FORENSIC LINGUISTIC APPROACHES FOR DETECTING SPEECH MANIPULATION IN THE ENGLISH AND UZBEK LANGUAGES
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This article explores forensic linguistic approaches for detecting speech manipulation in the English and Uzbek languages. It examines the key strategies used in political speeches, media discourse, and legal texts where manipulative language distorts meaning and influences audiences. By comparing linguistic features in both languages, the study highlights common markers of manipulation, such as presupposition, lexical choice, and syntactic structures. The paper also discusses the practical application of forensic linguistics in identifying deceptive communication in legal investigations. The research contributes to a better understanding of how linguistic manipulation operates across different cultural and language contexts, aiding experts in forensic analysis.
Article Details
References
Grant T. Approaching Questions in Forensic Authorship Analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 15(1), 2008. – P. 103-132.
Hardaker C. ‘I Refuse to Respond to This Obvious Troll’: An Overview of Responses to (Perceived) Trolling. Corpora, 10(2), 2015. – P. 201-229.
Hardaker C. Corpus Linguistics for Forensic Linguistics: Research and Practice. Routledge, 2021.
Kadim E. N. A Critical Discourse Analysis of Trump's Election Campaign Speeches. Heliyon, 8 (4), 2022. – P. 56.
Kamalkhodjaeva S. S. Forensic Linguistics: Methods and Their Application in Legal Practice. Journal of Advanced Linguistic Studies, 11(2), 2024. – P. 718-729.
Kusumawardhani P. Language and Forensic Linguistics. International Journal of English and Applied Linguistics, 4(1), 2024. – P. 48-53.
Shchyhlo L., Korovai M. Linguistic Means of Speech Manipulation in Modern English-Language Foreign Policy Media Discourse: Synergistic Approach. Philological Treatises, 16 (1), 2024. – P. 186-192.
Turell M. T. The Use of Textual, Grammatical and Sociolinguistic Evidence in Forensic Text Comparison. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 17(2), 2010. – P. 211-250.