Cover not available

In:60 Years of Applied Linguistics: Toward more engaged research
Edited by Grégory Miras, Isabel Colón de Carvajal, Nathalie Blanc and Shona Whyte
[AILA Applied Linguistics Series 22] 2026
► pp. 61–83

Get fulltext
PDF logo with download linkDownload Chapter PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Chapter EPUB

Chapter 4
Language as a trace

The challenges of Applying Linguistics in the legal sphere

ORCiD logo with link | Bundeskriminalamt (BKA) Wiesbaden
Open Access logo
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at rights@benjamins.nl.

Published online: 9 March 2026
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.22.04fob
Abstract
This chapter introduces forensic linguistics as a specialised field of applied linguistics. It addresses the challenges and particular issues that linguistics faces when applied to language as evidence. The focus is on the linguistic trace, its characteristics, and the different conceptions of the idiolect. How these align with or contradict forensic principles is explored from an epistemological and linguistic perspective. Other aspects, such as the appropriate theoretical framework and the role of the expert witness, are also discussed as they influence the acceptance of forensic linguistic work. The chapter advocates for a more differentiated view of forensic linguistics, not only as an applied, but also as a forensic science.
Article outline
  • Introduction
  • 1.Language as a trace
  • 2.Authorship and idiolect
  • 3.The role of the expert
  • 4.The interpretation of the linguistic trace
  • 5.Imparting expert knowledge
  • 6.How science and linguistics are perceived
  • 7.Outlook
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
  • Appendix
References (80)
References
Ainsworth, J. (2022). Serving science and serving justice: Ethical issues faced by forensic linguists in their role as expert witnesses. In V. Guillén-Nieto & D. Stein, D. (Eds.), Language as evidence. Doing forensic linguistics (pp. 35–53). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ainsworth, J., & Juola, P. (2019). Modern forensic authorship analysis as a model for valid forensic science. Washington University Law Review, 96, 1161–1189.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biedermann, A., & Kotsoglou, K. N. (2025). Scientific imperialism: “The judge made me do it!”. Science & Justice, 65(2), 119–125. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2024). Zur (Un-)Wissenschaftlichkeit der Individualisierungspraxis in forensisch-wissenschaftlichen Gutachten. Sui Generis, 11–19. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biedermann, A. (2022). The strange persistence of (source) „identification” claims in forensic literature through descriptivism, diagnosticism and machinism. Forensic Science International Synergy, 4, 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bloch, B. (1948). A set of postulates for phonemic analysis. Language, 24(1), 3–46. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bojsen-Møller, M., Auken, S., Devitt, A. J., & Christensen, T. K. (2020). Illicit genres: The case of threatening communications. Sakprosa, 12(1), 1–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Burkhardt, A. (1994). Abduktion. In T. Lewandowski (Ed.), Linguistisches Wörterbuch [6. Auflage, unveränderter Nachdruck der 5., überarb. Auflage]. Quelle & Meyer. [URL]
Cammarota, V., Bozza, S., Roten, C.-A., & Taroni, F. (2024). Stylometry and forensic science: A literature review. Forensic Science International Synergy, 9, 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Champod, C., & Biedermann, A. (2023). Overview and meaning of identification/individualization. In M. M. Houck (Ed.), Encyclopedia of forensic sciences (Vol. 4, 3rd ed., pp. 53–62). Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chaski, C. E. (2012). Author identification in the forensic setting. In L. M. Solan & P. M. Tiersma (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of language and law (pp. 490–503). Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). Best practices and admissibility of forensic author identification. Journal of Law & Policy, 21(2), 333–376.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cheng, E. K. (2022). The consensus rule: A new approach to scientific evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review, 75(2), 407–474.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chiang, E., Nguyen, D., Towler, A., Haas, M., & Grieve, J. (2020). Linguistic analysis of suspected child sexual offenders’ interactions in a dark web image exchange chatroom. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 27(2), 129–161.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cleland, C. (2002). Methodological and epistemic differences between historical and experimental science. Philosophy of Science, 69(3), 474–496. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cole, S. A. (2009). Forensics without uniqueness, conclusions without individualization: The new epistemology of forensic identification. Law, Probability and Risk, 8, 233–255. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. (2004). Author identification, idiolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics, 25(4), 431–447. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2013). On admissible linguistic evidence. Journal of Law & Policy, 21(2), 441–466.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crispino, F. (2024). Towards a forensic semiotics. Forensic Science International, 357, 1–5. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crispino, F., Roux, C., Delémont, O., & Ribaux, O. (2019). Is the (traditional) Galilean science paradigm well suited to forensic science? WIREs Forensic Science, 1, 1–9. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crispino, F., Weyermann, C., Delémont, O., Roux, C., & Ribaux, O. (2021). Towards another paradigm for forensic science? WIREs Forensic Sciences 4(3), 1–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dittmar, N. (1997). Grundlagen der Soziolinguistik — Ein Arbeitsbuch mit Aufgaben. De Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dror, I. E., Charlton, & Péron, A. E. (2006). Contextual information renders experts vulnerable to making erroneous identifications. Forensic Science International, 156(1), 74–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dürscheid, C., & Schneider, J. G. (2019). Standardsprache und Variation. Narr Francke Attempto.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ehrhardt, S. (2021). Forensic linguistics in German law enforcement. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 8(1), 6–21. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Felder, E. (2016). Einführung in die Varietätenlinguistik. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (WBG).Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Finegan, E. (1993). Ethical considerations for expert witnesses in forensic linguistics. Issues in Applied Linguistics (4)2, 179–187. [URL].
(2009). Expert linguists and the whole truth. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law, 16(2), 267–277. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fobbe, E. (2021). Stilkonzepte in computerbasierten Verfahren der Autorschaftsattribution im forensischen Kontext. In K. Luttermann & A. Busch (Eds.), Recht und Sprache: Konstitutions- und Transferprozesse in nationaler und europäischer Dimension. (pp. 227–249). LIT-Verlag.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2022). Authorship identification. In V. Guillén-Nieto & D. Stein (Eds.), Language as evidence. Doing forensic linguistics (pp. 185–217). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fucks, W. (1968). Nach den Regeln der Kunst. Diagnosen über Literatur, Musik, bildende Kunst — die Werke, ihre Autoren und Schöpfer. Deutsche Verlagsanstalt.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Galasińki, D. (2017). Discourses of men’s suicide notes. A quantitative analysis. Bloomsbury.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gilles, P., Scharloth, J., & Ziegler, E. (Eds.) (2010). Variatio delectat: Empirische Evidenzen und theoretische Passungen sprachlicher Variation Festschrift für Klaus J. Mattheier zum 65. Geburtstag. Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grant, T. (2022). The idea of progress in forensic authorship analysis. Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Grieve, J. (2023). Register variation explains stylometric authorship analysis. Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory, 19(1), 47–77. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guillén-Nieto, V. (2024). The language of harassment: Pragmatic perspectives on language as evidence. Lexington Books.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Guillén-Nieto, V., & Stein, D. (2022). Introduction. Theory and practice in forensic linguistics. In V. Guillén-Nieto & D. Stein (Eds.), Language as evidence. Doing forensic linguistics (pp. 1–33). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hess-Lüttich, E. W. B. (2016). 20. Semiotik. In L. Jäger, W. Holly, P. Krapp, S. Weber, & S. Heekeren (Eds.), Sprache — Kultur — Kommunikation / Language — Culture — Communication: Ein internationales Handbuch zu Linguistik als Kulturwissenschaft / An international handbook of linguistics as a cultural discipline (pp. 191–210). De Gruyter Mouton. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heydon, G. (2019). Researching forensic linguistics. Approaches and applications. Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hund, C. (2016). Der Blinde sucht das Licht: Die Auswahl des Sachverständigen durch den Richter im Strafverfahren. Peter Lang. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2017). Identifying idiolect in forensic authorship attribution. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 1(1), 37–69Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Johnstone, B. (2000). The individual voice in language. Annual Review of Anthropology, 29, 405–424. [URL].
Juola, P. (2015). The rowling case: A proposed standard analytic protocol for authorship questions. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 30(1), 100–113. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kniffka, H. (2021). Forensic linguistic expert testimony in German court cases. Past and present. A note on range of variation, diversity, heterogeneity. Linguistische Berichte, 266, 137–162. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koehler, J., Saks, M. J., & Mnookin, J. (2023). The scientific reinvention of forensic science. PNAS, 120(41), 1–10. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Koehler, J., & Saks, M. J. (2010). Individualization claims in forensic science: Still unwarranted. Brooklyn Law Review, 75, 1187–1208.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Krämer, S. (2016a). Was also ist eine Spur? Und worin besteht ihre epistemologische Rolle? Eine Bestandsaufnahme. In S. Krämer, W. Kogge, & G. Grube (Eds.), Spur. Spurenlesen als Orientierungstechnik und Wissenskunst (pp. 11–33). Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016b). Immanenz und Transzendenz der Spur: Über das epistemologische Doppelleben der Spur. In S. Krämer, W. Kogge, & G. Grube (Eds.), Spur. Spurenlesen als Orientierungstechnik und Wissenskunst (pp. 155–181). Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Leonard, R. A., Ford, J. E. R., & Christensen, T. K. (2017). Forensic linguistics: Applying the science of linguistics to issues of the law. Hofstra Law Review, 45, 881–897.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Longhi, J. (2022). Linguistic approaches to the analysis of online terrorist threats. In V. Guillén-Nieto & D. Stein (Eds.), Language as evidence. Doing forensic linguistics (pp. 439–459). Palgrave Macmillan. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Meester, R., & Slooten, K. (2021). Probability and forensic science. Theory, philosophy, and application. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mnookin, J. L. (2007). Idealizing science and demonizing the expert. An intellectual history of expert evidence. Villanova Law Review, 52(4), 763–801. [URL]
