Book contents
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Editors' Introduction
- Part I Sui generis or Socially Problematic: The Character of Legal Language
- Part II Imperfect Fit between Legal Categories and Social Discourse
- Part III Written in Silence: Hidden Social Meanings in Legal Discourse
- Part IV Conflict between Linguistic and Legal Ideologies
- Part V Demands of Law and Limits of Language
- 11 Law and the Grammar of Judgment
- 12 Legal Indeterminacy in the Spoken Word*
- Afterword
- Index
- References
11 - Law and the Grammar of Judgment
from Part V - Demands of Law and Limits of Language
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 December 2017
Book contents
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Acknowledgements
- Editors' Introduction
- Part I Sui generis or Socially Problematic: The Character of Legal Language
- Part II Imperfect Fit between Legal Categories and Social Discourse
- Part III Written in Silence: Hidden Social Meanings in Legal Discourse
- Part IV Conflict between Linguistic and Legal Ideologies
- Part V Demands of Law and Limits of Language
- 11 Law and the Grammar of Judgment
- 12 Legal Indeterminacy in the Spoken Word*
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Meaning and Power in the Language of Law , pp. 259 - 276Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
Reference
Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. C. (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
References
Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2011). Evidentials. In Aronoff, M. (ed.) Oxford Bibliography Online. New York: Oxford University Press, 1–45.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, J. (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. International Journal of Speech, Language, and the Law 15: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alford, D. K. H. (1978). The demise of the Whorf hypothesis. In Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA: Berkeley Linguistics Society, 485–499.Google Scholar
Andrews, D. (1994). The Russian color categories sinij and goluboj: An experimental analysis of their interpretation in the standard and émigré language. Journal of Slavic Linguistics 2: 9–28.Google Scholar
Athanasopoulos, P. (2009). Cognitive representation of color in bilinguals: The case of Greek blues. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 12: 83–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, J. (1984). Evidentials in the Tuyuca verb. International Journal of American Linguistics 50: 255–271.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (1988). The impact of politeness in witness testimony: The influence of the court interpreter. Multilingua 7: 411–440.Google Scholar
Berlin, B. and Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L. (2001). Does language shape thought?: Mandarin and English speakers’ conceptions of time. Cognitive Psychology 43: 1–22.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Fausey, C. and Long, B. (2009). The role of language in eyewitness memory: Remembering who did it in English and Japanese. Proceedings of the Cognitive Science Society, vol. 31.Google Scholar
Boroditsky, L., Schmidt, L. A. and Phillips, W. (2003). Sex, syntax, and semantics. In Gertner, D. and Goldin-Meadow, S. (eds.) Language in Mind: Advances in the Study of Language and Thought. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 61–79.Google Scholar
Conley, J. M., O'Barr, W. M. and Lind, E. A. (1978). The power of language: Presentation style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal 1978: 1375–1399.Google Scholar
Evans, N. (2009). Dying Words: Endangered Languages and What They Have to Tell Us. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Evans, N. and Levinson, S. C. (2009). The myth of language universals: Language diversity and its importance to cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 32: 429–492.Google Scholar
Faller, M. (2004). The deictic use of non-experiential past in Cuzco Quechua. Journal of Semantics 21: 45–85.Google Scholar
Fausey, C. M. and Boroditsky, L. (2006). Linguistic contributions to reasoning about causal agents. Proceedings of the 28th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Sciences Society.Google Scholar
Fausey, C. M. and Boroditsky, L. (2008). English and Spanish speakers remember causal agents differently. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Sciences Society.Google Scholar
Fausey, C. M. and Boroditsky, L. (2010). Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 17: 644–650.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fausey, C. M. and Boroditsky, L. (2011). Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 18: 150–157.Google Scholar
