Exploring the Past, Present, and Future of Forensic Linguistics Study: A Brief Overview

Exploring the Past, Present, and Future of Forensic Linguistics Study: A Brief Overview

       Tatum Derin1, Evizareza2, Susy Deliani3, & Budianto Hamuddin4
       1
         Universitas Lancang Kuning, Pekanbaru. Indonesia
       t.derin@unilak.ac.id
       2
         Universitas Lancang Kuning, Pekanbaru. Indonesia
       evizariza@unilak.ac.id
       3
         Universitas Lancang Kuning, Pekanbaru. Indonesia
       susi_deliani@yahoo.com
       4
         Universitas Lancang Kuning, Pekanbaru. Indonesia
       budihamuddin@unilak.ac.id

       Abstract: What marked forensic linguistics as unique is its young age compared to other disciplines. Here
       we review and collected 88 articles that strongly related to Forensic Linguistic (FL) from time to time.
       These articles help to reveal from its conceptualisation in 1968 to its fame in 1988, how it responds to the
       great diversity of people, and what form it may take in the future. A literature-based analysis as library
       research in nature helps in defining the FL issue and manage to see in the early stages was merely
       concerned about the use of language in legal cases. As society continues to change, FL has linked with so
       many other disciplines besides law. Therefore the definition of this discipline may also transform.
       Presently, FL no longer limits itself to the particular social setting of a courtroom but could be applied to
       the virtual world or cyberspace influences users negatively and dynamically developed. There is a line of
       proof that FL will be used to prevent and predict the social settings between citizens who could easily be
       not law-abiding as they seem. Shortly, the use of FL will be much more accessible to individuals through
       artificial intelligence (AI). Moreover, individuals will no longer need to hire experts and be able to use FL
       with freely available artificial intelligence (AI).

       Keywords: Forensic Linguistic, past, present, and future.

Studying language as a human activity scientifically is called linguistics [3]. When applied to a
particular social setting, in this case the legal forum, it is termed forensic linguistics (FL) by Jan
Svartvik who published his analysis of Timothy Evans’ four statements in 1968, in which he
concluded that the man was lying about his confession of strangling his wife and infant daughter
in 1949 [79]. Scholars from various countries have also published papers involving the use of
language in legal cases [48] but they were not under any specific academic discipline involving
speech and the law prior to Jan Svartvik’s conceptualization of FL, and even after then [21],
[72], [73], but some studies rose to defend the discipline, such as the famous discourse analyst
Professor Malcolm Coulthard [18], [19]. Compared with other branches of applied disciplines,
and considering “the centrality of the use of language to life in general and the law in particular”
[56], FL is relatively young. However, over the next 30 years FL reached maturity as an
academic discipline in early-1990s due to FL seminars taking place, and by mid-1990s the need
for journals was felt, and the International Association for Forensic Phonetics (IAFP), Forensic
Linguistics: The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, and International
Association of Forensic Linguists (IAFL) were established [5].

