Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-r5d9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-31T12:02:04.115Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language and the Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 November 2008

Roger W. Shuy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The application of linguistics to other areas of life has occurred in a somewhat natural, if haphazard, fashion. The first and most obvious applications were to education (first and second language learning, teaching, and testing), lexicography, translation, and speech therapy (Crystal 1981). There has been rather long standing interest in other fields, such as medical interaction (Mishler 1984; cf., van Naerssen and Kaplan elsewhere in this volume) and religious language (Samarin 1976), but it has been only within the past few years that increasing amounts of linguistic knowledge have been applied to the field of law.

Information

Type
Language and the Professions
Information
Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , Volume 7 , March 1986 , pp. 50 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1986

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

UNANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Brière, E. 1978. Limited English speakers and the Miranda Rights. TESOL quarterly. 12.3.235–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bryant, M. 1962. English in the law courts. New York: Ungar.Google Scholar
Chang, W. B. G. and Aravjo, M. U.. 1975. Interpreters for the defense: Due process for the non-English speaking defendant. California law review. 63.801–823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charrow, R. P. and Charrow, V. R.. 1979. Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instruction. Columbia law review. 79.7.1306–1374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Charrow, V. R. and Erhardt, M.. 1986. Clear and effective legal writing. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Crystal, D. 1981. Directions in applied linguistics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Danet, B. 1976. Language and the construction of reality in the courtroom I: Semantic issues in the trial of Kenneth Edelin. Boston: Boston University. [Work paper no. 3, Law and Language Project.]Google Scholar
Danet, B.. 1980a. Language in the legal process. Language society review. 14.3.445–564.Google Scholar
Danet, B.. 1980b. An ethnography of questioning in the courtroom. In Shuy, R. and Shnukal, A. (eds.) Language use and the uses of language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 222–234.Google Scholar
Danet, B. and Bogoch, B.. 1980. Fixed fight or free for all? An empirical study of combativeness in the adversary system of justice. British journal law society. 7.36–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Di Pietro, R. J. (ed.) 1982. Linguistics and the professions. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. [Advances in Discourse Processes series, vol. 8.]Google Scholar
Finegan, E. In press. Assessing comprehensibility in the language of legal discourse. In Lea, W. A. (ed.) Voice analysis on trial. Springfield, IL: Thomas.Google Scholar
Firsching, J. 1986. Conversational implicature: Mathematical word problems and teacher expectations. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Ph.D.diss.Google Scholar
Goldstein, G. H. 1984. Using and abusing tape recorded evidence. Paper presented at the Seminar on Criminal Defense Litigation, Atlanta.Google Scholar
Gumperz, J. J. 1982. Fact and inference in courtroom testimony. In Gumperz, J. J. (ed.) Language and social identity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 430–445.Google Scholar
Hancher, M. 1980. Speech acts and the law. In Shuy, R. and Shnukal, A. (eds.) Language use and the uses of language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 245–256.Google Scholar
Holland, V. M. 1981. Psycholinguistic alternatives to readability formulas. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. [Document Design Project, Technical Report #12.]Google Scholar
Levi, J. 1982. Linguistics, language and the law: A topical bibliography. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lind, E. A. and O'Barr, W. M.. 1979. The social significance of speech in the courtroom. In Giles, H. and Clair, R. St. (eds.) Language and social psychology. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press. 66–87.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. 1975. Leading questions and the eye witness report. Cognitive psychology. 7.560–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellinkoff, D. 1963. The language of the law. Boston: Little Brown.Google Scholar
Mishler, E. G. 1984. The discourse of medicine: Dialectics of medical interviews. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
O'Barr, W. M. 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language power and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ogle, R. and Kalamroka, P.. 1979. Leading questions: A case study in the language of the law. Unpublished paper, University of California at Davis.Google Scholar
Phillips, S. U. 1985. Strategies of clarification in judges' use of language: From the written to the spoken. Discourse processes. 8.4.421–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pousada, A. 1979. Interpreting for language minorities in the courts. In Alatis, J. E. and Tucker, G. R. (eds.) Language and public life. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 186–208. [Georgetown University Round Table.]Google Scholar
Prince, E. 1985. Language and the law: A case for linguistic pragmatics. Unpublished paper, University of Pennsylvania.Google Scholar
Samarin, W. J. 1976. Language in religious practice. Rowley, MA: Newbury House.Google Scholar
Segalowitz, N. 1976. Communicative incompetence and non-fluent bilingualism. Canadian journal of behavioral science. 8.122–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuy, R. W. 1981. Linguistics in the courtroom. Paper presented at the Conference on Linguistics and the Humanities.Arlington, TX. [Mimeo.]Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W.. 1982a. Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary. Congressional record-Senate. March 2. 1622–1627.Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W. 1982b. Topic as the unit of analysis in a criminal law case. In Tannen, D. (ed.) Analyzing discourse: Text and talk. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press. 113–126. [Georgetown University RoundTable.]Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W. and Larkin, D.. 1978. Linguistic considerations in the simplification/classification of insurance policy language. Discourse processes. 1.305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shuy, R. W. and Shnukal, A. (eds.) 1980. Language use and the uses of language. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. 1986. The language of offer and acceptance: Speech acts and the question of intent. California law review. 74.1.189–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, A. G. 1982. Patterns and implications of cospeech in a legal setting. In Di Pietro, R. (ed.) Linguistics and the professions. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. 101–112.Google Scholar
Walker, A. G.. 1985. From oral to written: The “verbatim” transcription Of legal proceedings. Washington, DC: Georgetown University. Ph.D. diss.Google Scholar