User:Alyssadicker/sandbox

This is the shared sandbox for Alyssa, Jaime, Max, & Rhea. Alyssadicker (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Alyssa's Corrections/Ideas
References:

Many of the references are in another language like Spanish, so this could be difficult for viewers of another language. Also, at least five of the sources led to pages that were not found, including source 7 and 24 and of the ones that do work, there are some that are not reliable. This makes it a little more difficult for people to be able to fact-check what is said on the Wiki page article, like if the information is valid or if it is outdated. A lot of the articles are older, like from the 1990s or early 2000s, which makes the information a little more questionable.

More Information:

I feel that this article has a lot of information for some areas, but little to no information for others. The example section under "Use of Linguistic Evidence in Legal Proceedings" is huge, but there is not a lot of information under "Forensic Text Types", both under each type of text and just for a general introduction. Also, under the "Areas of Study" section, there is a good amount of information for "The Language of Legal Texts" but almost no information or explanation for "The Language of Legal Processes". This could be because of bias from the writer, or just less known about these subjects, however this could skew the reader to think one way over another based on the amount of information given. Alyssadicker (talk) 19:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Current Forensic Linguistics Factors:

We are going to add more current sources that will bring more current information to this page. As of now, the sources and information is good in some areas, but as the years go on, we will need more information that deals with current issues that relates to forensic linguistics, like text messages or other forms of digital communication that could be different from hand-written notes or talking. Our world is rapidly changing, and without the information on how these changes affect forensic linguistics, we will not know how to interpret certain situations when they come up. So, it is important to keep this up to date and add in the factors that are changing and affecting forensic linguistics today. Alyssadicker (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

There is an article that discusses how a forensic linguist deciphers text messages to see who the author is and what the story behind the words are. This was written in 2015, and is discussing text messages, which is much more updated than what the page currently talks about. The interviewee tells a story of a time when a house burnt down, a father saved his children but the wife was left in the house and died. The police thought that the fire was not an accident, and was actually a cover-up of the father murdering the mother. The forensic linguists were able to obtain the phone of the father and mother, and realized that there were texts still being sent from the mother's phone the whole day -- long after the police thought she had died. Using the two phones, the linguists were able to study the texting styles of both people to see what the texting style was more similar to on the day the wife died. It turned out that the texts sent from the wife's phone, was actually the husband pretending to be the wife so that no one would know she was murdered instead of perishing in the fire. Without this knowledge, it would have been much more difficult to convict the husband of murder. The interview: https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yvxmbk/forensic-linguists-use-spelling-mistakes-to-help-convict-criminals Information and stories like these are much more relevant to the current time period and will make it easier for people reading the article to understand and relate. Alyssadicker (talk) 02:10, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal Contribution to Article:

21st Century Examples of Forensic Linguistics:

In 2005, Jenny Nicholl disappeared. Her body was never found, giving police and forensicists little information to go on about what might have happened to Jenny. After looking through her phone for clues, forensic linguists came to the conclusion that the texts sent from her phone around the time that she disappeared seemed very different than her usual texting style. The texts from this time seemed more likely to come from her ex-boyfriend David Hodgson. After comparing the texting styles between David and Jenny, it was found that there were a number of stylistic similarities between David's texting style and the messages sent from Jenny's phone around the time she went missing. Using the timeframe of when she went missing, combined with the differences in texting styles and other forensic details, David was convicted of the murder of Jenny Nicholl. To this day, her body has not been found. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080908073841.htm