1. Forensic Linguistics in the Early Stages
The birth of FL started in two ways: in 1966 in the United States (US) when the ‘Miranda
Rights’ or ‘Miranda Warning’ was created in light of the violation against Ernesto Arturo
Miranda’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights [53], and in 1968 in the United Kingdom (UK)
when Jan Svartvik proved that language itself could be forensic evidence [79]. Before both
events, early FL in the US and UK were focused on police statements because back then the
guide for police practices known as the Judges’ Rules was to have suspects dictate their narrative
to the police, and police officers neither allowed to interrupt nor question suspects except for
minor clarifications [35]. Dr John Olsson, who has extensive experience in British, American
and Australian courts, made it known to the world that actual interrogation seldom practised
these rules. Police officers would ask suspects numerous questions and write down their answers
in a form and pattern that the police officers' register instead of the suspects actual words because
people don’t speak in a coherent narrative since "they speak too fast, omit important details,
speculate aloud, they backtrack, and so on” [56]. Because witness' words were taken in through
the words of the police rather than their own, initial focus of language and law scholars was on
the authenticity of police statements. After FL became known, the focus shifted to the witnesses’
themselves, bringing light to many issues regarding the stages of criminal or legal proceeding
[56] that attracted the attention of scholars all over the world.
        FL finally enters the limelight in 1988 when Germany’s Federal Criminal Police Office
(Bundeskriminalamt) organised a two-day FL conference and pioneered the phonetic-acoustic
method of speaker identification [5]. France hosted their FL conference in 1991, then Britain in
1992, and FL finally reached international level academic discipline when Australia held a
meeting in 1995, and the US held one in 1997 [5]. In late-1990s universities began teaching FL,
but many countries still could not provide formal schooling in the discipline. Thus a discourse
analyst from Birmingham University, Professor Malcolm Coulthard, filled this gap by delivering
international summer schools in FL [5]. As FL became better established, linguists became more
involved in the criminal and legal proceedings.
        Narrowing the focus on the involvement of linguists in a legal forum, there are three
stages in a legal proceeding where linguistic knowledge may be needed: investigative, trial, and
appeal stages [55]. Linguistic analysis is usually confined to the first stage where the first to be
noted and investigated are ransom notes, specific threat letters, mobile (cell) phone text
messages, suicide notes, the victims and suspects' speaking style, and behaviour [55]. Rarely will
linguists be called to the trial stage where fact and relevant law is examined in court [70], but
when one in many linguists is called, they are inquired to analyse authorship, threat,
interpretation, and construction of text [55]. But the appeal is widespread to be launched
immediately after a defendant is convicted, and linguists are typically needed to assist in solving
a dispute about wording, interpretation, or authorship of a statement or confession [55].
        Despite FL’s increasing involvement in the legal forum, the legal system is “linguistically
naïve and vulnerable” [43], both by the law enforcers and the people themselves. A recurring
issue has to do with the fact that Miranda Rights are very popular in usage in the media, making
people familiar with them but Miranda Rights in fiction is very different from its actual usage
and function in real life, and this “frequent erroneous assumption may influence court rulings”
[62]. It also became known that suspects may not understand their rights despite being read by
the police, that "I understand" doesn't necessarily mean that they know, but they say that they do
[56]. Sometimes people may not even understand English or unable to hear or speak — thus
‘interpreter’ came to existence in the late twentieth century [76]. Yet even interpreters are not the

ideal solution for different language speakers or non-speaking people because in practice
interpreters "maintain the content of the speech but not the style, thus altering the effect on the
listeners," making the court judge the witness or suspect by the interpreter’s speaking style than
the witness or suspect's method [61]. Interpreters themselves often hesitate due to “translation
difficulty, thought process, doubt, preface to a pause, backtracking, grammatical or
pronunciation error” [33] making the court misjudge the convincingness and confidence of the
witnesses or suspects' exact words [40].
        Additionally, lawyers and linguists don’t always see eye-to-eye, with lawyers and judges
questioning the need for linguistic testimony — in one case even telling a linguist “Surely there
are only two kinds of English: correct English and incorrect English?” — and linguists noticing
how lawyers frequently use vague expressions to protect their clients and that language of the
law is often archaic [55]. For example, the law states confession and questioning must be
voluntary and not coercive, but Professor Roger Shuy brought to light that “an arrestee is hardly
in a position to agree voluntarily to being questioned” and “the very nature of questioning is
coercive” [71]. Thus the meaning of the words ‘interrogation’ and ‘voluntary’ had to be
scrutinised. Eventually, the law itself is subject to questioning because language is needed to
frame the law and understand the law [55], yet despite being a newcomer in academics, FL
quickly rushed to clarify and provide a better understanding of the language of the legal process
[17].

