Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface and acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: Sociolinguistic theory and the practice of sociolinguistics
- Part I Theorising social meaning
- Part II Language, markets and materiality
- Part III Sociolinguistics, place and mobility
- Part IV Power, mediation and critical sociolinguistics
- Part V Sociolinguistics, contexts and impact
- 15 Are there zombies in language policy? Theoretical interventions and the continued vitality of (apparently) defunct concepts
- 16 Quantitative sociolinguistics and sign languages: Implications for sociolinguistic theory
- 17 Theorising language in sociolinguistics and the law: (How) can sociolinguistics have an impact on inequality in the criminal justice process?
- Part VI The evolution of sociolinguistic theory
- Index
- References
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
By
Edited by
Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- Preface and acknowledgements
- 1 Introduction: Sociolinguistic theory and the practice of sociolinguistics
- Part I Theorising social meaning
- Part II Language, markets and materiality
- Part III Sociolinguistics, place and mobility
- Part IV Power, mediation and critical sociolinguistics
- Part V Sociolinguistics, contexts and impact
- 15 Are there zombies in language policy? Theoretical interventions and the continued vitality of (apparently) defunct concepts
- 16 Quantitative sociolinguistics and sign languages: Implications for sociolinguistic theory
- 17 Theorising language in sociolinguistics and the law: (How) can sociolinguistics have an impact on inequality in the criminal justice process?
- Part VI The evolution of sociolinguistic theory
- Index
- References
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
- SociolinguisticsTheoretical Debates, pp. 367 - 388Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2016
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).
. 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
. 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
, and . 1990. Poetics and performance as critical perspectives on language and social life. Annual Review of Anthropology 19: 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 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
. 2011. Pragmatics and discourse. In (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 122–137.Google Scholar
, and . 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
. 1996. Socialization to text: Structure and contradiction in schooled literacy. In and (eds.), Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 203–228.Google Scholar
, and . 2005. Just Words: Law, Language and Power. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 2007. Style: Language Variation and Identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2009. The pragmatics of interaction: A survey. In , , and (eds.), The Pragmatics of Interaction. Amsterdam: John Benjamins, 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 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
. 2011. Linguistic anthropology: The study of language as a non-neutral medium. In (ed.), The Cambridge Handbook of Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–46.Google Scholar
, and . 1992. Rethinking Context: Language as an Interactive Phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2006. Lexical struggle in court: Aboriginal Australians vs the state. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10, 2: 153–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2012. The social consequences of language ideologies in courtroom cross examination. Language in Society 41, 4: 471–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2015a. Judicial understandings of Aboriginality and language use in criminal cases. In (ed.), Strings of Connectedness: Essays in Honour of Ian Keen. Canberra: ANU Press, 27–51.Google Scholar
. 2015b. Communicating with Aboriginal witnesses in court. Precedent (Journal of the Australian Lawyers Alliance) 126: 44–48.Google Scholar
. 2016. Erasing context in the courtroom construal of consent. In , , and (eds.), Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 71–91.Google Scholar
. 2007. Legal discourse and the cultural intelligibility of gendered meanings. Journal of Sociolinguistics 11: 452–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Text trajectories, legal discourse and gendered inequalities. Applied Linguistics Review 3, 1: 47–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2013. Post-penetration rape and the decontextualization of witness testimony. In , , and (eds.), Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 189–205.Google Scholar
. 2016. Post-penetration rape: Coercion or freely-given consent? In , and (eds.), Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, and . 2016. Introduction: Linguistic and discursive dimensions of consent. In , and (eds.), Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (eds.). 2016. Discursive Constructions of Consent in the Legal Process. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and . 2005. Australian Criminal Justice, (1st ed. 1994). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
. 2012. Review of The Language of Statutes: Laws and Their Interpretation by (2010). International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 19, 1: 135–140.Google Scholar
. 2004. The Discourse of Court Interpreting: Discourse Practices of the Law, the Witness and the Interpreter. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2006. The dynamics of power and resistance in police interview discourse. Discourse and Society 17, 6: 739–759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2003. Ideologies of language: Some reflections of language and U.S. law. American Anthropologist 105, 4: 764–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
, , and (eds.). 2013. Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1974. Foundations of Sociolinguistics: An Ethnographic Approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Preliminary notes on a possible metric which provides for a “Standard Maximum” silence of approximately one second in a conversation. In and (eds.), Conversation: An Interdisciplinary Perspective. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 166–196.Google Scholar
, and . 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.
. 2013. Travels of a suspect's statement. In , , and (eds.), Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 126–146.Google Scholar
. 1999. Twenty theses on adversarial ethics. In and (eds.), Beyond the Adversarial System. Sydney: Federation Press, 134–154.Google Scholar
. 2006. The Asylum Speaker: Language in the Belgian Asylum Procedure. Manchester: St. Jerome Press.Google Scholar
. 2000. Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics 32: 879–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Law and the Language of Identity: Discourse in the William Kennedy Smith Rape Trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
, and . 2011. Fundamentals of Trial Technique,. (1st ed. 1993). Sydney: Thomson Reuters.Google Scholar
. 2007. The Language of Law School: Learning to Think like a Lawyer. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1997. Redressing the imbalance against Aboriginals in the Criminal Justice System. Criminal Law Journal 21, 1: 7–22.Google Scholar
, and . 2009. Silence is talk: Conversational silence in Australian Aboriginal talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 41: 2033–2052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 1998. Ideology in the Language of Judges: How Judges Practice Law, Politics and Courtroom Control. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
, , and . 2013. Textual travel in legal-lay communication. In , , and (eds.), Legal-Lay Communication: Textual Travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–32.Google Scholar
, and . 1996. The natural history of discourse. In and (eds.), Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press, 1–17.Google Scholar
, and (eds.). 1996. Natural Histories of Discourse. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
, and . 2005. Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
. 1989. Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
. 2003. Latinas’ Narratives of Domestic Abuse: Discrepant Versions of Violence. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Ideology in Language Use: Pragmatic Guidelines for Emprirical Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- 6
- Cited by