The consequences and effects of language transformations in legal discourse

What is it about?

The discursive use of language in legal contexts is multifaceted and complex. First, it involves the texts of statutes enacted by governmental entities (Congress, Parliament). Second, it concerns the chain of oral narrative structures (statements, recordings, eye-witness accounts, Internet documents) and written texts (confessions, notes, depositions, email, tweets, telephone records) used in a court of law. The transcription of oral communiqués is a potentially transformative phase of evidence production that may be flawed (ambiguity, error, mistakes, gaps). Finally, it includes the textual and narrative representation of nonverbal communication (kinesics, paralanguage, proxemics), and how it is recorded (transcripts, graphics, video, enactments). At each stage, interpretation of narrative structures and texts plays a key role in the ultimate meaning of verbal and nonverbal communication. In criminal cases, legal discourse takes on various forms at multiple points in the judicial process. First, there is the initial contact with law enforcement agents. This usually involves interviews with victims, suspects, and witnesses. Subsequently, notes of such verbal interactions are transcribed. If an individual is charged with a crime according to prescribed legal rituals, that person seeks counsel to represent him or her in subsequent official proceedings. At every phase in these legal encounters, language is the primary medium for adjudicating the final decision. Specific rules determine the verbal and narrative conduct of a legal discourse in a court of law. The potential manipulation of language at every juncture may affect the outcome of a case. This study examines this exploitation of language to achieve desired outcomes by the parties involved in the legal process.

Featured Image