2. Current Trends of Forensic Linguistics
Scholars characterised early forensic linguistics by the need to test the limits and improve the
scientific methods of FL to make these transparent to non-linguists [55]. However, like race,
ethnicity, and language grew more diverse, FL must also take into account on issues of language
and cultural barriers, be it because the suspects or witnesses do not understand English [12] due
to language disorders or disabilities [81], [76], [65], or are still children and possess low
understanding of legal proceeding and court system [78], all of which have also shed light on the
experts’ own bias [50] and competency to stand trial [59], [26]. If viewed in a positive lens, all
these problems especially the fact that bilingualism and multilingualism are the norm drives the
development of FL [67].
        The greatest challenge faced today is building a culturally competent problem-solving
court that is appropriately responsive to all participants, regardless of their age, race, and level of
speaking ability [82]. Bias in supposed scientific investigations is becoming more well-known
when scholars discovered the most significant factor in determining credibility is perceived
education level [50]. For example, an English accent is rated highly reliable, likeable, and
regarded as being educated and professional [49]. Meanwhile, gay accent (no longer
straightforward stereotype once scientific research has uncovered gay men do have significant
phonetic features enabling listeners to predict their sexual orientation [30] accurately) is also
rated highly on intelligence and believable, but homophobia hinders their credibility. Whereas
South African accent, associated with lack of education and dangerousness, is rated less
plausible [50]. At the moment, there is no clear-cut way to make sure that a person’s accent does
not influence the judge’s objectivity in a positive way [7]. How people speak (their speaking
style) is forever a variable of influence on court judgment [7] because it is a factor of their
credibility, “which is crucial for winning a case” [33].

In some cases, witnesses are neither able to speak due to particular disabilities nor
difference of their language and the courtroom language, so they rely on interpreters who are
trained to interpret them accurately [33]. However, not only do the interpreters' speaking style
may influence court judgment but also their ‘accuracy’ is often not in line with the non-speakers
of the courtroom language [33], because the accuracy of interpretation implies more than simply
relaying the content [6], [7], [41]. Interpreters may convey the witnesses' commonly
emotionally-driven testimony in an emotionally-detached descriptive and “intelligible” way
because the interpreter's status as trained made the interpreters seem more intelligent than the
witnesses' themselves, thus undermining and even devaluing them [46]. For example, rape
allegation is a favourite accusation, but disabled women rape cases the combination of
evidentiary, doctrinal and ideological law practices devalue and disregard the disabled women's
testimonies [46]. Perhaps this happens because disabled people are identified by what they lack
rather than what they are, so they became recipients of charity and their status as persons called
into question [83].
        Fortunately, an effort is being made to provide non-English speakers and disabled people
alternatives to interpreters. For example, concerning judicial process involving a deaf person
[51], [52], [60], [80], drawings and illustrations have begun to be included in forensic interviews
in order to improve understanding on the part of the deaf person [58] rather than solely relying
on interpreters which sometimes frustrate the deaf person [42], [77].
 Those who do not speak well aren't always people who are disabled or grew up with a different
language and culture—criminal court proceedings are increasingly having children involved due
to rise of crime, violence, divorce, accidents, and disputes in which children are frequently direct
victims or witnesses [24], [25], [68], [16]. Children are still faced with adult expectations despite
being young and clearly not educated in investigative interview [10] or court proceedings, but
this problem has been recognized at the turn of the century [16]. It’s entirely possible for
children to participate well in the courtroom as long as they are prepared [16], but the language
attorneys use profoundly influences the children's accuracy [7], [88] and it cannot be denied that
appearing in courtroom causes high anxiety. Another solution is to have the children’s play
therapists that aid children with trauma [37], [54], appear in court on behalf of them [22].
Though recently, another problem is recognized; play therapists are neither trained to prepare for
testifying nor aware enough to help children cope with courtroom experiences [78].
        Whatever the victims, witnesses, or suspects’ conditions are, FL is aiding the legal
process to console, prepare, and question them. But the study found that their improvement in
facing interview [23] or court does not mean the linguists or experts improve as well, for they are
still mediocre lie catchers [83] for there are no valid criteria in the study for judging general
credibility [84]. But the discipline of FL does consistently improve its methodology in
investigating information.
 In a legal proceeding, there is a heavy emphasis on people’s ability to recall information, even
though most of the details relating to time duration, frequency, and calendar date would be
estimation at best [14]. For example, when questioning witnesses or suspects, the police and
practitioners need to state these three sentences prior interview session. ‘Tell me in as much
detail as you can', ‘If you don't know, don't guess', and ‘Say don’t know if I ask you a question
you cannot answer’ to let interviewees self-pace their recall. But this technique "only seems to
persist for around six months following training” [1], [11]. Now, forensic linguists are aware of
the benefits of learning clinical psychologists' interviewing techniques, which emphasises
information gathering in individuals’ words [57].

