Module Details |
The information contained in this module specification was correct at the time of publication but may be subject to change, either during the session because of unforeseen circumstances, or following review of the module at the end of the session. Queries about the module should be directed to the member of staff with responsibility for the module. |
Title | LANGUAGE AND THE LAW: A COURSE IN FORENSIC LINGUISTICS | ||
Code | ENGL312 | ||
Coordinator |
Professor PW Simpson English P.Simpson@liverpool.ac.uk |
||
Year | CATS Level | Semester | CATS Value |
Session 2020-21 | Level 6 FHEQ | First Semester | 30 |
Aims |
|
Practical in orientation, this module develops a set of methods for examining the links between language and the law in all its forms. The activities listed below reflect a consensus across the published literature in the field and therefore reflect the main duties a forensic linguist can expect to perform. Such activities include: Performing expert analysis and commentary on the language of legal documents, courts and prisons. Improving translation services in the court system. Helping alleviate [linguistic] disadvantage produced by the legal process. Providing forensic evidence that is based on professional academic knowledge of language and discourse. Offering advice in legal drafting and interpreting, often with an emphasis on the use of 'plain language'. Overall, the course promotes the use of forensic evidence that is based on the best expertise in the study of language and linguistics. It is an avowed aim of the International Association of Forensic Linguists (IAFL) that forensic linguistics should seek to alleviate language-based inequality and disadvantage in the legal system, and this module embraces this aim. |
Learning Outcomes |
|
(LO1) By the end of this module, students will be able to:Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of the scope and history of forensic linguistics. |
|
(LO2) Demonstrate an ability to apply a range of models in language and discourse to forensic materials, whether those materials be spoken or written. |
|
(LO3) Demonstrate an ability to balance probabilities in linguistic evidence using quantitative data and with reference linguistic corpora. |
|
(LO4) Demonstrate an understanding of the constraints on language use and understanding in the legal process, with particular reference to social and cultural difference. |
|
(S1) Students will acquire skills in close linguistic analysis, of both spoken and written language, with particular skill in forensic document analysis. |
|
(S2) Students will be able to match different theoretical models with different kinds of forensic data. |
|
(S3) Students will be able to perform expert analysis and commentary on the language of legal documents, courts and prisons. |
|
(S4) Students will be trained to offer reasoned forensic-linguistic evidence that is gounded in academic knowledge of language and discourse. |
Syllabus |
|
The syllabus for this module is delivered in a variety of ways, using lectures, seminars workshops (exploring case studies) and presentations by student teams. A provisional week-by-week breakdown of the syllabus is set out below, alongside the references to key reading for that week: 1. Overview: Contemporary Forensic Linguistics. (Main reading: Tiersma 2000; Coulthard and Johnson 2007). 2. The gathering of (and authenticity of) linguistic evidence, including the Electro-static Detection Apparatus (ESDA). ( Main reading: Davis 1994). 3. Interviews, Interrogations and Expert Witness Testimony : Roger Shuy. (Main reading: Shuy 1998, 2002 and 2005). 4. Case Study A: Forensic Phonetics and the Yorkshire Ripper hoaxer. (Ma in reading: Ellis 1994; Windsor-Lewis 1994; French et al 2007; Watt 2009) . 5. Communicative difficulties at the legal-lay interface - the ‘Miranda Warnings’. ( Main reading: Berk-Seligson, in Cotterill 2002). 6. FIELD TRIP TO LIVER POOL CROWN COURT. 7. Case Study B: ‘Let him have it’: the trial of Derek Bentley. ( Main reading: Coulthard 1992, 2001, 2002). 8. Language and Disadvantage in the Courtroom. ( Main reading: O’Barr 1982; Gibbons 2003; Parker et al 2006). 9. Case Study C: Aboriginal Languages and the Law. (Main reading: Eades 2000, 2002). 10. Pragmatics, Irony and the Law. (Main reading: Gavins and Simpson 2015). 11. Case Study D: Humour, Satire and the Law; the case of Alan Clark MP v The London Evening Standard . (Main reading: Simpson 2003). 12. Summary, Conclusion, and Tying up Loose Ends. |
Teaching and Learning Strategies |
|
Teaching Method 1 - Lecture Teaching Method 2 - Seminar Teaching Method 3 - Workshop Teaching Method 4 - Field Work |
Teaching Schedule |
Lectures | Seminars | Tutorials | Lab Practicals | Fieldwork Placement | Other | TOTAL | |
Study Hours |
9 |
9 |
0 |
12 |
30 | ||
Timetable (if known) | |||||||
Private Study | 270 | ||||||
TOTAL HOURS | 300 |
Assessment |
||||||
EXAM | Duration | Timing (Semester) |
% of final mark |
Resit/resubmission opportunity |
Penalty for late submission |
Notes |
Multiple Choice on Key Concepts There is a resit opportunity. This is an anonymous assessment. Assessment Schedule (When) :Semester 2 | 30 minutes. | 20 | ||||
CONTINUOUS | Duration | Timing (Semester) |
% of final mark |
Resit/resubmission opportunity |
Penalty for late submission |
Notes |
Group presentation There is a resit opportunity. Standard UoL penalty applies for late submission. This is not an anonymous assessment. Assessment Schedule (When) :Semester 2 | 10 | |||||
1 x 3,000 word assignment There is a resit opportunity. Standard UoL penalty applies for late submission. This is an anonymous assessment. Assessment Schedule (When) :Semester 2 | 3,000 words | 50 | ||||
Plagiarism investigation There is a resit opportunity. Standard UoL penalty applies for late submission. This is not an anonymous assessment. Assessment Schedule (When) :Semester 2 | 2,000 words (1x 1,00 | 20 |
Recommended Texts |
|
Reading lists are managed at readinglists.liverpool.ac.uk. Click here to access the reading lists for this module. |