In 2015, a house burnt down, a father saved his children but the wife was left in the house and died. The police thought that the fire was not an accident, and was actually a cover-up of the father murdering the mother. The forensic linguists were able to obtain the phone of the father and mother, and realized that there were texts still being sent from the mother's phone the whole day -- long after the police thought she had died. Using the two phones, the linguists were able to study the texting styles of both people to see what the texting style was more similar to on the day the wife died. It turned out that the texts sent from the wife's phone, was actually the husband pretending to be the wife so that no one would know she was murdered instead of perishing in the fire. The forensic linguistics were able to figure this out by studying the husband's texting style, spelling errors, and more, and were able to come to the conclusion that the texts sent after the wife was thought to be deceased, was actually the husband texting offer phone pretending to be her so that no one would know. Without this knowledge, it would have been much more difficult to convict the husband of murder. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/yvxmbk/forensic-linguists-use-spelling-mistakes-to-help-convict-criminals Alyssadicker (talk) 01:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Jaime's Ideas
There are a few instances throughout this article where citation fixes are necessary. For example, the first sentence in the heading titled "Examples" states a fact without a proper reference, as well as in the second paragraph of the heading titled "Forensic Stylistics". Although it has already been noted that the citation is necessary in both of these instances, a factual citation must be put in its place. Furthermore, there is a problem with a few of the links listed in the citations. For example, the link in citation 1 leads to an error, and the link for citation 7 is currently under construction. With this in mind, reviewing the validity of the sources as a whole may be necessary, as it can be seen that some of the links were either never valid, or have become outdated. Although I understand that this might come off as unnecessary information in an article focusing on forensic linguistics specifically, I personally feel that dialectology in the courtroom and the effects it has on the jurisdiction of several cases makes it an incredibly important aspect of forensic linguistics to be discussed in further detail. Especially in recent media, as we have recently discussed in this course, linguistic dialectology is becoming really prevalent in forensic linguistics, and hence I personally feel this section of the document could use an extension. For this reason, I think including an "examples" section to this part of the article could be really beneficial in providing readers with yet another important facet of forensic linguistics, one that often brings about a number of biases in the courtroom. Court cases like the State of Florida vs. George Zimmerman could potentially be really beneficial reference points. According to this article and the amount of information presented, it seems as if there is a much larger emphasis placed on the Language of Legal Texts than the Language of Legal processes. If you refer to the beginning of the article with the heading titled "History" you can see that the information presented for the Language of Legal Processes lacks the length and depth that is found in the history of the Language of Legal texts. An extension on the history of the Language of Legal Processes section may also be necessary. Jaimedepaola (talk) 04:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Citation fixes:
 * Include an examples section to the heading Linguistic Dialectology:
 * Language of Legal Texts vs. Language of Legal Processes

Using our assigned textbook for the course, and pieces authored by Olsson, I plan to expand on several of the legal processes already introduced in the Legal Processes section of the Forensic Linguistics wikipedia article. To begin, I plan to focus on cross-examination. In going into more detail about this section, it is important that I refer to the hostile lawyer, and describe the linguistic power imbalances that come about due to this structural hierarchy. For example, in this context the hostile lawyer will probably give the witness little room for elaboration, referring mostly to yes/no questions and avoiding using WH-questions to prevent the witness from answering open-ended questions. Further more, it may also be beneficial to mention the politeness strategies (indirect speech) sometimes used by witnesses during cross-examination (powerless speech), and how this may sometimes come off as less truthful and personable to juries. Next, I plan to also expand on evidence presentation (testimonies) and summing up the jury, and explain linguistic features lawyers may use to come off as more truthful and personable (referring to witnesses by their first name, using technical terminology, using slang, etc.). Finally, I would like to expand on the questioning process in the courtroom, describing which kinds of questions are more likely to be asked to a hostile vs. friendly witness, and the types of responses likely to be elicited by certain kinds of witnesses. Jaimedepaola (talk) 02:31, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Language of Legal Processes:

Personal Contribution to Wikipedia Article:

Police officers use specific language to elicit certain responses from civilians. Because of a police officers' social stature, and the way they often phrase "requests" as "commands," people may be confused as to what their rights are when they are being questioned by police. Officers use linguistic tactics including putting the blame onto the victim and asking questions with ambiguous phrasing to elicit specific responses from people (Solan, L. & Tiersma, P, 2005).

A defendant using ambiguity in the courtroom may present issues and be deemed unacceptable. Specifically, when a victim is invoking their right to a lawyer, there are directions stating that the request may not come off as ambiguous. In fact, if the request is not stated in a way that the officer deems to be clear, the victim may not receive their request for counsel at all. Refer to the following link to explore an example through the Louisiana vs. Demesme case .

During the examination process, language plays a substantial role in the presentation of a story to the courtroom. Specifically, the language used by the lawyer to construct the story to the courtroom elicits specific responses from the witness, and specific emotions from the jury. For example, in an instance where a lawyer is examining a hostile witness, they will often use language to limit the response of the witness, in order to avoid having the witness present conflicting evidence. In this instance, yes/no questions will be targeted, and questions with room for elaboration, such as wh-formation questions, will likely be avoided. In a situation where a lawyer interviews a friendly witness whose testimony could potentially strengthen the story constructed by the lawyer, the opposite may occur where wh-questions are targeted to allow for elaboration. (Olsson, Luchjenborers, 2013).

Lawyers employs specific tactics for both themselves and their witnesses to come off as more or less truthful to the jury and the people of the courtroom. For example, the lawyer may refer to the witness by their first name or a nickname to humanize the witness, or they may speak using slang in order to create less social distance between himself and the courtroom. The lawyer may also avoid using slang, and instead use complicated law terminology to set himself apart from the courtroom and define his status. (Olsson, Luchjenborers, 2013).

