Shuy: The Language of Defamation Cases (2010)

Roger Shuy is a so-called "forensic linguist," meaning that he appears as an expert witness in court cases that centrally involve questions about language, such as libel suits. He's written a number of books reporting on cases he's been involved in, the most recent being The Language of Defamation Cases.

His discussions are interesting because they show how quickly our unreflected notion of "meaning" starts to come undone when it gets exposed to the extreme hair-splitting that libel suits unavoidably entail. "What a statement means" becomes less rather than more clear when you look at it up close.

Frank Celebrezze v. The Plain Dealer

In 1986, the (Republican) Cleveland newspaper The Plain Dealer ran a series of stories about the (Democratic) Ohio Supreme Court justice Frank Celebrezze. Shortly thereafter, Celebrezze lost the race for re-election for the Supreme Court.

Before the publication of the articles, Celebrezze had taken campaign donations from labour unions, and some of these labour unions had members who were convicted of involvement in organized crime. As a judge, he had also voted against the conviction of people accused of organized crime at least twice.

So, one might conjecture that he was corrupt, and the mafia had bought his vote — and this was exactly what the two journalists Gary Webb and Mary Anne Sharkey claimed in a series of Plain Dealer articles, published immediately before the Supreme Court election.

Or was it? A closer reading of the articles in question revealed that they did not directly state that Celebrezze was corrupt, but one might argue that they suggested as much. Celebrezze consequently sued The Plain Dealer, and both he and the paper hired linguists to back their case.

Shuy represented the paper, and a local English professor was made Frank Celebrezze's case. Both experts wrote a report, but the case was eventually settled outside the court for an undisclosed sum.

The Apple of Discord

A number of quotes were brought to bear on the case. Most of them were headlines like this one:

Chief Justice denies mob role in contributions (p. 101)

But also some excerpts from the articles themselves were used, including this one:

In 1982 Celebrezze cast a tie-breaking vote against convicting Liberatore of arson. State records show that five days later, a Celebrezze campaign fund was given $5,000 … (p. 103)

The question was: Do these two sentences together imply that Celebrezze received the campaign donation as a result of his vote, or does it not?

The Argument Pro

According to Celebrezze's expert, both snippets of text indirectly implied that Celebrezze was guilty. With respect to the headline, the argument was a pragmatic one about presupposition:

If the headline had read Chief Justice Says Accusations Concerning Mob Role are False then the presupposition would have been that someone had made such accusations, not that the mob role was a given fact. (p. 101–102)

In other words, the claim is that the verb deny is veridical, or factive, while accusations concerning is not.

In the case of the quote, the argument refers to discourse coherence relationships:

Juxtaposing the two claims (that the judge had cast a tie-breaking vote and received money five days later) creates the obvious innuendo that there is a cause and effect relationship between the vote cast and the money paid. (p. 103)

So a reader searching for a coherent link between the two sentences will stumble upon cause–effect as the first likely candidate. This can be compared to the following examples, adapted from Jennifer Spenader:

• Bill is worried that John might try to gain access to his safe. He'll have to change the combination. (therefore)
• Bill is worried that John might try to gain access to his safe. He knows the combination. (because)
• Bill is worried that John might try to gain access to his safe. I like spinach. (??)

Although the general claim that people will automatically search for discourse relations is sound enough, it is worth remembering that the choice of discourse relation is notoriously difficult to consistently agree on.

Arguments Contra

Shuy's own argumentation focused on the impotence of linguistics with respect to what a reader will extract from a text, or what the motives of a writer are:

There is no way that a linguist can actually reach inside the mind of the writer to determine what that writer intended. (p. 107)

There is no way that linguistic analysis can prove such attributions of a person's intentions. (p. 109)

The plaintiff's expert's use of expressions such as "must have," "they are affected," and "readers would" attribute results or behaviors [to the reader] that linguistic analysis simply cannot provide. (p. 111)

This is a surprisingly self-defying argument to hear from a person who is himself a forensic linguist. If it were really the case that linguistics has nothing to say about how a text works or what it reveals about the author, what is it doing in the courtroom in the first place?

The argument is also strange given that Shuy in the same chapter explains that he once had a courtroom disagreement with another linguist who "actually agreed with my conclusions but claimed that the field of linguistics could lead neither of us to such findings" (p. 98). To my ears, this sounds surprisingly close to saying that there is "no way that linguistic analysis can prove such attributions of a person's intentions."

The Flexibility of Forensic Linguistics

Further, when Shuy appears on the other side of a court case, he also seems to embrace a much more liberal approach to meaning:

Otherwise benign words and expressions, such as "made plans," "was alone," "secretly left the house," "went unanswered," "left town," and "living with," can convey meanings far beyond their usual dictionary senses, especially in the context of a broadcast about a murder. (p. 61–62)

But oddly, this is not the case with words like deny in the context of newspaper reporting on mob crime.

