61
Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as a Linguistic Matter

Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

  • Upload
    others

  • View
    4

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

DiscourseAnalysisinForensicLinguistics:DefamationasaLinguisticMatter

Page 2: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

MEANING EXPRESSION

CONTEXT

InterpretationReliesonContext

Page 3: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

MEANING EXPRESSION

CONTEXT

InterpretationReliesonContext

CONTEXT

Page 4: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

MEANING EXPRESSION

CONTEXT

ExpressionHelpsBalanceContexts

Page 5: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

InterpretationReliesonContext

JohnwasonhiswaytoschoollastFridayandwasreallyworriedaboutthemathlesson.

Page 6: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Lastweek,hehadbeenunabletocontroltheclass.

Page 7: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

JohnwasonhiswaytoschoollastFridayandwasreallyworriedaboutthemathlesson.

Lastweek,hehadbeenunabletocontroltheclass.

Itwasnotfairforthemathteachertoleavehimincharge.

RobertLeonard,quotedbyJackHitt,NewYorker 7/23/12

Page 8: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

“Thereisnolawyer’sParadisewhereallwordshaveafixed,preciselyascertainedmeaning;andwhereifthewriterhasbeencareful,alawyerhavingadocumentreferredtohim,maysitinhischair,inspectthetext,andanswerallquestionswithoutraisinghiseyes.”

J.B.Thayer,APreliminaryTreatiseonEvidenceatCommonLaw (1898),428-29(parSamiJerby, العقدتفسیر Tafsir Al’aqd ‘ContractInterpretation,’121.)

Page 9: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Expressionsgenerallyhavemultiplepossiblemeanings

Expression E 1MeaningA2MeaningB3MeaningCMeaning...Meaning...

Page 10: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

• Noclear,preciseboundaryenclosestextmeaning.• Meaningisnotlimitedtothemeaningsofatext’swords.

• Everytextmustbeinterpretedbymovingthemindbetweenthetext,thecontext,andworldknowledge.

Page 11: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Howdoescontext(co-text,multi-modalrepresentation,worldknowledge)interactwithtexttoconveyadefamatoryeffecttoreaders?—evenwheneverysentence,consideredindependently,maybefactuallytrue?Howcantextitselfbemanipulatedtoconveyadefamatoryimpressionwhileclaimingtobetrue?

Page 12: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Defamation,LibelandSlander

Defamation—issuingafalsestatementaboutanotherperson,whichcausesthatpersontosufferharm

Defamation—termbroadlyusedforbothprintedmedium(“libel”)andtransitoryorspokenmedium(“slander”)

Page 13: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

PremisesforaLinguist• FLrequiresattentiontocontext(co-text,worldknowledge,multi-modalrepresentation).

• Advocatestelllinguistsonlyselectedfactsaboutacase.

• Expertopinionsaddressonlynarrowquestions--notbasicquestionsofdisputeresolution(orjustice!),whicharetheprerogativeofthefinderoffact.

• Expertsserveasconsultants,notadvocates.• Courts,juries,litigantsdecideoutcomes—notlinguistic(orother)experts.

Page 14: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

PremisesforaLinguist• Justoutcomesdon’tfallwithinanexpert’spurview.• Bothdraftingandrebuttinganexpertreportcanadvancemethodsofanalysisandthestatusofthefield,aswellasjustice.

• Rebuttalopinionshelpminimizeeffectsofframingbyadvocatesandshouldnotberegardedaspersonal.

• Bewise:imaginealinguistretainedtorebutyouranalysisandanticipatethecritique.

Page 15: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

What’saspeechact?

Anutterance/locutionthatdoes something—compliments,declares—apologizes,swears,congratulates—impeaches,orders,offersajudgment—claims,accuses

Page 16: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

ScriptedSpeechActs“Performatives”(J.L.Austin)

• Objection,yourhonor!• Wefindthedefendantnotguilty.• Overruled!• Casedismissed!• Foulball!• Safe!• Out!

Page 17: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Grice’sCooperativePrinciple

“Makeyourconversationalcontributionsuchasisrequired,atthestageatwhichitoccurs,bytheacceptedpurposeordirectionofthetalkexchangeinwhichyouareengaged.”

Page 18: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

MaximofCP:Quality

• Betruthful.Sayonlywhatyoubelievetobetrueandhaveevidencefor.

• Speakersareawarethathearersexpectthemtohonorthemaximofquality.

• Thatexpectationiswhatmakeslyingpossible!

Page 19: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

MaximofCP:QuantityBeappropriatelyinformative

Culturallydefinedexpectationsthatrelevantinformationwillnotbeconcealed.

