The primary issue to be addressed in this paper is to offer a cognitive linguistics analysis of the language used to and about children in the judicial system of England and Wales, as well as the reports of such cases in UK media. An ongoing issue for the treatment of children has been how they are questioned by the police and in court. In our earlier research, as well as that of other forensic researchers, a number of outdated, social myths persevere in rape cases involving both adults and children. These myths include the ‘Rape Myth’ and the ‘Autonomous Testosterone Myth’, but for children also include other adverse, expected patterns of behaviour, such as a general expectation that ‘children lie’, ‘children cannot differentiate truth from fiction’, and ‘children are easily confused about other people’s intentions’.

In this paper, we first offer a review of the legal process in England and Wales involving children, before illustrating how the above myths and expectations are triggered by the questions put to witnesses. This analysis will show how these associations, which are part of each person’s encyclopaedic knowledge in the form of conceptual frames and ICMs, are networked in elaborate semantic fields that potentially trigger inferential information that can prejudice hearers (such as jurors and media readers) against those same child victims.