A most prominent debate on the methods of the field is Language Analysis for the
Determination of Origin (LADO) [27], [9], which was first introduced in 1993 when
governments faced undocumented people seeking asylum [58]. The famous question is whether
the process should include a non-expert native speaker (NENS), but a recent study [27] took a
different direction by questioning the specifics of how NENS could be added, studying the
relatively unexplored research on the different types of analyst’ weaknesses and strengths, and
how to produce the best collaborative analysis. The role of NENS in LADO is a topic of
contention among FL scholars [87], but the part of the linguists has received remarkably little
attention. It has been brought up again [28] after the first study almost a decade ago [9], showing
that someone's linguistics qualifications and language background do not mean they are capable
of making righteous judgments on the origin of a speaker.
        Evidence of crime is also no longer limited to the physical world with the advent of the
internet, and digital proof now needs to be identified and investigated too [4]. This domain of FL
faces numerous problems because of the burgeoning and frequently-changing cyber field [64],
[29], [63]. Application of different authorship attribution techniques to chat logs has been found
to be able to unmask the anonymity of cyber predators, although these corpus linguistics
techniques can only be successfully adapted to digital forensic investigation when factors
influencing text analysis are considered very carefully, the case type—criminal or civil—is
established, the context of technique use—supervised or unsupervised—is certain [2]. Aside
from the shortage of experts in authorship attribution in cyberspace, lack of real data sources
used to be a massive problem in advancing cyber forensic linguistics [37] because agencies keep
their data private and secure, but social media has been explored and found to be abundant in
opportunities “to offer in terms of public data sources for future research” [4]. Current software
systems focused on information extraction usually only prioritise extracting a large percentage of
data, but this year's information extraction system solves consistency errors and focuses on the
quality of the extracted data [8], and with the rapidly developing human language technology
linguists can process large datasets.
 Ultimately, like any other business, the most prominent concern individuals have in solving their
problems when employing outside help is the cost. Currently, it's impossible to use FL to solve
every case because the costs would be huge, but this is where artificial intelligence (AI) helps
[34]. AI moderation tools that review and approve content as well as identify offensive keywords
are available online, and recently several tools employed by global platforms such as Twitter and
Facebook are now able to locate abusive messages even when no competitive keywords are
being used [85]. With AI, large amounts of data can be analysed and correlated promptly, which
is essential when it comes to criminal investigations [13], [31].

3. Future of Forensic Linguistics
With forensic linguistics and many other disciplines bringing light on how the diversity of
culture can influence the judicial process, the court system in the future may be better culturally
responsive. It means that the court recognises and takes account not only language but also
beliefs, values, norms, traditions, rituals [36], underlying assumptions, perspectives, and genders
that differ between each to make sure they all have equal access to law services and judgment on
the court [81]. Not just culturally sensitive, but FL in the future may frame the law to account the
victims, witnesses, and suspects' experience of the manner of the alleged crime, because
currently the letter of the law has a disconnection with the persons' experience with the crime
[48], [75], [43] and possess dualism features that make the manner in which the victims

experience the alleged crime irrelevant [75]. Ideally, the confrontational nature of the legal
process on the participants will shift to be helpfully neutral [15], [69], [45], and members of
society will all be better educated and willing to learn how to become involved, if not be better,
in the judicial process as they are citizens of lawful nations [50].
         With the rapid development of technology, as it became more integrated into people's
lives, FL in cyberspace will soon embrace real-time intelligence instead of only postmortem data
[4]. If a suspect refuses to give sample of their voice recording, it is now legal to discreetly
record their authentic voice data in order for law enforcement to maximize their effort in their
duty [66], and depending on how client privacy issue debate would go FL may be able to acquire
voice data from individuals’ social accounts. Social networks, as well as social media content,
will be better used to solve crimes [37], perhaps predict deception, fraud, corruption and prevent
them from happening in the first place. As data extraction techniques improve [8], the written
report of an FL expert that covers competency, criminal responsibility, IQ, mental status or
illness, and language abilities [55] may include more information to better legal proceedings
[20]. However, some scholars consider these preventive measures to be an unethical, dangerous
trend based on their understanding that forensic studies cannot take action against people who
have not been proven guilty, and cannot be used to predict the future because humans still know
too little about human languages [74]. With FL taking on more preventive action, some scholars
believe this is a ‘pre-crime’ era where forensics and crime investigations occur before a crime is
committed instead of after it [47], [86].