InWesterncultures,listenersexpectspeakerstoabidebythismaxim.(Alsoreaders/writers)

Speakersrelyonthefactthathearersbelievethespeakerisactinginaccordancewiththemaxim.(&writers/readers)

Restingonculturallyunderstoodexpectations,theunspokencooperationcreatesconversationalimplicatures.

Page 20: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

QuantityBeappropriatelyinformative

“Doyouhaveany children?”“Yes,Ihavetwo sons.”

Conversationalimplicature (suggestion):Ihaveonlytwosons(notthreeorfour)andIdon’thaveanydaughters.

Page 21: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Relevance:Berelevant totheexchangeatthetimeoftheutterance

Withaseeminglyirrelevantutterance,interlocutorstypicallystrivetounderstandhowitmightberelevant

—ajoke?—indicatedispleasurewiththedirectionofthe

talk?—howdoesitfitinwitheverythingelsethatthe

text/speecheventandspeechactareabout?

Page 22: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Manner:Beorderlyandclear!(Avoidambiguityandobscurity)

Do1and2meanthesamething?

1.Theygotmarriedandhadababy.2.Theyhadababyandgotmarried.

Conversationalimplicature (suggestion):Howdoestheorderingoftheclausesreflectorsuggesttheorderingoftheevents.

Page 23: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Manner:Beorderlyandclear!

That’swhy#2seemsoddorunnatural!

1.Hegotsickanddied?2.Hediedandgotsick.

Page 24: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Conversation:contextdependent,reliantoncultural

knowledge,oftenindirect

Virginia:(12:15) Haveyoueatenlunchyet?Steve: Ihavetoteachat12:30…Virginia: Oh,okay!Anothertime,then.

Page 25: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

IndirectSpeechActs

Richard: Isthebossin?Ron: Light’sonin’er office.Richard: Oh,okay,thanks!

Page 26: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Characteristicsofindirectspeechacts(ISA)

1. Violateamaximofthecooperativeprinciple(CP)2. Literalmeaning differsfrom intendedmeaning3. HowhearersandreadersidentifyISA:

a)noticeutteranceviolatesa maximofCPb)assumeinterlocutorishonoringCP

4. Whenhearers/readersidentifyanISA,theydecipheritsintendedmeaningwiththehelpofcontextualandworldknowledge.

Page 27: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

AGricean Application

Page 28: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

AttorneyJamesRagan’sWebsite

OnOctober31,2016,JamesReaganobtaineda$5.96millionjuryverdict,includinganawardof$5millioninpunitivedamages,onbehalfofhisclientDr.SaraSilatone.Thecase,formaliciousprosecution,wasfiledagainstDefendantsAlexHeeandRolandSilatone.ThecasewastriedtothejuryforoverfourweeksandresultedinoneofthebiggestverdictsformaliciousprosecutioninthehistoryofSanAntonioCountyandoneofthelargestverdictsforthe2016year.

Page 29: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Eachstatementistrue

üOnOctober31,2016,JamesRaganobtaineda$5.96millionjuryverdict,includinganawardof$5millioninpunitivedamages,onbehalfofhisclientDr.SaraSilatone.

üThecase,formaliciousprosecution,wasfiledagainstDefendantsAlexHee andRolandSilatone.

üThecasewastriedtothejuryforoverfourweeksandresultedinoneofthebiggestverdictsformaliciousprosecutioninthehistoryofSanAntonioCountyandoneofthelargestverdictsforthe2016year.

Page 30: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

In-classactivity

• GroupA1. Wasthejury’sverdictagainstAlexHee?2. Wasthejury’sverdictagainstRoland

Silatone?• GroupB1. DidAlexHee havetopaypunitivedamages?2. DidRolandSilatone havetopaypunitive

damages?

Page 31: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

üOnOctober31,2016,JamesRaganobtaineda$5.96millionjuryverdict,includinganawardof$5millioninpunitivedamages,onbehalfofhisclientDr.SaraSilatone.

üThecase,formaliciousprosecution,wasfiledagainstDefendantsAlexHee andRolandSilatone.

üThecasewastriedtothejuryforoverfourweeksandresultedinoneofthebiggestverdictsformaliciousprosecutioninthehistoryofSanAntonioCountyandoneofthelargestverdictsforthe2016year.

Page 32: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

1.Wasthejury’sverdictagainstAlexHee andRolandSilatone?2.DidAlexHee andRolandSilatone havetopaypunitivedamages?

ü…JamesRaganobtaineda$5.96millionjuryverdict,includinganawardof$5millioninpunitivedamages,onbehalfofhisclientDr.SaraSilatone.

üThecase,formaliciousprosecution,wasfiledagainstDefendantsAlexHee andRolandSilatone.

