Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-788cddb947-m6qld Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-14T06:38:56.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

17 - Theorising language in sociolinguistics and the law: (How) can sociolinguistics have an impact on inequality in the criminal justice process?

from Part V - Sociolinguistics, contexts and impact

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 June 2016

Diana Eades
Affiliation:
University of New England
Nikolas Coupland
Affiliation:
University of Wales College of Cardiff
Get access

Summary

Introduction

A common complaint about the legal system is that lawyers can manipulate people with complex language, such as “big words” and “tricky questions”. But sociolinguistic research, beginning in the early 1980s and examining a number of legal contexts, demonstrates many more ways in which language is implicated in the widespread popular dissatisfaction with the law. For example, research in criminal courts shows how defendants and witnesses are controlled, coerced, and manipulated through the rigid and asymmetrical discourse structure of courtroom hearings, which restricts the interactional rights of witnesses to providing answers to specific questions (see Eades 2010 for references). More recently, considerable sociolinguistic attention has turned to how competing stories can, or must, be told, retold, and evaluated throughout the criminal justice process. This chapter examines a theoretical dissonance between how sociolinguistics and the law see language, which is highlighted in this research.

Section 2 sets out this difference, between the sociolinguistic view of language as a dynamic, “non-neutral medium” (Duranti 2011) used for a wide range of social purposes and the law's view of language as a fixed and transparent means of reference. In Section 3, I consider the sociolinguistic focus on context as integral to the understanding of any spoken or written text. Current research examines the ways that interactions are entextualised and texts are recontextualised as they travel through the legal process and reveals some important consequences of transformations occurring along the way. In contrast, Section 4 introduces the impact throughout the law of the central role of authoritative written texts and the concomitant legal view that the texts have a fixed meaning, in the consideration of which context is irrelevant.

Section 5 turns to the law's treatment of individuals in terms of their legal categories and roles, divorced from their social, cultural, historical, and political context. This focus on decontextualised individuals can erase difference, consistent with the view of language as a neutral and transparent means of reference. But in confusing equal treatment with same treatment, the erasure of sociolinguistic difference in language use can compromise the principle of equality before the law.

Type
Chapter
Information
Sociolinguistics
Theoretical Debates
, pp. 367 - 388
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2016

