis. Language Assessment Quarterly, 6(1), 30–40.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eades, D. (2012). The social consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross examination. Language in Society, 41(4), 471–97.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2013). Aboriginal Ways of Using English. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2016a). Judicial understandings of Aboriginality and language use. The Judicial Review, 12, 471–90.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2016b). Theorising language in sociolinguistics and the law: (How) can sociolinguistics have an impact on inequality in the criminal justice process? In Coupland, N., ed., Sociolinguistics: Theoretical Debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 367–89.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2018). Communicating the right to silence to Aboriginal suspects: Lessons from Western Australia v Gibson. Journal of Judicial Administration, 28, 4–21.Google Scholar
Eades, D., & Arends, J. (2004). (eds.). Special section: Language analysis and determination of nationality. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 11(2), 179–266.Google Scholar
Eades, D., Fraser, H., Siegel, J., McNamara, T., & Baker, B. (2003). Linguistic identification in the determination of nationality: A preliminary report. Language Policy, 2(2), 179–99.Google Scholar
Eades, D., & Pavlenko, A. (2016). Translating research into policy: New guidelines for communicating rights to non-native speakers. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito, 3(2), 45–64.Google Scholar
Eagleson, R. (1990). Writing in Plain English. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
Eagleson, R. (1994). Forensic analysis of written personal texts: A case study. In Gibbons, ed., pp. 362–73.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S. (2012). Text trajectories, legal discourse and gendered inequalities. Applied Linguistics Review, 3, 47–73.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S., & Eades, D. (2016). Introduction: Linguistic and discursive dimensions of consent. In Ehrlich, Eades & Ainsworth, eds., pp. 1–20.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S., Eades, D., & Ainsworth, J., eds. (2016) Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2002). Country and the Word: Linguistic evidence in the Croker sea claim. In Henderson, J. & Nash, D., eds., Language in Native Title. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies, pp. 53–100.Google Scholar
Findling, J., & Heydon, G. (2016) Questioning the evidence: A case for best-practice models of interviewing in the Refugee Review Tribunal. Journal of Judicial Administration, 26(4), 19–30.Google Scholar
Ford, W. K., & Mertz, E. (2016). Introduction: Translating law and social science. In Mertz, Ford & Matoesian, eds., pp. 1–26.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2009). The role of ‘educated native speakers’ in providing language analysis for the determination of the origin of asylum seekers. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 16(1), 113–38.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2011). The role of linguists and native speakers in language analysis for the determination of speaker origin: A response to Tina Cambier-Langeveld. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 18(1), 121–30.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2012). Bayes and beyond: The complex challenges of LADO and their relevance to forensic speaker comparison. In Donohue, C., Ishihara, S., & Steed, W., eds., Quantitative Approaches to Problems in Linguistics: Studies in Honour of Phil Rose. Munich: LINCOM Europa, pp. 215–22.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2013). Covert recordings as evidence in court: The return of police ‘verballing’? The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/covert-recordings-as-evidence-in-court-the-return-of-police-verballing-14072.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2018). Forensic transcription: How confident false beliefs about language and speech threaten the right to a fair trial in Australia. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 38(4), 586–606.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2019). The role of native speakers in LADO: Are we missing a more important question? In Patrick, Schmid & Zwaan (eds)., pp. 71–89.