We often think of linguistics as abstract—syntax trees, phonemes, or semantic shifts. But what if I told you that linguistics could help solve crimes? Recently I came across the term forensic linguistics, which took me down a bit of a rabbit hole as I tried to find out what it entails.
What exactly is forensic linguistics?
Coined by Jan Svartvik in 1968 while examining inconsistencies in police statements, forensic linguistics is now a wide-ranging field that applies phonetics, pragmatics, syntax, discourse analysis & more to legal problems. It helps lawyers, judges & investigators understand what was said, how it was said, & why it matters.
Coulthard & Johnson (2007) define the field as the analysis of language as used in legal settings—whether that’s written law, courtroom interactions, or digital communication. It includes identifying authors of anonymous texts, analysing ambiguity in contracts, or determining whether a suspect really confessed.
For example, linguists are often called in to:
- Determine authorship of threatening emails by comparing idiolect (a person’s unique linguistic “fingerprint”)
- Identify bias or coercion in police interviews
- Analyse the meaning of slurs, emojis or code-switching in social media posts
- Unpack legal jargon in legislation to see how it might confuse non-experts
A recent contribution to the field is Paramita Kusumawardhani’s 2024 study in the International Journal of English and Applied Linguistics, which is a compelling dive into how language analysis is used in real-life legal cases—from defamation to digital threats.
Two cases, one common thread: Words matter
Kusumawardhani’s article highlights two Indonesian legal cases:
Prita Mulyasari, a mother who emailed a friend to complain about misdiagnosis at a private hospital. The email went viral & the hospital sued her for defamation. Linguists helped determine whether her statements met the legal threshold for “humiliation” or “unlawful acts” by analysing tone, intent & context. Was it an expression of frustration, or a deliberate smear campaign? Her language became the evidence.
Zaskia Gotik, a pop singer, answered a patriotic quiz question on TV with a joke (“August 32” as Independence Day; “the duck” as a national emblem). While seemingly harmless, it was deemed disrespectful to national symbols. Linguists explored whether the act constituted an intentional insult (mens rea), or whether it was performance-based humour. This illustrates how meaning & motive can diverge—especially in public discourse.
In both cases, linguists weren’t there to assign guilt, but to analyse how language functioned. What speech acts were being performed? Was there irony? What were the power dynamics?
As the digital era accelerates, the stakes are higher. A tweet, a voice note, a WhatsApp message—any of these can become legal texts, requiring expert interpretation.
How is this different from traditional linguistics?
Forensic linguistics blends descriptive linguistics with practical legal application. You’ll find linguists:
- Applying forensic phonetics to identify a speaker in a poor-quality recording
- Using corpus linguistics to compare suspected plagiarism in political speeches or academic work
- Analysing discourse in legal testimony for patterns of credibility or evasion
- Decoding semiotics in protest signs, graffiti or logos that become part of legal disputes
- Conducting dialectology to determine where a speaker might be from—or whether they’re faking an accent
We often ask students to understand meaning. But forensic linguistics asks us to prove it—contextually, pragmatically, & sometimes, legally. It shows how language is never neutral, always situated, & occasionally… life-changing.
Teacher Takeaways?
Even if we’re not training future expert witnesses, ELT teachers can borrow from this field to make lessons more meaningful, critical & socially relevant:
- Analyse authentic materials with legal consequences Try using controversial tweets, public apologies or viral emails. Get students to spot ambiguous phrasing, tone shifts, or modal verbs that express doubt or certainty (e.g. “might have caused offence” vs “clearly insulted”).
- Introduce genre awareness & register Compare courtroom language with everyday speech. How do sentence structure, formality & word choice shift? AI could lend a hand here, I reckon.
- Use forensic-style tasks in writing & speaking For instance: “How could we rewrite this to sound more objective.” It’s a creative way to encourage clarity, precision & reader awareness.
Have you ever used controversial public statements, celebrity apologies or courtroom transcripts in class?
Leave a Reply