1. Introduction 2. Power, ambiguity, and deception 3. Police interviewers use deceptive ambiguity 4. Prosecutors use deceptive ambiguity 5. Undercover agents use deceptive ambiguity 6. Cooperating witnesses use deceptive ambiguity 7. Complainants use deceptive ambiguity 8. Deceptive ambiguity in the language elements 9. The effects, frequency, and power of the government's uses of deceptive ambiguity in criminal investigations Appendix A: Deceptive ambiguity created by socio-cultural differences References

"In Deceptive Ambiguity, Dr. Roger Shuy, founder and doyen of Forensic Linguistics in the US, once more reveals his genius for explaining the linguistics of real-world situations. Deception is a much-discussed area of the field, and one he has written on repeatedly throughout the years. But here Shuy's focus is specifically on how those who have control of the communicative situation can and do use ambiguity to deceive. He demonstrates-through detailed analyses of case after case that he himself consulted on-how manipulation can be effected beneath the surface of conversational participants' conscious awareness. In this highly accessible text, Dr. Shuy demonstrates that in the legal arena, such use of deceptive ambiguity can be the equal province of lawyers, prosecutors, and police, and not just the far more studied deceptive suspects."-Robert A. Leonard, Director, Graduate Program in Forensic Linguistics, Hofstra University "Roger Shuy never seems to run out of original ideas. In this latest book, he brings his learning, experience, and insight to bear to illuminate a subtle but significant new topic in language and law: the calculated use of ambiguity in law enforcement's exercise of power. As always, Shuy's blend of sophisticated linguistic analysis and clarity of expression will appeal to both professional and lay audiences."-John Conley, William Rand Kenan Jr. Professor of Law, University of North Carolina School of Law "In this book, Roger Shuy, the dean of American forensic linguistics, advances our understanding of ambiguity in legal arenas beyond written texts to speech, and our understanding of deception beyond defensive talk to its institutional exploitation through ambiguity. His case studies demonstrate how commonplace 'deceptive ambiguity' is in pursuit of a desired goal in police interrogation, courtroom examination, and undercover sting operations. His analysis of institutionalized ambiguity should awaken legal scholars and policy makers to the contradictions inherent in the interactional patterns ordinary citizens bring to the genres of civic institutions."-Edward Finegan, Professor Emeritus of Linguistics and Law, USC Gould School of Law

Selling point: Describes fifteen criminal investigations that demonstrate how police, prosecutors, and undercover agents use deceptive ambiguity against their subjects and targets, leading to misrepresentation of the interactive speech events, schemas, agendas, speech acts, lexicon, and grammar. Selling point: Demonstrates that even though certain types of deceptive ambiguity are admittedly intentional during undercover operations, additional types are commonly employed in police interviews and courtroom examinations.

Roger Shuy founded and chaired the sociolinguistics PhD program at Georgetown University, during which time he also co-founded the annual meeting of NWAV and co-founded the American Association of Applied Linguistics. He worked on some 500 criminal and civil law cases, testifying in federal and state jurisdictions as well as before the US Congress and the International Criminal Tribunal. He has published 15 books about forensic linguistics and served as series editor of Oxford University Press series, Oxford Studies in Language and Law.

Selling point: Describes fifteen criminal investigations that demonstrate how police, prosecutors, and undercover agents use deceptive ambiguity against their subjects and targets, leading to misrepresentation of the interactive speech events, schemas, agendas, speech acts, lexicon, and grammar. Selling point: Demonstrates that even though certain types of deceptive ambiguity are admittedly intentional during undercover operations, additional types are commonly employed in police interviews and courtroom examinations.