Abstract:

The Duke Language and Law Programme, conducted in North Carolina in the 1970s, is still widely cited as evidencing, most notably, that ‘powerless’ language used by witnesses in court adversely influences juror evaluations of their credibility (Tiersma 1999; Gibbons 1994; Levi and Walker 1990). This article will critically reappraise aspects of Duke’s methodological design and query the group’s claims regarding the impact of ‘powerless’ speech. It will further suggest that in order to create a more established future role for forensic linguists as ‘advisers’ to justice system professionals and participants, the ‘duty of care’ owed by linguists to their ‘clients’ must be more closely defined.

Author: Joanna Kerr Thompson