It seems that the conclusion we can draw is that linguistics either can or cannot say something about meaning, depending on whom its employer is on a given day. In the murder case (chapter 4), journalists are thus clever manipulators setting up snares for their helpless sources and listeners:

Most listeners are not very likely to notice the discourse framing of the broadcasts or that there was little attempt to clarify important ambiguities. (p. 68)

But in the corruption case (chapter 7), they have regained their agency, and the newspaper is liable only for explicit accusations, not innuendo:

… there is no such accusation in the articles, which present the facts about the relationship between the plaintiff and the local unions … The Plain Dealer claimed that the readers could draw whatever conclusions, if any, that these facts suggest to them. (p. 115)

Probably, the oscillation between these two poles of semantic theory is destined to go on as long as linguists continue to see meaning as a feature of words rather than situations.

Thompson and Mann: "Perceived Necessity Explains the Dissociation Between Logic and Meaning" (1995)

Under which conditions do people think that If A, then B can be paraphrased as A only if B? This paper by Valerie Thompson and Jacqueline Mann is an empirical investigation of the question, checking a couple of relevant parameters.

As it turns out, two factors play a major role: The temporal order between A and B, and whether we perceive A and B to be equivalent in the concrete case at hand.

By contrast, the type of discourse relationship between A and B plays no role. It thus doesn't matter whether the relationship between them is causation, permission, co-occurrence, definition, etc.

Independent Variables

Let me just fix some terminology. What I here call the discourse relationship is what Thompson and Mann call "pragmatic relations." I just dislike this term because it's not quite consistent with the jorgon of linguistics.

The two most important discourse relations that they are dealing with are causation and permission:

• Butter melts if it's heated. (causation)
• You may enter if you're over 18. (permission)

They introduce a couple more (p. 1557), but since disourse relationship turns out to have no effect, this is of a minor importance.

Second, when Thompson and Mann talk about "necessity" relationships, they are really talking about condtional perfection. This is the backwards conditional If B, then A that we sometimes infer when we hear the forward one:

• If water is heated to 100°C, it boils (… and vice versa).
• If it rains, the pavement will be wet (… but not necessarily vice versa).

The effect is a conflation of implication and bi-implication. This "logical" difference does, unsurprisingly, turn out to have an effect on the acceptability of paraphrases.

Lastly, the notion of temporal succession is the most interesting one, and it interacts in some non-trivial ways with the psychology undergraduates' intuitions about synonymy:

• If a plant has received enough care, it grows. (A before B)
• If a plant grows, it has received enough care. (A after B)

In terms of the relationships visible to classical logic, these sentence mean very different things: The first one rules out rules out externalities that could hinder growth even in the event of care; the second one rules out other sufficient causes of growth. However, from an intuitive perspective, the sentences seem to point towards the same underlying causal relationship.

Results

Thompson and Mann's main concern is whether their subjects think that a sentence of the form If A, then B is synonymous with A only if B, and whether it is synonymous with B only if A. As I mentioned above, it turns out that this depends strongly on whether the (inferred, perceived) temporal order of A and B, and the (inferred, perceived) equivalence of A and B.

Thompson and Mann used a super-weird scoring scheme in which their subjects had to assign a 1 to a perfect match and a 7 to a complete mismatch. "For ease of comprehension," they report the transformed score 8 – x instead of x (p. 1557; why didn't they just use the easy one in the first place?).

This gives means between 1 and 7. I've transformed these means into percentages to make it easier to see how far the various means are from the maximal and minimal scores. I did this by computing 100/7 * (y – 1) from the reported y = (8 – x). So let's look at a couple of snapshots from the results of Thompson and Mann's experiment 2b.

First, causal relationships with forward-moving time and no conditional perfection. An example of this is the following:

• If the car runs out of gas, then it will stall.
1. The car only runs out of gas if it stalls (13% — equivalent)
2. The car only stalls if it runs out of gas (50% — not equivalent)

In this case, subjects do not like the actually equivalent form (which suggests a modus tollens inference schema). Note that the percentages are the average scores for this class of sentences, not the specific example.

Now a causal relationship with backward-moving time, but still no conditional perfection:

• If the car drives, then there is gas in the tank.
1. The car only drives if there is gas in the tank (79% — equivalent)
2. There is only gas in the tank if the car drives (21% — not equivalent)

So this reversal of time completely turns the intuitions upside-down: Now, the equivalent paraphrase seems more consistent with the order of terms (STATE only if PRECONDITION), and the non-equivalent seems less natural.

If we put these two sets of statistics together, we get the following chart of acceptabilities:

Lastly, a forward-moving example with conditional perfection:

• If water is heated to 100°C, it boils.
1. Water is heated to 100°C only if it boils (26% — equivalent)
2. Water only boils if it is heated to 100°C (75% — not equivalent)

On a very coarse level, this is the pattern of forward-moving time without conditional perfection; there is an intensity effect, but no reversal of judgments.

The Role of Time

So it seems that the single most predictive factor about intuitions of synonymy and inference is the distinction between forward-moving and backward-moving time. Certain ways of construing a causal situation highlight the potential for following the actual causal direction in your thoughts, and other ways highlight the possibility of following the order of inference rather than the order of events.

If this is true, then it would have some consequences for how difficulty various inference types are, as well as how they errors will occur through "normalization." For instance, denial of the antecedent can be seen as a natural thought to have if we follow the order of events in a case where the literal meaning of the premises requires us to follow the order of inference.