(2008). Expert evidence, partisanship and epistemic competence. Brooklyn Law Review, 73(2), 587–611. [URL]
Mosteller, F., & Wallace, D. L. (1984). Applied Bayesian and classical inference: The case of the federalist papers (2nd ed.). Springer. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oksaar, E. (2000). Idiolekt als Grundlage der variationsorientierten Linguistik. Sociolinguistica, 14, 37–41. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pape, H. (2016). Fußabdrücke und Eigennamen. Peirces Theorie des relationalen Kerns der Bedeutung indexikalischer Zeichen. In S. Krämer, W. Kogge, & G. Grube (Eds.), Spur. Spurenlesen als Orientierungstechnik und Wissenskunst (pp. 37–54). Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Picornell, I., Perkins, R., & Coulthard, M. (2022). Methodologies and challenges in forensic linguistic casework. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Queralt, S. (2018). The creation of Base Rate Knowledge of linguistic variables and the implementation of likelihood ratios to authorship attribution in forensic text comparison. Language and Law / Linguagem e Direito, 5(2), 59–76.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Reichertz, J. (1999). Gültige Entdeckung des Neuen? Zur Bedeutung der Abduktion in der qualitativen Sozialforschung. Österreichische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 24(4), 47–64.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2016). Die Spur des Fahnders oder: Wie Polizisten Spuren finden. In S. Krämer, W. Kogge, & G. Grube (Eds.), Spur. Spurenlesen als Orientierungstechnik und Wissenskunst (pp. 309–332). Suhrkamp.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Renaut, L., Ascone, L., & Longhi, J. (2017). De la trace langagière à l’indice linguistique: Enjeux et précautions d’une linguistique forensique. Éla. Études de Linguistique Appliquée, 188(4), 423–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roberts, P. (2017). Making forensic science fit for justice. Australian Journal of Forensic Sciences, 49(5), 502–525. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robertson, B., & Vignaux, G. A. (1995). Interpreting evidence. Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom. Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Robertson, B., Vignaux, G. A., & Berger, C. E. H. (2016). Interpreting evidence. Evaluating forensic science in the courtroom (2nd ed.). Wiley & Sons. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Roux, C., Willis, S., & Weyermann, C. (2021). Shifting forensic science focus from means to purpose. A path forward for the discipline? Science & Justice, 61, 678–686. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Saks, M. L., & Koehler, J. (2008). The individualization fallacy in forensic science evidence. Vanderbilt Law Review, 61, 199–219.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Shim, A. (2022). Forensic linguistics: Science or fiction? Hastings Law Journal, 74(1), 207–234. [URL]
Shuy, R. W. (2006). Linguistics in the courtroom. A practical guide. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(1997). Language crimes: The abuse of language evidence in the courtroom (reprint). Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2015). The language of fraud cases. Oxford University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2023). Forensic linguistics. In M. M. Houck (Ed.), Encyclopedia of forensic sciences (Vol. 2, 3rd ed., pp. 620–629). Elsevier. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solan, L. M. (2019). Legal linguistics in the US. Looking back, looking ahead. In F. Vogel (Ed.), Legal linguistics beyond borders: Language and law in a world of media, globalisation and social conflicts (pp. 19–37). Duncker & Humblot.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solan, L. M., & Tiersma, P. M. (2004). Author identification in American courts. Applied Linguistics, 25(4), 448–465. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Spitzmüller, J. (2009). Metasprachliches Wissen diesseits und jenseits der Linguistik. In T. Weber & G. Antos (Eds.), Typen von Wissen. Begriffliche Unterscheidung und Ausprägung in der Praxis des Wissenstransfers (pp. 112–126). Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2011). Sprachkritik und Wissenstransfer. Wege zu einem kritischen Selbstverständnis. In J. Schiewe (Ed.), Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur. Konzepte und Impulse für Wissenschaft und Öffentlichkeit (pp. 167–178). Hempen.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stoney, D. A. (1991). What made us ever think we could individualize using statistics? Journal of the Forensic Science Society, 31, 197–199. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
(2012). Discussion on the paper by Neumann, Evett and Skerrett. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 175, 399–400.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
StPO. Strafprozessordnung. The German code of criminal procedure. [URL]
Wright, D., & Picornell, I. (2024). Semiotic perspectives on forensic and legal linguistics: Unifying approaches in the language of the legal process and language in evidence. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 37, 293–304. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
ZPO. Zivilprozessordnung. The German code of civil procedure. [URL]
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue