1887
Volume 14, Issue 1
  • ISSN 1874-8767
  • E-ISSN: 1874-8775
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

The Hillsborough football stadium disaster (1989) in Sheffield, UK, led to the deaths of 96 football fans and resulted in the longest jury case in British legal history (2016). This article examines the witness statements of two Sheffield residents who claim to have attended the match. Using a mixed-methods approach that incorporates a cognitive linguistic framework (Text World Theory) with visualisation software (VUE) we consider both form and function of a number of linguistic features, such as meta-narrative, evaluative lexis, syntax, and modality to investigate how institutional voices permeate and potentially distort layperson narratives. Our analysis casts doubt on the veracity of the statements and raises questions about what can be considered evidential in a forensic investigation.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00042.can
2021-09-15
2021-09-18
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Bakhtin, Mikhail
    1986Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Austin TX: University of Texas Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baldwin, James
    1993 Police interview techniques: Establishing truth or proof?British Journal of Criminology33(3): 325–352. 10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048329
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048329 [Google Scholar]
  3. Canning, Patricia
    2017 Text World Theory and real world readers: From literature to life in a Belfast prison. Language and Literature26(2): 172–187. 10.1177/0963947017704731
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947017704731 [Google Scholar]
  4. 2018 “No ordinary crowd”: Foregrounding a “hooligan schema” in the construction of witness narratives following the Hillsborough football stadium disaster. Discourse and Society29(3): 237–255. 10.1177/0957926517734665
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926517734665 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2020 Retellings in the Hillsborough witness statements. InNarrative Retellings: Stylistic Approaches, Marina Lambrou (ed.). London: Bloomsbury, 143–161.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Coleman, Sheila, Anne Jemphrey, Phil Scraton & Paula Skidmore
    1990Hillsborough and After: The Liverpool Experience. Liverpool: City Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Coulthard, Malcolm
    2004 Author identification, ideolect, and linguistic uniqueness. Applied Linguistics24(4): 431–447. 10.1093/applin/25.4.431
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/25.4.431 [Google Scholar]
  8. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1994Mental Spaces: Aspects of Meaning Construction in Natural Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511624582
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511624582 [Google Scholar]
  9. Fauconnier, Gilles & Mark Turner
    2002The Way We Think: Conceptual Blending and the Mind’s Hidden Complexities. New York NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Finegan, Edward
    2010 Legal writing: attitude and emphasis. Corpus linguistic approaches to ‘legal language’: adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions”. InThe Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics, Malcolm Coulthard & Alison Johnson (eds). London: Routledge, 65–77.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fox, Gwyneth
    1993 A comparison of ‘policespeak’ and ‘normalspeak’: A preliminary study. InTechniques of Description; Spoken and written discourse. A festschrift for Malcolm Coulthard, John Sinclair, Michael Hoey and Gwyneth Fox (eds). London: Routledge, 183–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Garner, Bryan
    1995A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 2004The Winning Brief, 2nd edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Gavins, Joanna
    2005 (Re)thinking modality: A text world perspective. Journal of Literary Semantics34: 79–93. 10.1515/jlse.2005.34.2.79
    https://doi.org/10.1515/jlse.2005.34.2.79 [Google Scholar]
  15. Gibbons, John
    2003Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Justice System. Wiley-Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grant, Tim & Kevin Baker
    2001 Identifying reliable, valid markers of authorship: A response to Chaski. Forensic Linguistics8(1): 66–79. 10.1558/sll.2001.8.1.66
    https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2001.8.1.66 [Google Scholar]
  17. Grice, Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InStudies in the Way of Words. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press. 10.1163/9789004368811_003
    https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368811_003 [Google Scholar]
  18. Hall, Phil
    2008 Policespeak. InDimensions of Forensic Linguistics, Maria Teresa Turell & John Gibbons (eds). Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 67–94. 10.1075/aals.5.06hal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.5.06hal [Google Scholar]
  19. Haworth, Kate
    2017 The discursive construction of evidence in police interviews: Case study of a rape suspect. Applied Linguistics38(2): 194–214. 10.1093/applin/amv009
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amv009 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ho, Yufang, Jane Lugea, Dan McIntyre, Jing Wang & Z. Xu