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2020a). Introducing the research hub for language in forensic evidence. Judicial Officers’ Bulletin, 32(11), 117–8.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2020b). Forensic transcription: The case for transcription as a dedicated area of linguistic science. In Coulthard, May, & Sousa-Silva, eds., pp. 416–31.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2021). The development of legal procedures for using a transcript to assist the jury in understanding indistinct covert recordings used as evidence in Australian criminal trials: A history in three key cases. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 8(1), 59–75.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2022a). A framework for deciding how to create and evaluate transcripts for forensic and other purposes. Frontiers in Communication, 7, 898410.Google Scholar
Fraser, H. (2022b). Forensic transcription: Legal and scientific perspectives. In Bernardasci, C., Dipino, D., Garassino, D. et al., eds., Speaker Individuality in Phonetics and Speech Sciences: Speech Technology and Forensic Applications. Milano: Officinaventuno, pp. 19–32.Google Scholar
Fraser, H., & Kinoshita, Y. (2021). Injustice arising from the unnoticed power of priming: How lawyers and even judges can be misled by unreliable transcripts of indistinct forensic audio. Criminal Law Journal, 45(3), 142–52.Google Scholar
Fraser, H., & Loakes, D. (2020). Acoustic injustice: The experience of listening to indistinct covert recordings presented as evidence in court. Law Text Culture, 24, 405–29.Google Scholar
Fraser, H., & Stevenson, B. (2014). The power and persistence of contextual priming: More risks in using police transcripts to aid jurors’ perception of poor quality covert recordings. The International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 18(3), 205–29.Google Scholar
Freckelton, I., & Selby, H. (eds.). (2019). Expert Evidence, 6th ed., Sydney: Lawbook.Google Scholar
French, P. (2017). Developmental history of forensic speaker comparison in the UK. English Phonetics, 16(1), 271–86.Google Scholar
French, P., & Fraser, H. (2018). Why ‘ad hoc experts’ should not provide transcripts of indistinct forensic audio, and a proposal for a better approach. Criminal Law Journal, 42, 298–302.Google Scholar
Fryer-Smith, S. (2008). Aboriginal Cultural Awareness Benchbook for Western Australian Courts, 2nd ed., Perth: Australian Institute of Judicial Administration.Google Scholar
Gaykamangu, J. G. (2012). Ngarra law: Aboriginal customary law from Arnhem Land. Northern Territory Law Journal, 2, 236–48.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (1990). Applied linguistics in court. Applied Linguistics, 11(3), 229–37.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (ed.). (1994). Language and the Law, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (1995). What got lost?: The place of electronic recording and interpreting in police interviews. In Eades, ed., pp. 175–86.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (2001). Revising the language of New South Wales police procedures: Applied Linguistics in action. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 439–69.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (2017). Towards clearer jury instructions. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 4(1), 142–60.Google Scholar
Granhag, P. A., Vrij, A., & Verschuere, B. (2015). Detecting Deception: Current Challenges and Cognitive Approaches. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Goddard, C. (1996). Can linguists help judges know what they mean? Linguistic semantics in the courtroom. Forensic Linguistics, 3(2), 250-72.Google Scholar
Gray, P. R. A. (2000). Do the walls have ears? Indigenous title and courts in Australia. International Journal of Legal Information, 28, 185–211.Google Scholar
Gray, P. R. A. (2011). The expert witness problem. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 17(2), 201–9.Google Scholar
Gray, P. R. A. (2021). Aboriginal claimants: Adjusting legal procedures to accommodate linguistic and cultural issues in hearings in Aboriginal land rights claims in the Northern Territory of Australia. In Coulthard, May & Sousa-Silva, eds., pp. 329–43.Google Scholar
Gray, P. R. A. (2022/2023). Gratuitous concurrence: When ‘yes’ might not mean ‘I agree’. Victorian Bar News, 172, 81–2.Google Scholar
Grey, A. (2021). Language Rights in a Changing China: A National Overview and Zhuang Case Study. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Grey, A., & Smith-Khan, L. (2021). Bringing linguistic research into legal scholarship and practice. Alternative Law Journal, 46(1), 64–70.Google Scholar