4. Conclusion
At first, forensic linguistics narrowed in court proceedings, and even then mostly limited to the
investigative stage, which happens after a crime has been discovered or reported. The early
stages were concerned with the use of language in legal cases. As of now, people favour being
anticipatory rather than reactionary, so FL no longer limits itself to the particular social setting of
a courtroom, but could be applied to the virtual world where terrorist deals or fake publications
fraud occurs and content in cyberspace influences users negatively, the classroom where physical
and cyberbullying are frequent events and plagiarism almost a feature, and regular social settings
between citizens who could easily be not so law-abiding as they seem and potentially threatens
national and international security. Forensic linguistics has linked with so many other disciplines
besides law; it can be defined as the study of identifying the language used by humans for the
purpose of preventing factors that breed or influence crime and solving legal cases.

5. References
[1]   Ackil, J. K., & Zaragoza, M. S. (2011). Forced fabrications versus interviewer
      suggestions: Differences in false memory depend on how memory is assessed. Applied
      Cognitive Psychology, 25, 933-942.
[2]   Amuchi, F., Al-Nemrat, A., Alazab, M., & Layton, R. (2012, October). Identifying cyber
      predators through forensic authorship analysis of chat logs. In 2012 Third Cybercrime
      and Trustworthy Computing Workshop (pp. 28-37). IEEE.
[3]   Ariani, M. G., Sajedi, F., & Sajedi, M. (2014). Forensic linguistics: A brief overview of
      the key elements. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 158, 222-225.
[4]   Baggili, I., & Breitinger, F. (2015, March). Data sources for advancing cyber forensics:
      what the social world has to offer. In 2015 AAAI Spring Symposium Series.

[5]    Blackwell, S. (2012). History of forensic linguistics. The Encyclopedia of Applied
       Linguistics.
[6]    Benmaman, V. (1992). Legal Interpreting: An Emerging Profession. Modern Language
       Journal 76(4), Winter: 445–53.
[7]    Brubacher, S. P., Peterson, C., La Rooy, D., Dickinson, J. J., & Poole, D. A. (2019). How
       children talk about events: Implications for eliciting and analyzing eyewitness
       reports. Developmental Review, 51, 70-89.Cambier-Langeveld, T. (2012). Clarification of
       the issues in language analysis: a rejoinder to Fraser and Verrips. International Journal
       of Speech, Language & the Law, 19(2).
[8]    Buey, M. G., Roman, C., Garrido, A. L., Bobed, C., & Mena, E. (2019). Automatic Legal
       Document Analysis: Improving the Results of Information Extraction Processes Using an
       Ontology. In Intelligent Methods and Big Data in Industrial Applications (pp. 333-351).
       Springer, Cham.
[9]    Cambier-Langeveld, T. (2010). The role of linguists and native speakers in language
       analysis for the determination of speaker origin. International Journal of Speech,
       Language and the Law, 17(1), 67–93.
[10]   Çifci, E. G., & Batman, H. (2019). General View for Investigative Interviewing of
       Children: Investigative Interviewing. In Social Issues Surrounding Harassment and
       Assault: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 442-458). IGI Global.
[11]   Clarke, C., & Milne, R. (2001). National evaluation of the PEACE investigative
       interviewing course. London, UK: Home Office.
[12]   Cole, R. W., & Maslow-Armand, L. (1997). Role of Counsel and the Courts in
       Addressing Foreign Language and Cultural Barriers at Different Stages of a Criminal
       Proceeding, the. W. New Eng. L. Rev., 19, 193.
[13]   Conti, M., Dargahi, T., & Dehghantanha, A. (2018). Cyber Threat Intelligence:
       Challenges and Opportunities. Cyber Threat Intelligence, 1-6.
[14]   Conway, M. A. (2013). On being a memory expert witness: Three cases. Memory, 21(5),
       566-575.
[15]   Coombs, M. (1993). Telling the victim’s story. Texas Journal of Women & Law, 2(2),
       227-315.
[16]   Copen, L. M. (2000). Preparing children for court: A practitioner's guide. Sage
       Publications.
[17]   Coulthard, M., Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2016). An introduction to forensic linguistics:
       Language in evidence. Routledge.
[18]   Coulthard, M. (1995). Questioning statements: Forensic applications of linguistics.
       Inaugural Lecture, University of Birmingham, February 16, 1995.
[19]   Coulthard, M. (1994). Powerful evidence for the defense: An exercise in forensic
       discourse analysis. In J. Gibbons (Ed.), Language and the law. London, England:
       Longman.

[20]   Demertzis, K., Kikiras, P., Tziritas, N., Sanchez, S., & Iliadis, L. (2018). The Next
       Generation Cognitive Security Operations Center: Network Flow Forensics Using
       Cybersecurity Intelligence. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 2(4), 35.
[21]   Eades, D. (1994). A case of communicative clash: Aboriginal English and the legal
       system. Language and the law, 234-264.
[22]   Edwards, J., Parson, J., & O'Brien, W. (2016). Child play therapists’ understanding and
       application of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: A narrative
       analysis. International Journal of Play Therapy, 25(3), 133.
[23]   Eisenberg, P. (2019). The Cognitive Interview and Enhanced Cognitive Interview in
       Financial Forensics and Investigations. Journal of Contemporary Research in Social
       Sciences, 1(1), 55-64.
[24]   Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2015). Prevalence of
       childhood exposure to violence, crime, and abuse: Results from the national survey of
       children’s exposure to violence. JAMA Pediatrics, 169(8), 746-754.
[25]   Finkelhor, D., Turner, H. A., Shattuck, A., & Hamby, S. L. (2013). Violence, crime, and
       abuse exposure in a national sample of children and youth: an update. JAMA Pediatrics,
       167(7), 614-621.
[26]   Florida State Hospital. (2011). CompKit: Competency to stand trial training resources. A
       comprehensive approach to competency restoration for criminal defendants.
       Chattahoochee, FL.
[27]   Foulkes, P., French, P., & Wilson, K. (2019). LADO as Forensic Speaker Profiling.
       In Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin (pp. 91-116). Springer, Cham.
[28]   Fraser, H. (2019). The Role of Native Speakers in LADO: Are We Missing a More
       Important Question?. In Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin (pp. 71-89).
       Springer, Cham.
[29]   Garfinkel, S. L. (2010). Digital forensics research: The next 10 years. Digital
       Investigation, 7, 64-73.
[30]   Gaudio, R. P. (1994). Sounding gay: Pitch properties in the speech of gay and straight
       men. American speech, 69(1), 30-57.
[31]   Gollatz, K., Beer, F., & Katzenbach, C. (2018). The turn to artificial intelligence in
       governing communication online.
[32]   Guerney, L. F. (2018). Play therapy in counseling settings. In Child's Play (pp. 291-321).
       Routledge.
[33]   Hale, S. B. (2004). The discourse of court interpreting: Discourse practices of the law,
       the witness, and the interpreter, 52, John Benjamins Publishing.
[34]   Pomponiu, V., Cavagnino, D., & Botta, M. (2018). Data Hiding in the Wild: Where
       Computational Intelligence Meets Digital Forensics. In Surveillance in Action (pp. 301-
       331). Springer, Cham.
[35]   Johnston, T. S. (1966). The Judges' Rules and Police Interrogation in England
       Today. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 85-92.