The lawyer works in constructing the language of the legal process of the courtroom, and specific witnesses may respond to the lawyer's questions in different ways, eliciting new language tactics and opinions from the jury. For example, witnesses may use direct or indirect speech based on their previous societal experiences, gender differences, socioeconomic differences, or differences in education level. Using particular dialects, slang, or sentence formations could assist in making the witness more or less truthful to the jury. (Olsson, Luchjenborers, 2013) Jaimedepaola (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC) Jaimedepaola (talk) 22:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Max's Ideas
This section provides a lot of example information but some of the case information is more elaborated on, while other cases have one or two sentences of exposure. To me it makes sense to review this big block of text and organize it in a way that information isn't just scattered about. Perhaps using subheadings to break down some of the info would be beneficial to the article. There is a lot of history in the article, and most of the references are a few years old or more. I'm wondering if there are newer, trustworthy sources of information so we can add to the article and make it more relevant.
 * Organize the "Examples" section under "Use of linguistic evidence in legal proceedings"
 * Add more recent developments in the field and where it's headed

Rhea's Ideas
This section seemed to lack enough of details regarding the background of forensic linguistics. Perhaps adding more information and gathering more details from more sources could fill this out and provide a better overview of how this field came about. Also, the citations in this section definitely need to be updated or added in - quite a few of the links have markings for clarification on the source or lead to a source that no longer exists. As everyone else has mentioned, the citations definitely need to be addressed - either there are incorrect citations, missing citations, or citations with links that are no longer active. This is a serious issue because when it comes to seeing where the source of data is, it cannot be done or fact-checked. This goes in hand with the correction of the citations and sources. A couple people mentioned on the Talk page of the article that there seemed to be a discrepancy in what was written in the article and what the actual source of data stated. When the citations are being corrected/added in, it is also important to double check the ones that are correct to make sure all the information being quoted is accurate, to prevent the spread of misinformation. This is a more general fix/suggestion. A couple things to change would be the giant "Examples" section - it is way too dense. Either it needs to be split up and added into its corresponding sub-sections earlier in the article, or it needs to be broken down into better sections. This would make for an easier read, rather than just having a large chunk of information. Another thing to fix is adding in some more detail on the "Forensic Text Types" section - some text types seem to have more information than others, so providing an equal distribution of information would be better. The last thing I would want to try and fix for all general examples is perhaps the usage of photos. If we provide images and refer to those instead, this could possibly cut out quite a bit of redundant and unnecessary text - since we could just say something like "as seen in Image 1, etc." rather than having to type out every detail in the said image. Additionally, images are a good way to break up large chunks of texts in a more aesthetically pleasing manner, making it better for the reader to take in everything. Rheatata (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Update "History" Section
 * Correct Citations
 * Fact Check
 * Examples, in general

History of Forensic Linguistics

The phrase first came about in 1968 by linguistics professor Jan Svartvik. It was in regards to a case analyzing the statements given to police in the case of alleged murder by Timothy John Evans at Notting Hill Police Station in the year 1968. Evans was suspected of murdering his wife and baby and was tried and hanged for the crime. Yet, when Svartvik studied the statements allegedly given by Evans, he found that there were different stylistic markers involved, and Evans did not actually give the statements to the police officers as had been stated at the trial (John Olsson page 4 of http://www.thetext.co.uk/what_is.pdf). Sparked by this case, early forensic linguistics in the UK were focused on questioning the validity of police interrogations. As seen in numerous famous cases (the murder trial in Old Bailey of 1989, the convictions of Derek Bentley, the Guildford Four, the Bridgewater Three, etc.), many of the major concerns were of the statements police officers used. Numerous times, the topic of police register came up – this meaning the type of stylist language and vocabulary used by officers of law when transcribing witness statements (John Olsson page 5 of http://www.thetext.co.uk/what_is.pdf). Moving to the US and the beginnings of the field of forensic linguistics, the field really began with the 1963 case of Ernesto Miranda. His case led to the creation of Miranda Rights and pushed focus of forensic linguistics on witness questioning rather than police statements. Various cases came about that challenged whether or not suspects truly understood what their rights meant – leading to a distinction of coercive versus voluntary interrogations (John Olsson page 5 of http://www.thetext.co.uk/what_is.pdf). Rheatata (talk) 00:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Personal Contribution to Wikipedia Article

I propose that the whole section already in the article currently on the Unabomber should be moved to Forensic stylistics section. Also moving the Australian case example to that same Forensic Stylistics section would help out. I will definitely also be looking over the other examples from the large Examples section and seeing where I can move them around - the next step will be to fill in citations in that section for some of the references that are either missing or incorrectly cited. Rheatata (talk) 01:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)