대한언어학회 전자저널

대한언어학회

Table of Contents

33권 3호 (2025년 9월)

법언어학과 한국의 현황

조기현

Pages : 43-70

DOI : https://doi.org/10.24303/lakdoi.2025.33.3.43

PDF보기

리스트

Abstract

Joh, Gi-Hyun. (2025). Forensic linguistics and its current status in Korea. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 33(3), 43-70. This study examines forensic linguistics, addressing its conceptual foundations, historical development, research areas, methodologies, and key applications. It compares the current state and challenges of forensic linguistics in Korea with international trends. Language is a vital medium shaping thought, culture, and social norms, with linguistics extending from foundational studies to applied fields like forensic linguistics. This discipline systematically applies linguistic analysis in legal contexts, including legal text interpretation, courtroom discourse, authorship and speaker identification, and resolving disputes related to intellectual property and digital crimes. Globally, forensic linguistics has evolved from traditional stylistics to corpus-based and computational methods, and more recently AI-driven automation, broadening its practical applications across traditional and digital legal environments. However, forensic linguistics in Korea has developed slowly due to limited institutional infrastructure and a research focus mainly on discourse and regulatory language analysis. Nevertheless, the rising demands of cybercrime and synthetic media have increased the practical need for forensic linguistic expertise. This study analyzes 139 Korean publications from KCI, KISS, RISS, revealing growing interest in computational, corpus-based, and AI-integrated technologies alongside traditional legal language studies. The study highlights the urgent need for academic societies, standardized protocols, interdisciplinary education, data infrastructure, and international collaboration to advance forensic linguistics in Korea.

Keywords

# 법언어학(forensic linguistics) # 4차 산업혁명(industry revolution 4.0) # 인공지능(artificial intelligence) # 사이버범죄(cybercrime) # 계량서지학 적 분석(bibliometric analysis)

References

  • 구명철, 정수정. (2018). 가독성 관점의 법률 언어 어휘 문제와 개선 방안. 언어와 법, 7(2), 99-123.
  • 구명철. (2016). 독일과 우리나라 법률에서 법 개념의 정의에 사용된 술어 -논항 구조의 분석 – 형법(Strafgesetz)의 비교를 중심으로. 독어학, 34, 27-48.
  • 구명철. (2017). 독일⋅한국 법조문 ‘토픽’ 비교 연구. 언어학연구, 35(2), 211-233.
  • 구명철. (2018). 법률 언어 가독성 연구: 통사적 측면(주어생략). 언어와 법, 7(1), 55-78.
  • 구명철. (2024). 법률수사언어학의 개념과 범위: 영국과 독일의 비교. 언어와 법, 13(1), 33-52.
  • 구명철. (2024). 언어와 법: 독일과 한국의 법률 언어 연구. 역락.
  • 김기영. (2007). 법과 언어 – 형법 제170조 2항의 언어학적 분석과 기호론적 해석. 독일어문 학, 37, 177-197.
  • 김기영. (2021). 언어행위 이론과 법적용 – 법의 화용론적 차원에 관하여 – 안암법학, 안암법 학회. 62, 475-505.
  • 박명관. (2024). 언어학이 만나는 인공 신경망 언어모델. 동국대학교 출판부.
  • 박지영. (2022). CAT을 접목한 통번역대학원 전문번역수업에 대한 학습자 반응 연구: 정치법 률번역 과목을 중심으로. 인문사회 21, 13(4), 2375-2390.
  • 서경숙. (2016). 법과 언어: 법언어학으로의 초대. 서경숙⋅니시야마치나 옮김. 박이정.
  • 서경숙. (2020). 법언어학 개론. 한국문화사.
  • 양성희. (2025). 생성형 AI 텍스트의 저자성 분석 – 화행론과 텍스트성을 중심으로 – 국어학 (國語學), 115, 241-283.
  • 이무상. (2014). 법률상의 진술에 대한 자백. 법조. 63(7), 5-46.
  • 이주연. (2023). 저작권법과 연구윤리관점에서 본 학술논문과 인공지능의 저자성 – 최근 ChatGPT를 둘러싼 논의를 중심으로 – 경영 법률, 33(4), 127-176.
  • 이해윤. (2016). 화행이론에 의한 협박죄 분석. 텍스트언어학, 41, 219-244.
  • 이해윤. (2018). 화행이론에 의한 모욕죄⋅명예훼손죄의 분석. 텍스트언어학, 44, 123-147.
  • 이해윤. (2019). 화행과 언어범죄 – 교사죄를 중심으로. 언어와 언어학, 85, 55-72.
  • 이해윤. (2023). 법언어학의 이해 (개정판). 한국문화사.
  • 정수정,. (2019). 가독성의 관점에서 바라본 한국 법조문의 어순에 관한 고찰. 독일어문화권 연구, 28, 375-399.
  • 정수정. (2014). 독일어와 한국어 특허문서에 쓰이는 고정적 언어표현에 대한 연구. 독일어문 화권연구, 23, 359-381.
  • 정수정. (2016). 독일과 한국 법 개념 정의 방식 비교 – 외연과 내포를 중심으로. 독일문학, 137, 219-237.
  • 조기현. (2018). 언어학적 지문과 피의자 자술서의 저자 식별. 인문학연구, 57(3), 391-409.
  • Ablimit, A., Botelho, C., Abad, A., Schultz, T., & Trancoso, I.(n.d.). Exploring Dementia Detection from Speech: Cross Corpus Analysis. Retrieved from https://huggingface. co/speechbrain/spkrec-ecapa-voxceleb
  • Ablimit, M., Parhat, A., Hamdulla, T., & Zheng, F. (2017). A multilingual language processing tool for Uyghur, Kazak and Kirghiz. In Proceedings of the 2017 Asia-Pacific Signal and Information Processing Association Annual Summit and Conference(APSIPA ASC) (pp. 737-740). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  • Alduais, A., Al-Khulaidi, M. A., Allegretta, S., & Abdulkhalek, M. M. (2023). Forensic linguistics: A scientometric review. Cogent Arts & Humanities. 10(1). https://doi.org/ 10.1080/23311983.2023.2214387
  • Al-Maliki, A. (2022). Cyberbullying and linguistic aggression in social media. Journal of Language and Law, 9(2), 55-73.
  • Bryant, M. (1930). English in the law courts: The part that articles, prepositions and conjunctions play in legal decisions. Frederick Ungar.
  • Chomsky, N. (1957). Syntactic Structures. The Hague: Mouton.
  • Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  • Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2007). An introduction to forensic linguistics. London: Routledge.
  • Coulthard, M., & Johnson, A. (2010). An introduction to forensic linguistics: Language in evidence. London: Routledge.
  • Coulthard, S., Johnson, D., & McGregor, J. A. (2011). Poverty, Sustainability and Human Wellbeing: A Social Wellbeing Approach to the Global Fisheries Crisis. Global Environmental Change, 21, 453-463.
  • Denham, K., & Lobeck, A. (2010). Linguistics for everyone: An introduction (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
  • Dewi, D., & La’biran, A. (2023). Language and crime: A forensic linguistic perspective. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 14(3), 221-239.
  • Emmery, C., Manjavacas, E., & Kestemont, M. (2024). Computational authorship analysis: Developments and challenges. Digital Scholarship in the Humanities, 39(1), 112-135.
  • Finegan, E. (2010). Corpus linguistic approaches to ‘legal language’: adverbial expression of attitude and emphasis in Supreme Court opinions. In M. Coulthard and A. Johnson (Eds.), Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics (pp. 65-77). London: Routledge.
  • Fitria, T. N. (2024). Forensic pragmatics: An overview. International Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies, 7(1), 45-59.
  • French, P., & Coulthard, M. (2013). Forensic linguistics and expert evidence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Fromkin, V., Rodman, R., & Hyams, N. (2014). An introduction to language (10th ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth.
  • Gibbons, J. (2020). 법언어학 입문: 사법 제도의 언어. 한국문화사.
  • Gillon, G. T. (2004). Phonological awareness: From research to practice. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Gordon, M., & Ladefoged, P. (2001). Phonation types: A cross-linguistic overview. Journal of Phonetics, 29(4), 383-406.
  • Gouriou-Son, F. (2005). Multilingualism and language diversity in Europe. European Journal of Language Policy, 7(1), 33-52.
  • Grant, T., & Tayebi, T. (2023). Ambiguity in legal texts: Forensic semantics perspective. International Journal of Forensic Linguistics, 10(3), 211-229.
  • Gunter, K. (2001). Recht und Sprache, 법과 언어 (한국법제연구원 자료집), p.9.
  • Hockett, C. F. (1960). The origin of speech. Scientific American, 203(3), 88-96.