[36]   Kádár, D. Z. (2019). Ritual, Aggression and Linguistic Research with Social Impact–A
       Discussion Note. Jadavpur Journal of Languages and Linguistics, 2(2), 164-169.
[37]   Kaur, R., Singh, S., & Kumar, H. (2019). Authorship Analysis of Online Social Media
       Content. In Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Communication, Computing
       and Networking (pp. 539-549). Springer, Singapore.
[38]   Klopper, R. (2009). The Case for Cyber Forensic Linguistics. Alternation, 16(1), 261-
       294.
[39]   Kottman, T., & Meany-Walen, K. (2016). Partners in play: An Adlerian approach to
       play therapy. John Wiley & Sons.
[40]   Krouglov, A. (1999). Police Interpreting: Politeness and Sociocultural Context. The
       Translator, 5(2): 285–302.
[41]   Laster, K. and Taylor, V. (1994). Interpreters & the Legal System. Leichhardt: The
       Federation Press.
[42]   LaVigne, M., & Vernon, M. (2003). An interpreter is not enough: Deafness, language,
       and due process. Wisconsin Law Review, 844, 843–936.
[43]   Levi, J. N. (1994). Language as evidence: the linguist as expert witness in North
       American courts. Forensic linguistics, 1(1): 1-26.
[44]   MacKinnon, C. (1983). Feminism, Marxism, method and the state: Toward feminist
       jurisprudence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 8(4), 635–658.
[45]   Mahoney, M. (1991). Legal images of battered women: Redefining the issue of
       separation. Michigan Law Review, 90(1), 1–94.
[46]   Mandal, S. (2013). The burden of Intelligibility: Disabled women’s testimony in rape
       trials. Indian journal of gender studies, 20(1), 1-29.
[47]   Mantello, P. (2016). The machine that ate bad people: The ontopolitics of the precrime
       assemblage. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 2053951716682538.
[48]   McGehee, F. (1944). An experimental study in voice recognition. Journal of General
       Psychology 31: 53-65.
[49]   Menon, N. (2004). Recovering subversion: Feminist politics beyond the law. Ranikhet:
       Permanent Black.
[50]   Meyer, M. I., & Tredoux, C. G. (2016). Who do you believe? Effects of English, Cape
       Coloured and gay accents on perceived witness credibility. Acta Criminologica:
       Southern African Journal of Criminology, 29(1), 18-32.
[51]   Miller, K. R., & Vernon, M. (2002). Assessing linguistic diversity in deaf criminal
       suspects. Sign Language Studies, 2(4), 380–390.
[52]   Miller, K. R., & Vernon, M. (2001). Linguistic diversity in deaf defendants and due
       process rights. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 6(3), 226–234.
[53]   Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
[54]   O'Connor, K. J. (2015). Handbook of play therapy. John Wiley & Sons.
[55]   Olsson, J. (2014). What is Forensic Linguistics? the text. Co. UK/docs/what_is. Doc>.
       Acesso em, 25.
[56]   Olsson, J., & Luchjenbroers, J. (2013). Forensic linguistics. A&C Black.