üThecasewastriedtothejuryforoverfourweeksandresultedinoneofthebiggestverdictsformaliciousprosecutioninthehistoryofSanAntonioCounty…

Page 33: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

1.Wasthejury’sverdictagainstAlexHee andRolandSilatone?2.DidAlexHee andRolandSilatone havetopaypunitivedamages?

ü…JamesRaganobtaineda$5.96millionjuryverdict,includinganawardof$5millioninpunitivedamages,onbehalfofhisclientDr.SaraSilatone.

üThecase,formaliciousprosecution,wasfiledagainstDefendantsAlexHee andRolandSilatone.

üThecasewastriedtothejuryforoverfourweeksandresultedinoneofthebiggestverdictsformaliciousprosecutioninthehistoryofSanAntonioCounty…

Page 34: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

1.Wasthejury’sverdictagainstAlexHee?2.Wasthejury’sverdictagainstRolandSilatone?3.DidAlexHee havetopaypunitivedamages?4.DidRolandSilatone havetopaypunitivedamages?

ü…JamesRaganobtaineda$5.96millionjuryverdict,includinganawardof$5millioninpunitivedamages,onbehalfofhisclientDr.SaraSilatone.

üThecase,formaliciousprosecution,wasfiledagainstDefendantsAlexHee andRolandSilatone.

üThecasewastriedtothejuryforoverfourweeksandresultedinoneofthebiggestverdictsformaliciousprosecutioninthehistoryofSanAntonioCounty…

Page 35: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Tabloids

Page 36: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Relyonsensationalstoriesaboutfamouspeople.(Hollywoodstars,televisionpersonalities,politicalfigures)Mesmerizingphotosonfrontpagewithsuggestiveorprovocativeheadlines.Headlinesandphotoscatchtheeyeofshoppersatsupermarketcheck-outcounters.

Tabloids

Page 37: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Headlines,stories,andcall-outsarelinguisticexpressions.Especiallywhencoupledwithothermodes(e.g.,photography)andinterpretedinlightofworldknowledge,tabloidstoriesmayconveyunfavorableimpressionssoharmfulthatthetargetdeemsthearticledefamatory andfilesalawsuit.

Page 38: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers
Page 39: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

In1997MarthaStewartbroughta$10millionlawsuitagainsttheNationalEnquirerforanarticleentitled,“MarthaStewartIsMentallyIll.”

Page 40: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

The Enquirer quoted "nationally renowned expert" Dr Leland Heller as calling Martha Stewart

1) a "textbook example [of] borderline personality disorder”

2) with a proclivity for "self-mutilation and suicidal threats.”

Eventually, the tabloid admitted defeat and offered a substantial pay-off to soothe Stewart’s feelingsof “shame, mortification and emotional distress.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/1999/nov/03/tvandradio.g2

Page 41: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Storiesarepowerfulframingdevices!

Page 42: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

InAdversarialLegalSettings

Storiestoldfromcompetingpointsofviewwillrepresentdifferenttruths(andmayamounttofalsehood).

Notsurprisingthat,intheU.S.,litigantsonbothsidesretainexpertlinguists—incivilcases(trademark,defamation,contractinterpretation,authorshipanalysis)andcriminalcases(authorship,murder)

Page 43: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

ArethaFranklin

Page 44: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

PerspectiveforLinguisticsExpert“A”Franklin,59,hasbeenoneofpopmusic’s

mostrespectedvoices,thankstoaslewofhitsdatingfromthe‘60sincludingRespect,NaturalWoman,ChainofFoolsandFreewayofLove.

ShealsoholdstheprestigiousdistinctionofbeingthefirstwomaninductedintotheRockandRollHallofFame,in1987.

Page 45: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

PerspectiveforLinguisticsExpert“B”Franklin,59,hasbeenoneofpopmusic’s

mostrespectedvoices,thankstoaslewofhitsdatingfromthe‘60sincludingRespect,NaturalWoman,ChainofFoolsandFreewayofLove.

ShealsoholdstheprestigiousdistinctionofbeingthefirstwomaninductedintotheRockandRollHallofFame,in1987.

Butovertimeherdrinkinghasgottenoutofcontrol,saypals.

Page 46: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers
Page 47: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

WHICHISTHEHEADLINE?

Page 48: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

this?

ARETHA FRANKLIN DRINKINGHERSELF INTO THE GRAVE

Page 49: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

orthis?

FRIENDS FEAR:

ARETHA FRANKLIN DRINKINGHERSELF INTO THE GRAVE

Page 50: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

TheCall-OutsCall-out:

“Gladysisespeciallydevastated-- atherwit’send.”

Text“Gladysisespeciallydevastatedattheextentofherfriend’sdrinkingandshe’satherwit’sendtryingtogethertostop.”

