Gumperz, J. and Levinson, S. C. (1996). Rethinking Linguistic Relativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar

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.Google 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

Anderson, J. (1995). An Introduction to Neural Networks. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1995). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.Google Scholar

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.Google 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

Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Mellinkoff, D. (1963). The Language of the Law. Boston: Little Brown.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle 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

Clanchy, M. (2012). From Memory to Written Record: England 1066–1307 (3rd ed.). London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Ainsworth, J. E. (1993). In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation. Yale Law Journal 103: 259–322.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A. (2007). Working Memory, Thought, and Action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S. and Papagno, C. (1998). The Phonological Loop as a Language Learning Device, Psychological Review 105: 158–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Bond, Z. S. (1999). Slips of the Ear: Errors in the Perception of Casual Conversation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Brown, A. (2014). Pronunciation and Phonetics. A Practical Guide for English Language Teachers. New York and Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar

Bruce, D. J. (1958). The Effect of Listeners’ Anticipations on the Intelligibility of Heard Speech. Language and Speech 1: 79–97.Google Scholar

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Conley, J. M. and O'Barr, W. M. (2005). Just Words: Law, Language, and Power (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Coulthard, M. (2002). Whose Voice Is It? Invented and Concealed Dialogue in Written Records of Verbal Evidence Produced by the Police. In Cotterill, J. (ed.) Language in the Legal Process. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 19–34.Google Scholar

Ellsworth, P. C. (2012). Legal Reasoning and Scientific Reasoning. Alabama Law Review 63: 895–918.Google Scholar

Fishman, C. S. (2006). Recordings, Transcripts, and Translations as Evidence, Washington Law Review 81: 523–773.Google Scholar

Foulkes, P. and French, P. (2012). Forensic Speaker Comparison: A Linguistic-Acoustic Perspective. In Tiersma, P. M. and Solan, L. M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 557–572.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2003). Issues in Transcription: Factors Affecting the Reliability of Transcripts as Evidence in Legal Cases. Forensic Linguistics 10: 203–226.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. (2014). Transcription of Indistinct Forensic Recordings: Problems and Solutions from the Perspective of Phonetic Science. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 1(2): 5–21.Google Scholar

Fraser, H. and Stevenson, B. (2014). The Power and Persistence of Contextual Priming: More Risks in Using Police Transcripts to Aid Jurors’ Perception of Poor Quality Covert Recordings. International Journal of Evidence & Proof 18: 205–229.Google Scholar

Fraser, H., Stevenson, B. and Marks, T. (2011). Interpretation of a Crisis Call: Persistence of a Primed Perception of a Disputed Utterance. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 18: 261–292.Google Scholar

French, P. (1990). Analytic Procedures for the Determination of Disputed Utterances. In Kniffka, H. (ed.) Texte zu Theorie und Praxis forensischer Linguistik. Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag, 201–213.Google Scholar

Guillemin, B. J. and Watson, C. (2008). Impact of the GSM mobile phone net-work on the speech signal. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15: 193–218.Google Scholar

Harrison, P. (2001). GSM interference cancellation for forensic audio: a report on work in progress. Forensic Linguistics 8: 9–23.Google Scholar

Hollien, H. (2002). Forensic Voice Identification. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar

Jackendoff, R. (2002). Foundations of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Jessen, M. (2008). Forensic Phonetics. Language and Linguistics Compass 2: 671–711.Google Scholar

Kassin, S. M., Dror, I. E. and Kukucka, J. (2013). The Forensic Confirmation Bias: Problems, Perspectives, and Proposed Solutions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 2: 42–52.Google Scholar

Katzmann, R. A. (2014). Judging Statutes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lawrence, S., Nolan, F. and McDougall, K. (2008). Acoustic and perceptual effects of telephone transmission on vowel quality. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15: 161–192.Google Scholar

Meyer, A. S. (1992). Investigation of Phonological Encoding through Speech Error Analyses: Achievements, Limitations, and Alternatives. Cognition 42: 182–211.Google Scholar

Miller, G. A. (1996). Contextuality. In Oakhill, J. and Garnham, A. (eds.) Mental Models in Cognitive Science: Essays in Honour of Phil Johnson-Laird. East Sussex, England: Psychology Press, 1–18.Google Scholar

Morrison, G. S. (2009). Forensic Voice Comparison and the Paradigm Shift, Science & Justice 49: 298–308.Google Scholar

Nadler, J. and Trout, J. D. (2012). The Language of Consent in Police Encounters. In Tiersma, P. M. and Solan, L. M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 326–339.Google Scholar

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises. Review of General Psychology 22: 175–220.Google Scholar

Nygaard, L. C. and Pisoni, D. B. (1998). Talker-Specific Learning in Speech Perception. Perception and Psychophysics 60: 355–376.Google Scholar

O'Grady, G. (2013). Key Concepts in Phonetics and Phonology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar

Rose, P. (2002). Forensic Speaker Identification. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar

Scalia, A. and Garner, B. A. (2012). Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. St. Paul, MN: Thomson/West.Google Scholar

Shuy, R. W. (1993). Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar

Shuy, R. W. (2014). The Language of Murder Cases: Intentionality, Predisposition, and Voluntariness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Solan, L. (1993). The Language of Judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Solan, L. M. and Tiersma, P. M. (2005). Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Tang, K. and Nevins, A. (2014). Measuring Segmental and Lexical Trends in a Corpus of Naturalistic Speech. In Huang, H.-L., Poole, E. and Rysling, A. (eds.) Proceedings of the 43rd Meeting of the North East Linguistic Society Vol. 2. GLSA (Graduate Linguistics Student Association), 153–166.Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. (1999). Legal Language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Tiersma, P. M. (2010). Parchment, Paper, Pixels: Law and the Technologies of Communication. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar

Trott, S. S. (1996). Words of Warning for Prosecutors Using Criminals as Witnesses. Hastings Law Journal 47: 1381–1432.Google Scholar

Yarmey, A. D. (2012). Factors Affecting Lay Persons’ Identification of Speakers. In Tiersma, P. M. and Solan, L. M. (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 547–567.Google Scholar