[57]   Oxburgh, G., Myklebust, T., Grant, T., & Milne, R. (Eds.). (2015). Communication in
       investigative and legal contexts: Integrated approaches from forensic psychology,
       linguistics and law enforcement. John Wiley & Sons.
[58]   Patrick, P. L. (2019). Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin (LADO): An
       Introduction. In Language Analysis for the Determination of Origin (pp. 1-17). Springer,
       Cham.
[59]   Pollard Jr, R. Q., & Berlinski, B. T. (2017). Forensic Evaluation of Deaf Individuals:
       Challenges and Strategies. Journal of social work in disability & rehabilitation, 16(3-4),
       261-275.
[60]   Pollard, R. Q. Jr. (2014). What if your client is deaf? Atrium Experts Monthly Newsletter,
       9(4).
[61]   Rigney, A. (1999). Questioning in Interpreted Testimony. Forensic Linguistics, 6(1): 83–
       108.
[62]   Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman,
       D. W. (2010). “Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: Implicit assumptions and
       countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(3), 300.
[63]   Rogers, M. K., & Seigfried, K. (2004). The future of computer forensics: a needs analysis
       survey. Computers & Security, 23(1), 12-16.
[64]   Ruan, K., Carthy, J., Kechadi, T., & Baggili, I. (2013). Cloud forensics definitions and
       critical criteria for cloud forensic capability: An overview of survey results. Digital
       Investigation, 10(1), 34-43.
[65]   Russell, D. L. (2000). Interpreting in legal contexts: Consecutive and simultaneous
       interpretation. Calgary.
[66]   Saman, S. (2018). Strategi Linguistik Forensik. Bandung: Pikiran Rakyat.
[67]   Saman, S. (2017). Potensi dan Tantangan Forensik Linguistik di Indonesia. ILSIA, 3.
[68]   Schepard, A. (2004). Children, courts, and custody: Interdisciplinary models for
       divorcing families. Cambridge University Press.
[69]   Scheppele, K. L. (1992). Just the facts ma’am; Sexualized violence, evidentiary habits
       and the revision of truth. New York Law School Law Review, 37(1 & 2), 123-172.
[70]   Schmalleger, F., Donaldson, S., Kashiwahara, K., Koppal, T., Chase, S., Brown, A., ... &
       Marash, D. (2014). Criminal justice today. Prentice Hall.
[71]   Shuy, R. W. (1997). The language of confession, interrogation, and deception (Vol. 2).
       Sage publications.
[72]   Shuy, R. (1993). Language Crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the
       courtroom. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.
[73]   Shuy, R. (1982). Topic as the unit of analysis in a criminal law case. In D. Tannen (Ed.),
       Analyzing discourse: Text and talk (pp. 113–26). Washington, DC: Georgetown
       University Press.
[74]   Singh, A. K., & Sudhakar, A. (2017). Ethical Questions in NLP Research: The (Mis)-Use
       of Forensic Linguistics. arXiv preprint arXiv:1712.07512.
[75]   Smart, C. (1989). Feminism and the power of law. London: Routledge.

[76]   Stone, C., & Woll, B. (2008). Dumb O Jemmy and others: Deaf people, interpreters, and
       the London Courts in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Sign language
       studies, 8(3), 226-240.
[77]   Sullivan, J. M., & Akay, S. (2019). The Play Therapist in the Courtroom: Preparing
       Yourself and Your Client for Court. In Social Issues Surrounding Harassment and
       Assault: Breakthroughs in Research and Practice (pp. 459-480). IGI Global.
[78]   Svartvik J. (1968). The Evans Statements: A Case for Forensic Linguistics. Goteborg:
       University of Goteborg.
[79]   Tuck, B. M. (2010). Preserving facts, form, and function when a deaf witness with
       minimal language skills testifies in court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 158,
       905–956
[80]   Tuck, B. M. (2009). Preserving facts, form, and function when a deaf witness with
       minimal language skills testifies in court. U. Pa. L. Rev., 158, 905.
[81]   Vigil, J. (2016). Building a culturally competent problem-solving court. Colo. Law., 45,
       51.
[82]   Volck, B. (2018). Silent Communion: The Prophetic Witness of The Profoundly
       Disabled. Journal of Disability & Religion, 1-8.
[83]   Vrij, A., Hartwig, M., & Granhag, P. A. (2019). Reading lies nonverbal communication
       and deception. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 295-317.
[84]   Vrij, A., & Granhag, P. A. (2017). Interviewing to detect deception. In Forensic
       Psychology in Context (pp. 93-111). Willan.
[85]   Wilson, H. J., Daugherty, P., & Bianzino, N. (2017). The jobs that artificial intelligence
       will create. MIT Sloan Management Review, 58(4), 14.
[86]   Wilson, D., & McCulloch, J. (2015). Pre-crime: Pre-emption, precaution and the future.
       Routledge.
[87]   Wilson, K., & Foulkes, P. (2014). Borders, variation, and identity: Language analysis for
       the determination of origin (LADO). Language, Borders and Identity, 218-229.
[88]   Zajac, R., Gross, J., & Hayne, H. (2003). Asked and answered: Questioning children in
       the courtroom. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 10(1), 199-209.