Mésinterprétation, plagiat, insulte et diffamation: Objets de litiges et matériaux de linguistes

Abstract

The legal system rests on the confrontation between discourses, Defense and Accusation being obliged to present adversative positions. That discursive dimension is even more real when what is being judged is a "word crime", i.e. when speech is at the very center of the litigation. The rules regulating prohibited language are codified in various laws, but the interpretations of what can and cannot be said are as numerous as they are subjective. When linguistically investigating the juridical domain, schematically three sub-sets of research appear: 1) all that concerns writing up legal texts, which includes anticipating the potential interpretations of utterances; 2) research concerning the validity of proof based on the speech of witnesses or accused; 3) contentious discourses, whether they be the interpretation of a damaging utterance (e.g. slander) or the resemblance between two texts (plagiary). It is this domain of contentious discourse that I explore here, by describing the requests for expertise to which I was led to respond, and the conceptual and methodological tools deployed so as to provide a lawyer with a satisfactory answer to his/her question. In conclusion, I develop an ethical reflection on the tension between academic practices, that depend on continuous questioning, and presenting proof, which does not accept replacing the facts in perspective. © Langage et société no 132 - juin 2010.