Page 51: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers
Page 52: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

LosAngelesTimesNov.30,2001

Soul singer Aretha Franklin has filed a $50-million lawsuit against American Media Inc., the publisher of the Star tabloid magazine, claiming she was defamed by an article that said she abuses alcohol.

The lawsuit stems from a … story headlined "Aretha Franklin Drinking Herself into the Grave," which said that the Queen of Soul had an alcohol problem that caused her to cancel a host of concert appearances, and posed a threat to her career and health.

Page 53: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Overallconclusionbylinguisticsexpert

TheStar articleconveysaclearandstrongimpressionthatArethaFranklinhasaseriousdrinkingproblem,whichthreatenshercareerandherlife.Themessageisintroduced,framed,andunderscoredinthearticle’sheadlineandarticulatedthroughoutinthecontent.

TherepeateduseofphrasesandexpressionsthatcontributetotheoverallimpressionthatArethaFranklinhasaseriousdrinkingproblemindicatesthatsuchanimpressionwasconveyeddeliberatelyandpurposefully.

Page 54: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Speecheventsandtheirspeechactsarecontextdependent.

Interpretationreliesonculturalknowledge.

Interpretationoftenindirect—butcleartoordinaryhearersandreaders.

Page 55: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

Otherspeechevents(genres,registers)andtheirspeechactsalsocontextdependent.

Interpretationreliesonculturalknowledge.

Interpretationoftenindirect—butcleartotheordinaryspeaker.

Page 56: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

AnApology?

Page 57: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

FeaturesofApologiesandNon-Apologies

ApologyUsesexplicitverbofapologyTakesresponsibilityOffersanaccountOfferstorepairsituationOfferspromiseofforbearanceUsesintensifyingexpressionsExpressesconcernforhearer

Non-apologyFailstoadmitwrongdoingImpliesotherpartythinskinnedBelittlesotherpartyShiftsblame(I’msorryif…)ClaimstobeunawareactionswereinappropriateAppearstoapologizeunderduress

Page 58: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

1. QueenofSoulArethaFranklin- who’smadeacareerperformingbreathtakingsongsabouttheaffairsoftheheart– alsoknowsathingortwoaboutnotgettingenoughR-E-S-P-E-C-T.

2. TheGrammy-winningmusiclegend,59,saysourrecentreportthatfriendsareconcernedaboutherdrinkingissimplynottrue.

3. Infact,Arethasaysshedoesn’tevendrinkatall!Shealsosaysshehasnotmissedanyconcertsduetodrinking.

4. Inastatementreleasedbyherrecordcompany,Arista,thesingingsensationsaysshewas“appalledandshocked”tohearoftheaccusationsandexplainsshecanceledoneortwoappearancesoutof50ormorethisyearforlegitimatereasons.

ARETHAWANTSRESPECT

Page 59: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

5. Arethaexplainsshewas“extremelydisappointed”thatshecouldn’tsingthenationalanthemforPrinceAlbertofMonacoattheMercedes-BenzPolochallengekickoffinBridgehampton,NewYork,duringthesummer

6. “IhadforgottenIhadapreviouscommitment,”shesays.7. AndonValentine’sDay,she’lltakethestageatMusicHall

CenterforthePerformingArtsinDetroitwitha14-pieceorchestratoshareherincredibletalentandwell-earnedreputationasR&Bnobilitywithherhometownfans.

8. AspokeswomanforthepoloeventsaysAretha’scancellationpresentednoproblembecauseshegavethemplentyofnotice.

9. InOctoberthesoulfuldivamadeheramendstoMonaco’smonarchywhenshewowedthecrowdbytakingtheWaldorf-Astoriaballroomstageforanhourand45minutesduringthePrincessGraceFoundationUSAawardsgalainNewYork.

Page 60: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers

10. HerbenefitperformanceamonthlaterattheChicagoChildren’sMuseumhelpedraisemorethan$400,000duringtheirlavish“BeaKidAgain”benefitatNavyPier’sGrandBallroominChicago.

11. AndonValentine’sDay,she’lltakethestageatMusicHallCenterforthePerformingArtsinDetroitwitha14-pieceorchestratoshareherincredibletalentandwell-earnedreputationasR&Bnobilitywithherhometownfans.

12. Arethahasbeenoneofpopmusic’smostrespectedvoicesformorethanfourdecades,thankstoaslewofhits,includingRespect,NaturalWoman,ChainofFools,ThinkandFreewayofLove.

13. ShealsoholdstheprestigiousdistinctionofbeingthefirstwomaninductedintotheRockandRollHallofFame,in1987.

BOBMICHALS

Page 61: Discourse Analysis in Forensic Linguistics: Defamation as ... · 1. Violate a maxim of the cooperative principle (CP) 2. Literal meaning differs from intended meaning 3. How hearers