Class Notes (920,388)
CA (542,228)
U of A (14,379)
LING (46)
LING316 (17)
Lecture 21

LING316 Lecture 21: lecture21

4 Pages
80 Views

Department
Linguistics
Course Code
LING316
Professor
Terry Nadasdi

This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full 4 pages of the document.
November 27.14
Collocation: review of the Bentley case – “I then” vs. “then I”
This is a linguistic variable (paper).
The variants don’t have equal frequency
www.corpus.byu.edu - database with spoken language to find frequencies.
Delorean Case
- Two offers made is relevant since it is not always clear which one Delorean
was focused on
o Leads to ambiguity
§ It, thing, interim deal
- Coloration of guilt
- Topic analysis
- Lack of conversational slot
The Hugo Forrester Case
Why does Shuy say Forrester is in a “vulnerable” business?
Because people come in and try to sell you things of unknown origin.
It is illegal to purchase stolen property (small and expensive, so easy to steal). At the
same time, the jeweler is always looking for a good business deal (i.e., buy cheap, sell
high). For reasons that are not entirely clear, the authorities were interested in convicting
Forrester. They had David Rubin and Alice Winston wear wires to get evidence showing
Forrester agreeing to buy stolen property.
What is a test of entrapment? Some states have used this to determine id an
individual is predisposed to commit a crime. At the time of the case, it was fine to
entrap someone in California, which is what the police set out to do to Huge
Forrester. Still, the authorities are not supposed to put undue pressure on an
individual to commit a crime.
The case involves analyzing tape recordings in Forrester’s store to determine whether or
not he agreed to purchase stolen property. According to Shuy, the evidence suggests he
did not. But how was Forrester’s hearing? This is relevant since he may not have heard
the offers of illegality (especially not in the hustle and bustle of everyday business).
The incident begins with Rubin claiming he has some “stuff” to sell. Question:
what does the word “stuff” mean? Does it refer to something illegal? (It could, but not
necessarily). After a long statement from Rubin about this “stuff”, including the
statement at the beginning that “it’s stolen”, Forrester says, “UPS is not the greatest way
to ship”. This is considered strong, incriminating evidence.
We don’t even know whether Forrester was within earshot when Rubin said it was
stolen. Furthermore, as mentioned, the words are uttered at the beginning of
Rubin’s statement, and then followed by a discussion of mailing (which is not
illegal!). What’s more, examination of the phrase “it’s stolen” suggests that Rubin

Loved by over 2.2 million students

Over 90% improved by at least one letter grade.

Leah — University of Toronto

OneClass has been such a huge help in my studies at UofT especially since I am a transfer student. OneClass is the study buddy I never had before and definitely gives me the extra push to get from a B to an A!

Leah — University of Toronto
Saarim — University of Michigan

Balancing social life With academics can be difficult, that is why I'm so glad that OneClass is out there where I can find the top notes for all of my classes. Now I can be the all-star student I want to be.

Saarim — University of Michigan
Jenna — University of Wisconsin

As a college student living on a college budget, I love how easy it is to earn gift cards just by submitting my notes.

Jenna — University of Wisconsin
Anne — University of California

OneClass has allowed me to catch up with my most difficult course! #lifesaver

Anne — University of California
Description
November 27.14 Collocation: review of the Bentley case – “I then” vs. “then I” This is a linguistic variable (paper). The variants don’t have equal frequency www.corpus.byu.edu​ - database with spoken language to find frequencies. Delorean Case -​ Two offers made is relevant since it is not always clear which one Delorean was focused on o​Leads to ambiguity §​ It, thing, interim deal -​ Coloration of guilt -​ Topic analysis -​ Lack of conversational slot The Hugo Forrester Case Why does Shuy say Forrester is in a “vulnerable” business? Because people come in and try to sell you things of unknown origin. It is illegal to purchase stolen property (small and expensive, so easy to steal). At the same time, the jeweler is always looking for a good business deal (i.e., buy cheap, sell high). For reasons that are not entirely clear, the authorities were interested in convicting Forrester. They had David Rubin and Alice Winston wear wires to get evidence showing Forrester agreeing to buy stolen property. What is a test of entrapment? Some states have used this to determine id an individual is predisposed to commit a crime. At the time of the case, it was fine to entrap someone in California, which is what the police set out to do to Huge Forrester. Still, the authorities are not supposed to put undue pressure on an individual to commit a crime. The case involves analyzing tape recordings in Forrester’s store to determine whether or not he agreed to purchase stolen property. According to Shuy, the evidence suggests he did not. But how was Forrester’s hearing? This is relevant since he may not have heard the offers of illegality (especially not in the hustle and bustle of everyday business). The incident begins with Rubin claiming he has some “stuff” to sell. Question: what does the word “stuff” mean? Does it refer to something illegal? (It could, but not necessarily). After a long statement from Rubin about this “stuff”, including the statement at the beginning that “it’s stolen”, Forrester says, “UPS is not the greatest way to ship”. This is considered strong, incriminating evidence. We don’t even know whether Forrester was within earshot when Rubin said it was stolen. Furthermore, as mentioned, the words are uttered at the beginning of Rubin’s statement, and then followed by a discussion of mailing (which is not illegal!). What’s more, examination of the phrase “it’s stolen” suggests that Rubin made an effort to distort the pronunciation since he emphasized “it’s” rather than the first syllable of “stolen”. In addition, he reduced the “L” in such a way as to make it sound like “stone”. Although the police claim that it was ambiguously pronounced as “stolen”, Shuy says he had to listen to it several times. Given Forrester’s hearing problem, it is all the more questionable. It’s clear that Rubin manufactured the pronunciation and one wonders if Forrester was even in the vicinity. In his next visit, Rubin indicates again that the stuff is illegal: “this stuff is hot from Back East”. It depends on how you pronounce it. If you emphasize “hot” and “east” with riding intonation, then the “illegal” interpretation is fairly clear. However, that’s not what Rubin does. There is no emphasis or rising intonation on “hot”. This is a deliberate attempt to camouflage things. Furthermore, he deleted the “t” in “hot” (if that’s even the word!). This is not where one normally deletes “t/d” (it needs to be post-consonantal, e.g.: first, winter, etc.). This is all linguistic camouflage. The next attempt to entrap Forrester involves Rubin mentioning the police and using the word “stolen”. This time in a more audible manner. However, Shuy points out that it is presented as a hypothesis, i.e. “saying I know it’s stolen” (=”what if it were”). After Rubin’s statement, Forrester is clear in saying he doesn’t want to be involved. This is the appropriate response from someone not wanting to accept stolen property. Rubin comes back a month later. This time he is with his “girlfriend” Alice Winston (an undercover cop). In this meeting, it is clear from the volume of Forrester’s voice that he is some distance away. We have no idea if Forrester heard any of Rubin’s statements from the transcript on p. 92. The prosecution interprets Forrester’s actions with the mindset that he is perfectly aware of the illegality of the purchase. However that is their perspective, it’s not clear from the tapes. They assume that when Alice, the undercover agent returns with rings, Forrester is aware that they are likely stolen. The last exchange (p. 93) takes place on the phone (so things are indeed audible). Once again, Rubin uses words like “hot”. What is Forrester’s response? He says he doesn’t approve. Also, the pronunciation of “it’s hot” is once again camouflaged since the accent is on “it’s”. Furthermore, it is embedded in a series of false starts, i.e. this is not a cohesive, easily understood sequence and loses the attention of the listener. On page 94, Shuy mentions something that is outrageous: The jury only had access to the written transcriptions provided by
More Less
Unlock Document


Only page 1 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit