University of Education Lahore

Department of English

Course Title: Forensic Linguistics

Programme: BS English

Course Code: ENGL4131

Instructor Name: Dr. Urooj Fatima Alvi

A framework for analyzing text

• Courts and linguists

• Kinds of linguistic problems
• Linguistic toolkit
• Phonetic and phonological
• Morphological
• Syntactic
• Lexical
• Discoursal
• Textual and pragmatic
Morphological meaning and phonetic
similarity: An example of the court case
‘McDonald
• Shuy (2002) contribution to the case of McDonald’s corporation and
vs. Quality Inns International

• Ownership of the morpheme ‘Mc’ in word ‘McDonald’

• Case began in 1987 when a new hotel named their chain as ‘McSleep’
• McDonald won the similar case of ‘McBagel in past
• Therefore McDonald decided to challenge ‘McSleep’
Cont.

• McDonald claimed to set out on advertising campaign to create

‘McLanguage’
• McFries
• McFish
• McShakes
• McBest

• Through this campaign with Ronal McDonald, a clown character, they

teach children how to Mc-ize standard vocabulary of generic words
language
Cont.

• This is also an example of linguistic imperialism

• Quality Inns’ lawyers asked Shuy to help with two linguistic
arguments

• the morpheme ‘Mc’ was in common use not linked with McDonald’s

• such examples showed that the prefix, originally a patronymic and equivalent
in meaning to the morpheme son in Johnson and generally used not related
to any company
Cont.

• Shuy chose to use a corpus linguistics approach

• searched to find real text instances of what one might call
‘Mcmorphemes’
• Among the 56 examples he found were general terms like McArt,
McCinema, McSurgery and McPrisons,
• He also found, items already being used commercially such as the
McThrift Motor Inn, a budget motel with a Scottish motif, and McTek,
a computer discount store which specialized in Apple Mac computer
products.
Cont.

• Shuy argued that the prefix had become, in the language at large, an
independent lexical item (2002b: 99).

• McDonald’s then hired market researchers to access the public’s

perception of the prefix directly through interview and questionnaire.

• consumers did indeed associate the prefix with McDonald’s, as well as

with reliability, speed, convenience and cheapness.
Cont.

• The judge ruled in favour of McDonald’s, thereby giving them massive

control over the use of the morpheme.

• the successful defence of a trademark may occasionally have

unwanted consequences.

• In March 2007 McDonald’s went to war against the Oxford English

Dictionary after it described a McJob as ‘an unstimulating, low- paid
job with few prospects.
Cont.

• The company’s chief people officer for Northern Europe suggested

change the definition

• to make it ‘reflect a job that is stimulating, rewarding and offers

genuine opportunities for career progression and skills that last a
lifetime’.

• constant battle to maintain the mark, because it is insisting that the

word ‘mcjob’ can only have one meaning
• – ‘a job at McDonald’s (Stern and Wiggins 2007).
Cont.

• Trademark owners sometimes feel the need to defend their mark

against other marks which are thought to be phonetically confusable.

• Tiersma and Solan (2002) list several pairs that have been found to be
confusingly similar, including Beck’s Beer and Ex Bier;

• Listerine and Listogen; Smirnoff and Sarnoff, while Gibbons (2003:

285–7) discusses two drugs, Alkeran and Arclan, which at first sight
seem quite distinct
• In one of the earliest trademark cases involving phonetic similarity,
Pathfinder Communications Corp. v. Midwest Communications Co.,
the dispute was over the names of two radio stations – WMEE and
WMCZ
• Dinnsen (ms, quoted in Levi 1994b) reports that he gave evidence in
court that the typical pronunciations of the two sets of letters were
‘overwhelmingly similar
• … and moreover likely to be confused’ and he adds that the judge
granted an injunction.
Cont.

• He explains why some possible pronunciations of the words could be

confused, in a country where ‘a substantial proportion of the …
population speak English as a second language’.

• What counter-arguments could you advance if you were asked to

write a report for the other side, arguing that the marks are indeed
confusingly similar? Then you can read Shuy’s own detailed analysis
and reasoning on pages 118–9 of his Linguistic Battles in Trademark
Disputes.
References

• https://pasca.uns.ac.id/s3linguistik/wp-
content/uploads/sites/44/2016/10/Malcolm_Coulthard__Alison_Joh
nson.pdf
• https://www.researchgate.net/publication/240461229_AN_INTRODU
CTION_TO_FORENSIC_LINGUISTICS_LANGUAGE_IN_EVIDENCE_Malco
lm_Coulthard_and_Alison_Johnson_London_Routledge_2007_Pp_x_
237
• https://www.jstor.org/stable/41055334?seq=1