Semantic Analyses in Forensic Text Types

  • Burcu İlkay Karaman Dokuz Eylul University, Department of Linguistics, İzmir
Keywords: linguistics, forensic linguistics, lexical semantics

Abstract

In recent years it has become inevitable to consult linguists in order to gain expert opinion in many forensic investigations. Forensic linguists, who are frequently faced with the analyses of forensic text types, can indeed play an important role in the solution of criminal cases, the tracking down of an offender or essentially may even contribute to the decision-making process of judges. Hence, this article deals with cases which a forensic linguist may encounter in their profession; in particular with cases which include different semantic analysis strategies to be applied in forensic text types. Specifically the case of polysemy will be dealt with, which constitutes a particular instance in relevance to lexical ambiguity and thus represents an important problem in communication. Thus, this article discusses four cases with regard to analyses to be performed in forensic text types by forensic linguists.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

1. Ağaoğlu M. Kayropraktik: Kaliteli ve Dinamik bir Yaşam İçin. Tanıtım Broşürü. Ağaoğlu Kayropraktik Doğal ve Sağlıklı Yaşam Merkezi Turizm Tic. Ltd. Şti., 2006.
2. Aksan D. Anlambilimi ve Türk Anlambilimi: Ana Çizgileriyle. Ankara Üniversitesi Dil ve Tarih – Coğrafya Fakültesi Yayınları: 217. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1971.
3. Aksan, D. Her Yönüyle Dil: Ana Çizgileriyle Dilbilim 3. Atatürk Kültür, Dil ve Tarih Yüksek Kurumu, Türk Dil Kurumu Yayınları: 439/3. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu Basımevi, 1990.
4. Aksan D. Anlambilim: Anlambilim Konuları ve Türkçenin Anlambilimi. Ankara: Engin Yayınevi, 2009.
5. Biber D, Conrad S ve Reppen R. Corpus Linguistics: Investigating Language Structure and Use. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.
6. Cabré T. M. Terminology: Theory, Methods and Applications. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1999.
7. Coulthard M ve Johnson A. An Introduction to Forensic Linguistics: Language in Evidence. London & New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2007.
8. Coulthard M ve Johnson A. The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. London & New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, 2010.
9. Cruse D A. Meaning in Language: An Introduction to Semantics and Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.
10. Crystal D. The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
11. Eades D. “Forensic Linguistics in Australia: An Overview”, Forensic Linguistics, 1994; 1, ii: 113–32. doi: 10.1558/ijsll.v1i2.113.
12. Eades D. “Evidence Given in Unequivocal Terms”: Gaining Consent of Aboriginal Young People in Court”, in Cotterill J. (ed.), Language in the Legal Process, London: Palgrave, 2002; 162–79. doi: 10.1057/9780230522770_10.
13. Eades D. Applied Linguistics and Language Analysis in Asylum Seeker Cases. Applied Linguistics. 2005;26(4):503-26. DOI: 10.1093/applin/ami021
14. Goddard C. Semantic Analysis: A Practical Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
15. Hjelmslev L T. Prolégoménes a une Théorie du Langage. (Dil Kuramına Giriş İlkeleri), Fransızca çeviri, Paris: Les Editions de Minuit, 1968-1971: 69-71.
16. IFLA. Guidelines for Multilingual Thesauri / Working Group on Guidelines for Multilingual Thesauri. The Hague, NL: International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions; 2009. Report No.: 115. URL: https://www.ifla.org/files/assets/hq/publications/professional-report/115.pdf
17. ISO. Documentation-Guidelines for the Establishment and Development of Multilingual Thesauri. Section VII: Degrees of Equivalence. Guidelines for Forming Language Equivalents Geneva, IT1985 [20/08/2017]. Available from: http://glotta.ntua.gr/StateoftheArt/Multilingual-Image-Retrieval/AAT/Contents/definition.html.
18. Karaman BI. Polysemy in Natural Language. Unpublished PhD Thesis. Guildford: University of Surrey, 2003.
19. Karaman BI. On Contronymy. The International Journal of Lexicography. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008; 21 (2): 173-192. doi: 10.1093/ijl/ecn011.
20. Karaman BI. Contronymy in Turkish. Turkish Studies: International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish, 2009; 4 (8): 1642-1651. doi: 10.7827/TurkishStudies.1013
21. Karaman BI. Anlam Karşıtlığı ve Eşdeğerlilik: Almanca’daki ‘aufgeben’ Sözcüğü Üzerine Bir Çalışma. Dilbilim Araştırmaları Dergisi. 2009; 2: 17-35
22. Lutzeier PR. Gegensinn als besondere Form lexikalischer Ambiguität. In: Linguistische Berichte. 1997; 171: 381-395.
23. Lutzeier PR. Polysemie mit spezieller Berücksichtigung des Gegensinns. In: Lexicographica 17. Dolezal FFM, Rey A, Roelcke T, Wiegand EH, Wolski W, Zgusta L. (eds.), Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag. 2001; 69-91.
24. Lutzeier PR. Each Spoken Word Evokes its Opposite Sense: Towards a Dictionary of Words with Opposite Senses, Talk at the Surrey Linguistics Circle, University of Surrey, 2002.
25. Nida EA. Componential Analysis of Meaning. The Hague / Paris / New York: Mouton Publishers, 1975.
26. Picht H, Draskau J. Terminology: An Introduction. Guildford : University of Surrey, Department of Linguistic and International Studies, 1985. 265 p.
27. Rogers MA. Terminology I & II. Unpublished Notes from the MA in Translation Studies. Guildford: University of Surrey, 1997/98.
28. Rogers MA. Lexical Chains in Technical Translation: A Case Study in Indeterminacy. In: Indeterminacy in Terminology and LSP: Studies in Honour of Heribert Picht. Basser, EA (ed.). Terminology and Lexicography Research and Practice 8. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2007; 15-35. doi: 10.1075/tlrp.8.05rog
29. Ungerer F ve Schmid HJ. An Introduction to Cognitive Linguistics. London/New York: Addison Wesley Longman Limited. 1996.
30. Whorf BL. Language, Thought and Reality. Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Carroll, JB. (ed.), Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press, 1956.
31. Orman Bakımı ve Koruya Tahvil (OGM – Orman Genel Müdürlüğü Silvikültür Dairesi Başkanlığı ve Orman Mühendisleri Odası); Erişim Tarihi: 20/08/2017. URL: http://ormuh.org.tr/arsiv/files/Orman%20Bakimi%20ve%20koruya%20donusturme-Yilmaz%20GUN%20%202011.pdf)
32. Silviculture Methods Best Suited for Pine Tree Growth and Biodiversity in Boreal Forests of the World; Erişim Tarihi: 20/08/2017. URL: http://www4.ncsu.edu/~adbolin/world_forestry/
33. The Bank of English User Guide; Erişim Tarihi: 20/08/2017. URL: http://www.titania.bham.ac.uk/docs/svenguide.html
Published
2017-12-23
How to Cite
1.
Karaman B. Semantic Analyses in Forensic Text Types. atb [Internet]. 23Dec.2017 [cited 16Jul.2018];22(3):208-17. Available from: http://www.adlitipbulteni.com/index.php/atb/article/view/1152
Section
Case Reports