  • Houtman, H., & Suryati, S. (2018). The History of Forensic Linguistics as an Assisting Tool in the Analysis of Legal Terms. Sriwijaya Law Review. 2(2), 215-232. https://doi. org/10.28946/slrev.Vol2.Iss2.135.pp215-233
  • Hunyadi, L. (2003). Authorship disputes and forensic linguistics: Shakespeare and the Bible. Language and Literature, 12(2), 101-115.
  • Jackendoff, R., & Pinker, S. (2005). The nature of the language faculty and its implications for the evolution of language. Lingua, 115(3), 211-229.
  • Johnson, A., & Wright, D. (2014). Identifying idiolect in forensic authorship analysis. Applied Linguistics, 35(5), 465-485.
  • Juola, P. (2013). Stylometric analysis for authorship attribution: Case study on Rowling. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 28(2), 267-278.
  • Kacprzyk, J., & Zadrożny, S. (2005). Linguistic database summaries and their protoforms: Towards natural language based knowledge discovery tools. Information Sciences, 173(4), 281-304.
  • Koike R., Kaneko M., Okazaki N. (2024). How You Prompt Matters! Even Task-Oriented Constraints in Instructions Affect LLM-Generated Text Detection [Internet]. 1439. Available from: ＜https://github＞.
  • Levinson, S. (1983). Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Liu, W. (2024). Comparative bibliometric study on forensic linguistics research (1992-2024). Journal of Language and Law, 31(2), 77-102.
  • Liu, Y., Zhang, C., & Wang, T. (2023). NLP and forensic applications: From authorship to threat detection. Language Resources and Evaluation, 57(4), 1005-1027.
  • Madrunio, M., & Martin, P. (2023). Forensic Linguistics in the Philippines: origins, developments, and directions. Cambridge University Press.
  • Mani, R. T., Palimar, V., Pai, M., Shwetha, T. S., & Krishnan, M. N. (2025). An evolution of forensic linguistics: From manual analysis to machine learning – A narrative review. Forensic Science International: Reports, 11, 100417.
  • McEnery, A. M. (2003). Corpus linguistics. In R. Mitkov (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Computational Linguistics (pp. 448-463).
  • McMenamin, G. (2002). Forensic stylistics. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Melinkoff, D. (1963). The language of the law. Little, Brown & Co.
  • Okawara, M. H. (1998). Hougengogaku no Taidou (The Embrionic Movements of Forensic Linguistics in Japan). In Houshaigaku no Shinchihei (The New Horizon of Law & Society) (pp. 226-236). Tokyo: Yuuhikaku.
  • Olsson, J., & Luchjenbroers, J. (2014). Forensic linguistics (2nd ed.). London: Bloomsbury. Pastika, I. W. (2019, October). Fakta bahasa sebagai fakta hukum kajian linguistik forensik. [Conference]. Universitas Udayana. https://erepo.unud.ac.id/id/eprint/31546/
  • Perkins, R. (2018). The role of forensic linguistics in legal systems. Language and Law Studies, 22(3), 68-78.
  • Rahim, A., & Alqahoom, A. (2023). Dialogue language style of the qur’an “a stylistic analysis of dialogues on the truth of the Qur’an”. Solo Int. Collab. Publ. Soc. Sci. Humanit, 1(01), 35-46.
  • Rana, M. S., Nobi, M., Murali, B., & Sung, A. (2022). Deepfake Detection: A Systematic Literature Review. IEEE Access. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2022.3154404
  • Sapir, E. (1921). Language: an introduction to the study of speech. Harcourt, Brace.
  • Saussure, F. de. (1983). Course in general linguistics (R. Harris, Trans.). London: Duckworth.
  • Saxena, V., Tamo-Larrieux, A., Van Dijck, G., & Spanakis, G. (2025). Responsible authorship attribution in the AI era. Journal of Forensic Linguistics and Law. 6(1), 1-15.
  • Shuy, R. (1987). The “McSleep” case: Trademark disputes in language evidence. Language and Law Journal, 1(2), 101-120.
  • Sousa-Silva, R. (2018). The role of natural language processing in forensic authorship analysis. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 25(1), 21-50.
  • Svartvik, J. (1968). The Evans statements: A case for forensic linguistics. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg Press.
  • Thamizh Mani, R., et al. (2025). Machine learning and forensic linguistics: A scoping review. Journal of Forensic Sciences & AI, 4(1), 1-22.
  • Tiersma, P. M. (2008). Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Udina, F. (2017). The history of forensic linguistics: A European perspective. Forensic Linguistics, 24(2), 123-141.
  • Urbón, V. (2025). Standardization challenges in forensic linguistics methodology. Forensic Linguistics International, 6(1), 33-48.
  • V. Saxena, A., Tamo-Larrieux, G., Van Dijck, G., & Spanakis, G. (2025). Responsible authorship attribution in the AI era. Journal of Forensic Linguistics and Law, 6(1), 1-15.
  • Wright, D., & Picornell, I. (2024). The redefinition of IAFL to IAFLL: Implications. Language and Law, 18(1), 77-95.
  • Yuan, C., et al. (2024). Legal corpora and forensic linguistics: Advances in Chinese contexts. Applied Linguistics and Law Studies, 9(2), 222-240.
  • Zhang, G., & 장세은. (2025). Keyword lexical bundles in maritime legal genres. Journal of Applied Linguistics, 18(1), 33-55.