Grey, A., & Severin, A. (2022). Building towards best practice for governments’ public communications in languages other than English: a case study of New South Wales, Australia. Griffith Law Review, 31(1), 25–56.Google Scholar
Hale, S. (2004). The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Hale, S. (2011). Interpreter Policies, Practices and Protocols in Australian Courts and Tribunals – A National Survey, Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Melbourne, 89, www.aija.org.au/online/Pub%20no89.pdf.Google Scholar
Hale, S. (2013). Helping interpreters to truly and faithfully interpret the evidence: The importance of briefing and preparation materials. Australian Bar Review, 37, 307–20.Google Scholar
Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J., & Martschuk, N. (2019). Interpreter performance in police interviews: Differences between trained professional interpreters and untrained bilinguals. The Interpreter and Translator Trainer, 13(2), 107–131.Google Scholar
Hale, S., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Martschuk, N., & Lim, J. (2022). Does interpreter location make a difference? A study of remote vs face-to-face interpreting in simulated police interviews. Interpreting: International Journal of Research and Practice in Interpreting, 24(2), 221–53.Google Scholar
Hale, S., Martschuk, N., Goodman-Delahunty, J., Taibi, M., & Xu, H. (2020). Interpreting profanity in police interviews. Multilingua, 39, 369–93.Google Scholar
Hale, S., Martschuk, N., Ozolins, U., & Stern, L. (2017). The effect of interpreting modes on witness credibility assessments. Interpreting, 19(1), 69–96.Google Scholar
Hale, S., & Stern, L. (2011). Interpreter quality and working conditions: Comparing Australian and international courts of justice. Judicial Officers Bulletin, 23(9), 75–9.Google Scholar
Hale, S., San Roque, M., Spencer, D., & Napier, J. (2017). Deaf citizens as jurors in Australian courts: Participating via professional interpreters. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 24(2), 151–76.Google Scholar
Hall, M. C., & Collins, A. M. (1980). The admission of spectrographic evidence: A note on Reg. v. Gilmore. Australian Law Journal, 54, 21–4.Google Scholar
Hammarström, G. (1987). Voice Identification. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 19(3), 95–9.Google Scholar
Haworth, K. J. (2018). Tapes, transcripts and trials. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 22(4), 428–50.Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (1998). Participation frameworks, discourse features and embedded requests in police V.A.T.E. interviews with children. Monash University Linguistics Papers, 1 (2), 21–32.Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2005). The Language of Police Interviewing. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2007). When silence means acceptance: Understanding the right to silence as a linguistic phenomenon. Alternative Law Journal, 32(3), 147–51.Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2008a). The importance of being (in)formal: Discourse strategies in police interviews with children. In Kredens, K. & Gozdz-Roszkowski, S., eds., Language and the Law: International Outlooks. Bern: Peter Lang, pp. 279–303.Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2008b). The art of deception: Myths about lie detection in written confessions. In Smets, L. & Vrij, A., eds., Cahiers Police Studies: Het Analyseren van de Geloofwaardigheid van Verhoren: Het Gebruik van Leugendetectiemethoden. [The analysis of the credibility of interrogations: The use of lie detection methods] Gent: Politeia, pp. 173–86.Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2012). Helping the police with their enquiries: Enhancing the investigative interview with linguistic research. The Police Journal, 85(2), 101–22.Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2019). Researching Forensic Linguistics: Approaches and Applications. Milton Park: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heydon, G., & Lai, M. (2013). Police interviews mediated by interpreters: An exercise in diminishment? Investigative Interviewing: Research and Practice, 5(2), 82–98.Google Scholar
Heydon, G., & Mabasso, E. (2018). How are language challenges in domestic violence reporting understood by justice stakeholders in Mozambique? Language Matters, 49 (1), 84–106.Google Scholar