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bowles v Western Australia 2011 WASCA 191.
Crawford v Venardos & Ors 1995 Unreported, Brisbane Magistrates’ Court, February 24.
Neal v R 1982 Commonwealth Law Reports 149, 305–326 (High Court).
Waters v Public Transport Corporation 1991 Commonwealth Law Reports 173, 349–416 (High Court).
Ainsworth, Janet. 2008. “You have the right to remain silent … But only if you ask for it just so”: The role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15, 1: 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angermeyer, Philipp Sebastian. 2014. Monolingual ideologies and multilingual practices in small claims court: The case of Spanish-speaking arbitrators. International Journal of Multilingualism 11, 4: 430–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauman, Richard, and Briggs, Charles L.. 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Billig, Michael, and Schegloff, Emanuel. 1999. Critical discourse analysis and conversational analysis: An exchange between Michael Billig and Emanuel A. Schegloff. Discourse and Society 10, 4: 543–582.Google Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blommaert, Jan. 2011. Pragmatics and discourse. In Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 122–137.Google Scholar
Boyd, Russell, and Hopkins, Anthony. 2010. Cross-examination of child sexual assault complainants: Concerns about the application of s41 of the Evidence Act. Criminal Law Journal 34: 149–166.Google Scholar
Collins, James. 1996. Socialization to text: Structure and contradiction in schooled literacy. In Silverstein, Michael and Urban, Greg (eds.), Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 203–228.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., and O'Barr, William M.. 1990. Rules versus Relationships. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conley, John M., and O'Barr, William M.. 2005. Just Words: Law, Language and Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nikolas. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'hondt, Sigurd. 2009. The pragmatics of interaction: A survey. In D'hondt, Sigurd, Östman, Jan-Ola, and Verschueren, Jef (eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
D'hondt, Sigurd, and Houwen, Fleur Van der. 2014. Quoting from the case file: How intertextual practices shape discourse at various stages in the legal trajectory. Language and Communication 36: 1–6.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro. 2011. Linguistic anthropology: The study of language as a non-neutral medium. In Mesthrie, Rajend (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–46.Google Scholar
Duranti, Alessandro, and Goodwin, Charles. 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2006. Lexical struggle in court: Aboriginal Australians vs the state. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10, 2: 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2008. Courtroom Talk and Neocolonial Control. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2010. Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2012. The social consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross examination. Language in Society 41, 4: 471–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2013. Aboriginal Ways of Using English. Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2015a. Judicial understandings of Aboriginality and language use in criminal cases. In Toner, Peter (ed.), Strings of Connectedness: Essays in Honour of Ian Keen. Canberra: ANU Press, 27–51.Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2015b. Communicating with Aboriginal witnesses in court. Precedent (Journal of the Australian Lawyers Alliance) 126: 44–48.Google Scholar
Eades, Diana. 2016. Erasing context in the courtroom construal of consent. In Ehrlich, Susan, Eades, Diana, and Ainsworth, Janet (eds.), Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 71–91.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan. 2007. Legal discourse and the cultural intelligibility of gendered meanings. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11: 452–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan. 2012. Text trajectories, legal discourse and gendered inequalities. Applied Linguistics Review 3, 1: 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan. 2013. Post-penetration rape and the decontextualization of witness testimony. In Heffer, Chris, Rock, Frances, and Conley, John (eds.), Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 189–205.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan. 2016. Post-penetration rape: Coercion or freely-given consent? In Ehrlich, Susan, Eades, Diana and Ainsworth, Janet (eds.), Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan, and Eades, Diana. 2016. Introduction: Linguistic and discursive dimensions of consent. In Ehrlich, Susan, Eades, Diana and Ainsworth, Janet (eds.), Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrlich, Susan, Eades, Diana, and Ainsworth, Janet (eds.). 2016. Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findlay, Mark, Odgers, Stephen, and Yeo, Stanley. 2005. Australian Criminal Justice, (1st ed. 1994). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of Talk. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Gray, Peter. 2012. Review of The Language of Statutes: Laws and Their Interpretation by Solan, Lawrence M. (2010). International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 19, 1: 135–140.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hale, Sandra. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haworth, Kate. 2006. The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse and Society 17, 6: 739–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haviland, John. 2003. Ideologies of language: Some reflections of language and U.S. law. American Anthropologist 105, 4: 764–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffer, Chris, Rock, Frances, and Conley, John (eds.). 2013. Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Jefferson, Gail. 1989. Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a “Standard Maximum” silence of approximately one second in a conversation. In Roger, Derek and Bull, Peter (eds.), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 166–196.Google Scholar
Jönsson, Linda, and Linell, Per. 1991. Story generations: From dialogical interviews to written reports in police interrogations. Text 11, 3: 419–440.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judicial Commission of New South Wales. 2009. Equality before the Law Benchbook. Sydney: Judicial Commission of New South Wales.
Komter, Martha. 2013. Travels of a suspect's statement. In Heffer, Chris, Rock, Frances, and Conley, John (eds.), Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 126–146.Google Scholar
Luban, David. 1999. Twenty theses on adversarial ethics. In Lavarch, Michael and Stacy, Helen (eds.), Beyond the Adversarial System. Sydney: Federation Press, 134–154.Google Scholar
Maryns, Katrijn. 2006. The Asylum Speaker: Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure. Manchester: St. Jerome Press.Google Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory. 2000. Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 879–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matoesian, Gregory. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Mauet, Thomas, and McCrimmon, Les. 2011. Fundamentals of Trial Technique,. (1st ed. 1993). Sydney: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
Mertz, Elizabeth. 2007. The Language of Law School: Learning to Think like a Lawyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mildren, Dean. 1997. Redressing the imbalance against Aboriginals in the Criminal Justice System. Criminal Law Journal 21, 1: 7–22.Google Scholar
Mushin, Ilana, and Gardner, Rod. 2009. Silence is talk: Conversational silence in Australian Aboriginal talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2033–2052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Philips, Susan. 1998. Ideology in the Language of Judges: How Judges Practice Law, Politics and Courtroom Control. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rock, Frances. 2001. The genesis of a witness statement. Forensic Linguistics 8, 2: 44–72.Google Scholar
Rock, Frances, Heffer, Chris, and Conley, John. 2013. Textual travel in legal-lay communication. In Heffer, Chris, Rock, Frances, and Conley, John (eds.), Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–32.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael, and Urban, Greg. 1996. The natural history of discourse. In Silverstein, Michael and Urban, Greg (eds.), Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1–17.Google Scholar
Silverstein, Michael, and Urban, Greg (eds.). 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M. 1993. The Language of Judges. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Solan, Lawrence M., and Tiersma, Peter M.. 2005. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tannen, Deborah. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal Language. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 2001. Textualizing the law. Forensic Linguistics 8, 2: 73–92.Google Scholar
Trinch, Shonna. 2003. Latinas’ Narratives of Domestic Abuse: Discrepant Versions of Violence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verschueren, Jef. 2012. Ideology in Language Use: Pragmatic Guidelines for Emprirical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Woolard, Kathryn A., and Schieffelin, Bambi B.. 1994. Language ideology. Annual Review of Anthropology 23: 55–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×