Lawrence M. Solan, Don Forchelli Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, Brooklyn Law School
International Linguistic Association Monthly Meeting
Saturday, October 9, 2010

You can also download the audio from this presentation in MP3 format, or subscribe to our audio feed as RSS or in iTunes.

Add to Google Calendar

May 12, 2012 11:00 am
John Jay College of Criminal Justice, Room L2.82
524 W 59th St
New York,NY 10019

See details in our calendar.

Although the academic analysis of suicide-related communications often centers on attempting to identify indicators of victim intent (e.g. actual suicide vs. “cry for help”), it is more important to first determine whether such communications were indeed authored by the victim or whether the apparent suicide and related communications were staged in an attempt to cover up a murder or attempted murder. Hence, alleged written suicide communications should never be assessed in isolation but rather in comparison with known writings of the victim and, if the investigation dictates, with the known writings of others who may be suspects in the authorship of the communication and/or the actual death.

In 2007, three separate homicides/homicide attempts in Pennsylvania, New York, and Virginia were initially handled as suicides, as each crime scene included an alleged suicide communication. However, in each case factors emerged that suggested homicide (and, in one case, attempted homicide). In each case, forensic linguistic comparison of the alleged suicide communication with documents known to be authored by the victim and by suspected perpetrators yielded invaluable evidence indicative of inconsistency of the “suicide” notes with the victims’ known writings and/or consistency with those of the suspects. Each case resulted in an arrest for the charge of homicide and the eventual successful conviction of each.

In this presentation, I will outline the forensic linguistic analyses conducted in connection with these cases, demonstrating the efficacy of qualitative and quantitative forensic stylistic methods of authorial attribution focusing on such features as punctuation, orthography and lexical usages. I will highlight linkages between forensic stylistics and sociolinguistic studies of stylistic variation and authorial imitation, as well as recent computational linguistic methods in authorial attribution of computer mediated communications, thereby demonstrating the solid linguistic basis as well as practical utility of the authorial attribution methods used in these three cases.

A buzz is going around in U.S. undergraduate education — the buzz of “global awareness/perspectives/literacy/proficiencies” etc. For some, it encapsulates the essence of a liberal arts education for the 21st century, for others it represents a sloppy use of language or straightforward gibberish. From a more dispassionate point of view, the discussion about the advantages or disadvantages of a global education can be seen as an indication for a widespread uncertainty how to best prepare students for a successful life as professionals and citizens in an increasingly interconnected world. In his talk, Jochen Fried will focus not so much on specific models of, or approaches to, global education. Instead, he will analyze some of the the discourse patterns which underpin this call for a reorientation of what constitutes a meaningful and relevant education for an age of mounting complexity and uncertainty.

Note new address: 524 West 59th Street (between 10th and 11th Ave), Room L2.82!

Lexicography is often reducible to cycling units of information, especially words. It is usually done, especially in what is often called commercial lexicography, with an eye on the clock. Budgets for dictionary projects are usually quite restricting. One consequence of such confinement is the headache of complying with production schedules, often imposed by a publisher. This brief presentation will focus on what such headaches entail and whether or not there is a suitable cure: (1) One of the most important challenges for present-day dictionary editors is the large numbers which accompany collections of evidence. (2) “Where do all the new words come from?” (3) Print, electronic, and Web-based, each have attractors and detractors—what to do? (4) “Doomed-ness” of unabridged dictionaries—reality or dreaming. These four problem areas are of interest but probably not of overwhelming importance to teachers and students. Their headaches include: (5) Why is it here and not there? (6) Why is it neither here nor there? (7) How do I get my students to read the “blankity-blank” front matter? These half-dozen or so issues and more will be discussed; there’s room for your headaches, too.

Note the new location! 524 West 59th Street, room L2.82!
Saturday, February 25, 2012, 11:00 am – 12:00 pm

Miguel A. Jiménez-Crespo, Rutgers University
International Linguistic Association Monthly Meeting
Saturday, October 22, 2011

You can also download the audio from this presentation in MP3 format, or subscribe to our audio feed as RSS or in iTunes.

Kristine Billmyer, Columbia University
International Linguistic Association Monthly Meeting
Saturday, May 14, 2011

You can also download the audio from this presentation in MP3 format, or subscribe to our audio feed as RSS or in iTunes.

Haralambos Symeonidis, University of Kentucky
International Linguistic Association Monthly Meeting
November 14, 2009

You can also download the audio from this presentation in MP3 format, or subscribe to our audio feed as RSS or in iTunes.

Martin R. Gitterman, Lehman College and The Graduate Center, CUNY
International Linguistic Association Monthly Meeting
December 12, 2009

You can also download the audio from this presentation in MP3 format, or subscribe to our audio feed as RSS or in iTunes.

More details are on our event calendar.