Heydon, G., & Powell, A. (2018) Written response interview protocols: An innovative approach to confidential reporting and victim interviewing in sexual assault investigations. Policing and Society, 28(6), 631–46.Google Scholar
Hudson, T., McDougall, K., & Hughes, V. (2021). Forensic phonetics. In Knight, R.-A. & Setter, J., eds., Cambridge Handbook of Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 631–56.Google Scholar
Ingram, J., Prandolini, R., & Ong, S. (1996). Formant trajectories as indices of phonetic variation for speaker identification. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 3(1), 129–45.Google Scholar
Ishihara, S. (2014). A likelihood ratio-based evaluation of strength of authorship attribution evidence in SMS messages using N-grams. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 21(1), 23–49.Google Scholar
Ishihara, S. (2017). Strength of forensic text comparison evidence from stylometric features: A multivariate likelihood ratio-based analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 24(1), 67–98.Google Scholar
Jensen, M.-T. (1995). Linguistic evidence accepted in the case of a non-native speaker of English. In Eades, ed., pp. 127–46.Google Scholar
Jones, A. (1994). The limitations of voice identification. In Gibbons, ed., pp. 346–61.Google Scholar
Judicial Commission of New South Wales. (2022). 21st update, Equality before the Law Benchbook. Sydney: Judicial Commission of New South Wales.Google Scholar
Judicial Council on Cultural Diversity (JCCD). (2022). Recommended National Standards for Interpreting in Courts and Tribunals, 2nd ed., https://jccd.org.au/publications/.Google Scholar
Kinoshita, Y., & Ishihara, S. (2015). Background population: How does it affect LR based forensic voice comparison? International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 21(2), 191–224.Google Scholar
Koch, H. (1985). Nonstandard English in an Aboriginal land claim. In Pride, J., ed., Cross-cultural Encounters: Communication and Miscommunication. Melbourne: River Seine Publications, pp. 176–95.Google Scholar
Koehler, J. J. (2013). Linguistic confusion in court: Evidence from the forensic sciences. Journal of Law and Policy, 21(2), 515–39.Google Scholar
Kreiman, J. & Sidtis, D. (2011). Foundations of Voice Studies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Voice Production and Perception. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
La Rooy, D., Heydon, G., Korkman, J., & Myklebust, T. (2015). Interviewing child witnesses. In Oxburgh, G., Myklebust, T., Grant, T. & Milne, R., eds., Communication in Investigative and Legal contexts: Integrated Approaches from Forensic Psychology, Linguistics and Law Enforcement. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, pp. 57–78.Google Scholar
Lai, M., & Mulayim, S. (2014). Interpreter linguistic intervention in the strategies employed by police in investigative interviews. Police Practice and Research, 15(4), 307–21.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. H. (1980). Metaphors We Live By. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Langford, I. (2000). Forensic semantics: The meaning of murder, manslaughter and homicide. Forensic Linguistics, 7(1), 72–94.Google Scholar
Language and National Origin Group (2004). Guidelines for the use of language analysis in relation to questions of national origin in refugee cases. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 11(2), 261–66.Google Scholar
Law Society of South Australia (2020). Lawyers’ Protocols for Dealing with Aboriginal Clients in South Australia. www.lawsocietysa.asn.au/Public/Publications/Resources_Hub.aspx.Google Scholar
Law Society of the Northern Territory (2015). Indigenous Protocols for Lawyers in the Northern Territory, 2nd ed. Darwin. Law Society Northern Territory. www.lawsocnt.asn.au/fmi/xsl/lsnt/lsnt_publications.xsl.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2009). Interpreting inexplicit language during courtroom examination. Applied Linguistics, 30(1), 93–114.Google Scholar
Liddicoat, A., & Haugh, M. (eds.). (2009). Conceptualising Communication. Special issue of Australian Journal of Linguistics 29(1).Google Scholar
Lo Bianco, J. (1987). National Policy on Languages. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
Loakes, D. (2008). A forensic phonetic investigation into the speech patterns of identical and non-identical twins. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 15(1), 97–100.Google Scholar