    2018 Projecting uncertainty: A text-world analysis of three statements from the Meredith Kercher murder case. English Text Construction11(2): 286–318. 10.1075/etc.00012.ho
    https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.00012.ho [Google Scholar]
  21. Ho, Yufang, Jane Lugea, Dan McIntyre, Z. Xu & Jing Wang
    2019 Text-world annotation and visualization for crime narrative reconstruction. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities34(2): 310–334. doi:  10.1093/llc/fqy044
    https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqy044 [Google Scholar]
  22. Home Office Circular
    Home Office Circular 1988HM Home Office. London.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Home Office Directive
    Home Office Directive 2019 National Crime Recording Standard. InHome Office Counting Rules for Recorded Crime. London.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Labov, William
    1972Language in the Inner City: Studies in the Black English Vernacular. Philadelphia PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Labov, William & Joshua Waletzky
    1967 Narrative analysis. InEssays on the Verbal and Visual Arts, June Helm (ed.) Seattle: University of Washington Press, 12–44. Reprinted inJournal of Narrative and Life History7: 3–38 1997.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Lea, Susan & Nick Lynn
    2012 Dialogic reverberations: Police, domestic abuse, and the discontinuation of cases. Journal of Interpersonal Violence27(15): 3091–3014. 10.1177/0886260512441075
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260512441075 [Google Scholar]
  27. Lugea, Jane
    2012 Building a narrative Text-World through deixis and modality: A contrastive study of Spanish and English. PhD dissertation, Queen’s University Belfast.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 2016World-building in Spanish and English Spoken Narratives. London: Bloomsbury.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lynn, Nick
    2008 “Doing policing”: An inquiry into the rhetorical and argumentative skills of the police. PhD dissertation, University of Plymouth.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Lynn, Nick & Patricia Canning
    . (under review). Additions, omissions, and transformations: In institutional retellings of domestic violence. Special issue on violence against women. Language and Law.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Martin, James & Peter White
    2005The Language of Evaluation. London: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230511910
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230511910 [Google Scholar]
  32. McGovern, Jimmy
    1996Hillsborough. Drama documentary. Independent Television (ITV).
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Rock, Frances
    2001 The genesis of a witness statement. Forensic Linguistics. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law8(2): 44–72. 10.1558/sll.2001.8.2.44
    https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2001.8.2.44 [Google Scholar]
  34. Scraton, Phil
    1999a [2016]Hillsborough: The Truth. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 1999b Policing with contempt: The degrading of truth and denial of justice in the aftermath of the Hillsborough disaster. Journal of Law and Society26(3): 273–297. 10.1111/1467‑6478.00126
    https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6478.00126 [Google Scholar]
  36. 2004 Death on the terraces: The contexts and injustices of the 1989 Hillsborough Disaster. Soccer and Society5(2): 183–200. 10.1080/1466097042000235209
    https://doi.org/10.1080/1466097042000235209 [Google Scholar]
  37. 2016Hillsborough: The Truth. Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Scraton, Phil, Anne Jemphrey & Sheila Coleman
    1995No Last Rights: The Denial of Justice and the Promotion of Myth in the Aftermath of the Hillsborough Disaster. Liverpool: Centre for studies in crime and social justice and Liverpool City Council.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Svartik, Jan
    1968The Evans Statements: A Case for Forensic Linguistics. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel
    The Report of the Hillsborough Independent Panel 2012Ordered by the House of Commons. London: The Stationery Office.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Thompson, Geoff
    1996 Voices in the text: Discourse perspectives on language reports. Applied Linguistics17(4): 501–530. 10.1093/applin/17.4.501
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/17.4.501 [Google Scholar]
  42. Wang, Jing, Yufang Ho, Z. Xu, Dan McIntyre & Jane Lugea
    2016a The visualisation of cognitive structures in forensic statements. InProceedings of IV2016: 20th International conference Information Visualisation. Lisbon, Portugal, 106–11. 10.1109/IV.2016.60
    https://doi.org/10.1109/IV.2016.60 [Google Scholar]
  43. 2016b A visualization method for understanding forensic statements. InIEEE Information Visualization (InfoVis), 23–28October. Baltimore, MD.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Werth, Paul
    1999Text Worlds: Representing Conceptual Space in Discourse. Hoboken NJ: Prentice Hall.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00042.can
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/etc.00042.can
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Hillsborough; modality; text world theory; VUE
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error