Filipovic, L. (2007). Language as a witness: Insights from cognitive linguistics. International Journal of Speech, Language, and the Law 14: 245–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Filipovic, L. (2013). Constructing causation in language and memory: Implications for access to justice in multilingual interactions. International Journal of Speech, Language, and the Law 20.1: 1–19.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1967). Bilingualism with and without diglossia; diglossia with and without bilingualism. Journal of Social Issues 23, 29–38.Google Scholar
Fishman, J. A. (1980). The Whorfian hypothesis: Variations of valuation, confirmation, and disconfirmation. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 26: 25–40.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. C. (eds.) (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hale, S. and Gibbons, J. (1997). Varying realities: Patterned changes in the interpreter's representation of courtroom and external realities. Applied Linguistics 20: 203–220.Google Scholar
Hitchens, J. (1994). Critical implications of Franz Boas’ theory and methodology. Dialectical Anthropology 19, 237–253.Google Scholar
Johanson, L. and Utas, B. (2000). Evidentials: Turkic, Iranian and Neighboring Languages. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Johnson, D. E. and Lappin, S. (1997). A critique of the minimalist program. Linguistics and Philosophy 20: 273–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kornai, A. and Pullum, G. K. (1990). The X-bar theory of phrase structure. Language 66: 24–50.Google Scholar
Leavitt, J. (2001). Linguistic Relativism: Language Diversity and Modern Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, S. C. (2000). Yeli Dnye and the theory of basic color terms. Journal of Linguistic Anthropology 10: 3–55.Google Scholar
Malotki, E. (1983). Hopi Time: A Linguistic Analysis of the Temporal Concepts in the Hopi Language. Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
Marian, V. and Kaushanskaya, M. (2007). Language context guides memory content. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 14: 925–933.Google Scholar
Mason, I. and Stewart, M. (2001). Interactional pragmatics, face, and the dialog interpreter. In Mason, I. (ed.) Triadic Exchanges: Studies in Dialogue Interpreting. New York: Routledge, 51–71.Google Scholar
Olschewsky, T. M. (1969). Problems in the Philosophy of Language. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.Google Scholar
Panayiotou, A. (2004). Switching codes, switching code: Bilinguals’ emotional responses in English and Greek. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 25: 124–139.Google Scholar
Parkinson, M. (1981). Verbal behavior and courtroom success. Communication Education 30: 22–32.Google Scholar
Pavenko, A. (2003). Eyewitness memory in late bilinguals: Evidence for discursive relativity. International Journal of Bilingualism 7: 257–281.Google Scholar
Perlovsky, L. (2009). Language and emotions: Emotional Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. Neural Networks 22: 518–526.Google Scholar
Postema, G. J. (2012). Custom, normative practice, and the law. Duke Law Journal 62: 707–738.Google Scholar
Ramirez-Esparza, N., Gosling, S. D., Benet-Martinez, V., Potter, J. P. and Pennebaker, J. W. (2006). Do bilinguals have two personalities?: A special case of cultural frame shifting. Journal of Research in Personality 40: 99–120.Google Scholar
Regier, T. and Kay, P. (2009). Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Science 13: 439–446.Google Scholar
Roberson, D., Davies, I. and Davidoff, J. (2000). Color categories are not universal: Replications and new evidence from a stone-age culture. Journal of Experimental Psychology 129: 369–398.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1979). Human categorization. Studies in Cross-Cultural Communication 1: 3–47.Google Scholar
Schlag, P. (1991). Normativity and the politics of form. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 139: 801–932.Google Scholar
Schlichter, A. (1986). The origins and deictic nature of Wintu evidentials. In Chafe, W. and Nichols, J. (eds.) Evidentiality: The Linguistic Coding of Evidentiality, vol. 20. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 46–59.Google Scholar
Sohn, H.-M. (2006). Korean Language in Culture and Society. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Spaak, T. (2003). Legal positivism, law's normativity, and the normative force of legal justification. Ratio Juris 16: 469–485.Google Scholar
White, J. B. (1985). Heracles’ Bow: Essays on the Rhetoric and Poetics of the Law. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
Whorf, B. L. (1956). An American Indian model of the universe. In Carroll, J. B. (ed.) Language, Thought, and Reality: Selected Writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 57–64.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, A. (1994). Semantics and epistemology: The meaning of ‘evidential’ in cross-linguistic perspective. Language Sciences 16, 81–137.Google Scholar
- 13
- Cited by