Loakes, D., & McDougall, K. (2010). Individual variation in the frication of voiceless plosives in Australian English: A study of twins. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 30(2), 155–81.Google Scholar
Loakes, D., Clothier, J., Hajek, J., & Fletcher, J. (2014). An investigation of the /el/–/æl/ merger in Australian English: A pilot study on production and perception in South-West Victoria. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 34(4), 436–52.Google Scholar
Loney-Howes, R., & Heydon, G. (2018). Reporting sexual assault anonymously: an analysis of the Sexual Assault Reporting Anonymous (SARA) mobile application and website: 2013-2016. South Eastern Centre Against Sexual Assault (unpublished).Google Scholar
Loney-Howes, R., Heydon, G., & O’Neill, T. (2021). Connecting survivors to therapeutic support and criminal justice through informal reporting options: An analysis of sexual violence reports made to a digital reporting tool in Australia. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 34 (1), 20–37.Google Scholar
Luchjenbroers, J. (1997). ‘In your own words…’: Questions and answers in a Supreme Court trial. Journal of Pragmatics, 27, 477–503.Google Scholar
Mabasso, E. (2019). Tell us the story in your Portuguese: We can understand you. In Ralarala, M., Kaschula, R. & Heydon, G., eds., New Frontiers in Forensic Linguistics: Themes and Perspectives in Language and Law in Africa and Beyond. Stellenbosch: African Sun Press, pp. 33–48.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J., Kurt, C., Heydon, G., & Roh, A. (2019) ‘Like giving a wheelchair to someone who should be walking’: Interpreter access and the problematisation of linguistic diversity in the justice system. In M. Ralarala, R. Kaschula & G. Heydon, eds., New Frontiers in Forensic Linguistics. Stellenbosch: African Sun Press pp. 51–70.Google Scholar
Markham, D. (1999). Listeners and disguised voices: The imitation and perception of dialectal accent. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 6(2), 290–99.Google Scholar
Maley, Y. (1994). The language of the law. In Gibbons, ed., pp. 11–50.Google Scholar
Maley, Y. (2000). The case of the long-nosed potoroo: The framing and construction of expert witness testimony. In Sarangi, S. & Coulthard, M., eds., Discourse and Social Life. Essex: Pearson Education, pp. 246–69.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. (2001). Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. (2016). Translating token instances of “this” into type patterns of “that”: The discursive and multimodal translation of evidence into precedent. In Mertz, Ford & Matoesian, eds., pp. 55–84.Google Scholar
McGorrery, P. G., & McMahon, M. (2016). A fair ‘hearing’: Earwitness identifications and voice identification parades. International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 21(3), 262–86.Google Scholar
McKay, G. (1985). Language issues in training programs for Northern Territory police: A linguist’s view. Australian Review of Applied Linguistics, Series S, 2, 32–43.Google Scholar
Mertz, E., Ford, W. K., & Matoesian, G. (eds.). (2016), Translating the Social World for Law: Linguistic Tools for a New Realism. Oxford: Oxford University Press,Google Scholar
Methven, E. (2018). A little respect: Swearing, police and criminal justice discourse. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 7(3), 58–74.Google Scholar
Mildren, D. (1997). Redressing the imbalance: Aboriginals in the criminal justice system. Criminal Law Journal, 21(1), 7–22.Google Scholar
Mildren, D. (1999). Redressing the imbalance: Aboriginal people in the criminal justice system. Forensic Linguistics, 6(1), 137–60.Google Scholar
Mildren, D. (2012). Indigenous Australians and the criminal justice system. Paper Presented to the Uluru Criminal Lawyers Conference, August. https://supremecourt.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/727067/indigenous-australians-and-the-criminal-justice-system-criminal-law-conference-uluru.pdfGoogle Scholar
Milne, B. & Bull, R. (1999). Investigative Interviewing: Psychology and Practice. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Moore, D. (2022). Closing the gap in legal communication: The challenges of interpreting Indigenous languages in Central Australian courts. In Wakabayashi, J. & O’Hagan, M., eds., Translating and Interpreting in Australia and New Zealand: Distance and Diversity. Abingdon: Routledge, pp. 23–43.Google Scholar
