Pragmatic Analysis of Undercover Tapes in a Child Molestation Case

​

Carole Chaski

Institute for Linguistic Evidence, Delaware, USA

​

Abstract

Both semantics and pragmatics have provided analytical methods for lines of very productive research in language and law, including analyses of police interrogation techniques, trial questioning and judicial interpretation. This talk focuses on the use of semantics and pragmatics within forensic linguistics. In particular, this talk addresses the question: what can the forensic linguist provide as evidence regarding the meaning of conversation and the intention of interlocutors in conversation? A related question is: where are the appropriate boundaries, regarding interpretation of linguistic evidence, for the forensic linguist? The data on which this talk is based are conversations that were recorded in undercover surveillance between the mother of the alleged victim of molestation and the alleged perpetrator. The alleged victim was a 14 year old girl who knew the alleged perpetrator. The alleged perpetrator was a family friend and medical doctor. These tape-recorded conversations became forensic linguistic evidence because, from the perspective of the prosecutor and prosecution expert, the conversations provided a confession to and apology for the molestation, while from the perspective of the defense and the defense expert, the conversations did not contain a confession but did contain an apology for difficulties in the inter-familial relations that occurred after the mother informed the police about the alleged molestation, but no apology for the molestation itself. After the prosecution expert’s report was provided to the defense, the defense withdrew the defense expert. At trial the jury heard the tape recorded conversations. The defendant was found guilty. This talk examines the strategy provided by both the defense and prosecution experts, and spotlights the appropriate boundaries for forensic linguists regarding the use of semantics and pragmatics.