Morphy, F. (2007). Performing law: The Yolgnu of Blue Mud Bay meet the native title process. In Smith, B. & Morphy, F., eds., The Social Effects of Native Title: Recognition, Translation, Coexistence. Canberra: ANU E Press, pp. 31–57.Google Scholar
Morrison, G. S., Enzinger, E., Hughes, V., et al. (2021). Consensus on validation of forensic voice comparison. Science & Justice, 61(3), 299–309.Google Scholar
Mulayim, S., Lai, M., & Norma, C. (2015). Police Investigative Interviews and Interpreting: Context, Challenges, and Strategies. Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Muniroh, D., Findling, J., & Heydon, G. (2018). What’s in a question: A case for a culturally appropriate interviewing protocol in the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal. In I. Nick, ed., Immigrants, Refugees, Asylum-Seekers, and Forensic Linguistics. Delaware, USA: Vernon Press, pp. 133–54.Google Scholar
Muniroh, R., & Heydon, G. (2022). Addressing the gap between principles and practices in police interviewing in Indonesia. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 37(2), 312–24.Google Scholar
Nakane, I. (2007). Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 87–112.Google Scholar
Nakane, I. (2014). Interpreter Mediated Police Interviews: A Discourse-Pragmatic Approach. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Nakane, I. (2020). Courtroom discourse of the ‘hybrid’ Japanese criminal justice system. Journal of Asian Linguistic Anthropology, 1(1), 110–35.Google Scholar
Napier, J., Spencer, D., Hale, S., et al. (2019). Changing the international justice landscape: Perspectives on deaf citizenship and jury service. Sign Language Studies, 19(2), 240–66.Google Scholar
Napier, J., Spencer, D. & Sabolcec, J. (2007). Deaf Juror’s Access to Court Proceedings via Sign Language Interpreting: An Investigation, NSW Law Reform Commission Research Report No 14.Google Scholar
Nash, D. (1979). Foreigners in their own land: Aborigines in court. Legal Service Bulletin, 4(3), 105–7.Google Scholar
New South Wales Legislative Council Standing Committee on Law and Justice Inquiry. (2014). Family Response to the Murders in Bowraville. Report 55. www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/lcdocs/inquiries/2131/Bowraville%20-%20Final%20report.pdfGoogle Scholar
Nolan, F. (1983). The Phonetic Bases of Speaker Recognition. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Olson, D. R. (1994). The World on Paper: The Conceptual and Cognitive Implications of Writing and Reading. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Patrick, P. L., Schmid, M. S., & Zwaan, K. (eds.). (2019). Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin: Current Perspectives and New Directions. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.Google Scholar
Porter, S., & Ten Brinke, L. (2009). Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14(1), 119–34.Google Scholar
Queensland Supreme Court (2016). Equal Treatment Benchbook, 2nd ed., www.courts.qld.gov.au/court-users/practitioners/benchbooks.Google Scholar
Ralarala, M. K. (2016). An analysis of critical ‘voices’ and ‘styles’ in transpreters’ translations of complainants’ narratives. Translation and Translanguaging in Multilingual Contexts, 2(1), 142–66.Google Scholar
Remedy Australia (2021). Advancing jury inclusivity in Australia. www.remedy.org.au/reports/RemedyAustralia_on_inclusive_juries_2021.pdf.Google Scholar
Robertson, B., Vignaux, G., & Berger, C. (2016). Interpreting Evidence: Evaluating Forensic Science in the Courtroom. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
Rock, F. (2007). Communicating Rights: The Language of Arrest and Detention. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rose, P. (2002). Forensic Speaker Identification. London: Taylor and Francis.Google Scholar
Rose, P. (2013). Where the science ends and the law begins: Likelihood ratio-based forensic voice comparison in a $150 million telephone fraud. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 20(2), 275–322.Google Scholar
Rose, P., & Duncan, S. (1995). Naive auditory identification and discrimination of similar voices by familiar listeners. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 2(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
Rose, P., & Morrison, G. (2009). A response to the UK position statement on forensic speaker comparison. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 16(1), 139–63.Google Scholar
Rusho, D. (2021). Cross-currents: Indigenous language interpreting in Australia’s justice system. International Journal of Speech Language and the Law, 28(2), 281–8.Google Scholar
Smith-Khan, L. (2017). Different in the same way?: Language, diversity and refugee credibility. International Journal of Refugee Law, 29(3), 389–416.Google Scholar
Smith-Khan, L. (2019a). Communicative resources and credibility in public discourse on refugees. Language in Society, 48(3), 403–27.Google Scholar
Smith-Khan, L. (2019b). Why refugee visa credibility assessments lack credibility: A critical discourse analysis. Griffith Law Review, 28(4), 406–30.Google Scholar
Smith-Khan, L. (2022). Incorporating sociolinguistic perspectives in Australian refugee credibility assessments: The case of CRL18. Journal of International Migration and Integration, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-022-00937-2.Google Scholar
Snow, P. C., & Powell, M. B. (2005). What‘s the story? An exploration of narrative language abilities in male juvenile offenders. Psychology, Crime & Law, 11(3), 239–53.Google Scholar
Solan, L. (1998). Linguistic experts as semantic tour guides. Forensic Linguistics, 5(2), 87–106.Google Scholar
Stern, L. (2001). At the junction of cultures - Interpreting at the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in the light of other international interpreting practices. Judicial Review, 5(3), 255–74.Google Scholar
Stroud, N. (2010). The Koori Court revisited: Review of cultural and language awareness in the administration of justice. Australian Law Librarian, 18(3), 184–92.Google Scholar
Svartvik, J. (1968). The Evans Statements, A Case for Forensic Linguistics. Göteborg: University of Göteborg.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. (2000). The rocky road to legal reform: Improving the language of jury instructions. Brooklyn Law Review, 66, 1081–119.Google Scholar
Tresize, P. (1996). Use of language and the Anunga rules. Aboriginal Law Bulletin, 3(79), 17–8.Google Scholar
Trinch, S. (2003). Latinas’ Narratives of Domestic Abuse: Discrepant Versions of Violence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2017). Plain English and the Law, 2nd ed., Melbourne: Victorian Law Reform Commission.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. (1994). Interactional styles in the courtroom: An example from northern Australia. In Gibbons, ed., pp. 217–33.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. (1995). Tainted evidence: Literacy and traditional knowledge in an Aboriginal land claim. In Eades, ed., pp. 97–124.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. (2008). ‘Which way?’ Difficult options for vulnerable witnesses in Australian Aboriginal land claim and native title cases. Journal of English Linguistics, 36(3), 239–65.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (2003). Reasonable man and Reasonable doubt: The English language, Anglo culture and Anglo-American law. Forensic Linguistics, 10(1), 1–22.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M., Dwyer, P., & Martin, J. R. (2016). Consent and compliance in youth justice conferences. In Ehrlich, Eades & Ainsworth, eds., pp. 186–212.Google Scholar
Zappavigna, M., & Martin, J. R. (2018). Discourse and Diversionary Justice: An Analysis of Youth Justice Conferencing. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Zwaan, K., Muysken, P., & Verrips, M. (eds.). (2010). Language and Origin: The Role of Language in European Asylum Procedures: Linguistic and Legal Perspectives. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.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.

Forensic Linguistics in Australia
  • Diana Eades, University of New England, Maine, Helen Fraser, University of Melbourne and University of New England, Maine, Georgina Heydon, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
  • Online ISBN: 9781009168090
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.

Forensic Linguistics in Australia
  • Diana Eades, University of New England, Maine, Helen Fraser, University of Melbourne and University of New England, Maine, Georgina Heydon, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
  • Online ISBN: 9781009168090
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.

Forensic Linguistics in Australia
  • Diana Eades, University of New England, Maine, Helen Fraser, University of Melbourne and University of New England, Maine, Georgina Heydon, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology
  • Online ISBN: 9781009168090
Available formats
×