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
- Afterword
- Index
- References
Part III - Written in Silence: Hidden Social Meanings in Legal Discourse
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
- 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. 135 - 204Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2018
References
References
Conley, J. M., O'Barr, W. M. and Lind, E. A. (1979). The Power of Language: Presentational Styles in the Courtroom. Duke Law Journal 1978(6): 1375–1399.Google Scholar
Findley, J. D. and Sales, B. D. (2012). The Science of Attorney Advocacy: How Courtroom Behaviour Affects Jury Decision Making. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
References
Alibali, M. and DiRusso, A. (1999). The function of gesture in learning to count: More than keeping track. Cognitive Development 14: 37–56.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S, Leech, G., Conrad, S and Finegan, E. (1999). Grammar of Spoken and Written English. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, S. (2001). Representing Rape: Language and Sexual Consent. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1979). Central Problems in Social Theory. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Giddens, A. (1984). The Constitution of Society. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Goldin-Meadow, S. (in press). Nonverbal communication: The hand's role in talking and thinking. In Lerner, R. (ed.) Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science. Vol. 2. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Heffer, C. (2010). Narrative in the trial: Constructing crime stories in court. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, 199–217.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Closing statement: Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. (ed.) Style in Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 350–377.Google Scholar
Krahmer, E. and Swerts, M. (2007). The effects of visual beats on prosodic prominence: Acoustic analyses, auditory perception and visual perception. Journal of Memory and Language 57: 396–414.Google Scholar
Maricchiolo, F., Gnisci, A., Bonaiuto, M. and Ficca, G. (2009). Effects of different types of hand gestures in persuasive speech on receivers’ evaluations. Language and Cognitive Processes 24: 239–266.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. M. (2001). Law and the Language of Identity. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. M. (2010). Multimodal aspects of victim narration in direct examination. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.) Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, 541–557.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. and Gilbert, K. (forthcoming). Multifunctionality of beat gestures and material conduct in closing argument. Gesture 15 (1).Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (1992). Hand and Mind: What Gestures Reveal About Thought. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2006). Gesture and communication. In Brown, K. (ed.) Encyclopedia of Language and Communication (2nd ed. Vol. 5). New York: Elsevier, 58–66.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. (2012). How Language Began: Gesture and Speech in Human Evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Muller, C. (2004). Forms and uses of the palm up open hand: A case study of a gesture family. In Muller, C. and Posner, R. (eds) The Semantics and Pragmatics of Everyday Gestures. Weidler: Buchverlag, 233–256.Google Scholar
Muller, C. (2008). What gestures reveal about the nature of metaphor. In Cienki, A. and Muller, C. (eds.) Metaphor and gesture. Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 219–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosulek, L. F. (2008). Manipulative silence and social representation in the closing arguments of a child sexual abuse case. Text & Talk 28: 529–550.Google Scholar
Rosulek, L. F. (2010). Prosecution and defense closing speeches: The creation of contrastive closing arguments. In Coulthard, M. and Johnson, A. (eds.) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. New York: Routledge, 218–230.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1976). Language structure and linguistic ideology. In Clyne, P. et al. (eds.) The Elements: A Parasession on Linguistic Units and Levels. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 193–247.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (1998). The improvisational performance of culture in realtime discursive practice. In Sawyer, R. K. (ed.) Creativity in performance. Greenwich, CT: Ablex, 265–312.Google Scholar
Silverstein, M. (2004). Cultural concepts and the language-culture nexus. Current Anthropology 45(5): 621–652.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (1993). Gesture as communication I: Its coordination with gaze and speech. Communication Monographs 60: 275–299.Google Scholar
Streeck, J. (2008). Gesture in political communication: A case study of the democratic presidential candidates during the 2004 primary campaign. Research on Language and Social Interaction 41: 154–186.Google Scholar
Stygall, G. (2012). Discourse in the U.S. courtroom. In Solan, L. and Tiersma, P. (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Language and Law. New York: Oxford University Press, 369–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
References
Danet, B. and Kermish, N. (1978). Courtroom Questioning: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. In Massery, L. II (ed.), Psychology and Persuasion in Advocacy. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America. 413–441.Google Scholar
Dunstan, R. (1980). Contexts for coercion: Analysing properties of courtroom ‘questions’. British Journal of Law and Society 7: 61–77.Google Scholar
Bibliography
Adelsward, V., Aronsson, K., Jonssen, L. and Lineli, P. (1987). The unequal distribution of interactional space: Dominance and control in courtroom interaction. Text 7(4).Google Scholar
Adler, M. and Longhurst, B. (1994). Discourse, Power and Justice. London and New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. M. and Drew, P. (1979). Order in Court: The Organization of Verbal Interaction in Judicial Setting. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bennett, W. L. and Feldoman, M. S. (1981). Reconstructing Reality in the Courtroom. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Berger, C. (1994). Power, dominance, and social interaction. In Knapp, M. L. and Miller, G. R. (eds.) Handbook of Interpersonal Communication. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 450–507.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, S. (1999). The impact of court interpreting on the coerciveness of leading questions. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 6 (1).Google Scholar
Bogoch, B. and Danet, B. (1984). Challenge and control in lawyer-client interaction: A case study in an Israeli legal aid office. In Danet, B. (ed.) Studies of Legal Discourse, special issue of Text 4(1–3): 247–273.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Conley, J. M. and O'Barr, W. M. (1998). Just Words. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conley, J. M., O'Barr, W. M. and Lind, E. A. (1978). The power of language: Presentational style in the Courtroom. Duke Law Journal 1978: 1375.Google Scholar
Coulthard, M. (2002). Whose voice is it? Invented and concealed dialogue in written records of verbal evidence produced by the police. In Cotteril, J. (ed.) Language in the Legal Process. London: Palgrave Macmillian, 19–34.Google Scholar
Danet, B. (1980b). Language in the Courtroom. In Giles, H., Smith, P. and Robinson, P. (eds.) Language: Social and Psychological Perspectives. Oxford: Pergamon, 367–376.Google Scholar
Danet, B. (1993). Book Review of Roger Shuy, Language Crimes: The Use and Abuse of Language Evidence in the Courtroom, Oxford: Blackwell. Journal of Language and Social Psychology 13 (1): 73–77.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 of Law and Society 7: 36–60.Google Scholar
Danet, B. and Kermish, N. C. (1978). Courtroom Questioning: A Sociolinguistic Perspective. In Massery, L. N. (ed.) Psychology and Persuasion in Advocacy. Washington, DC: Association of Trial Lawyers of America, 412–444.Google Scholar
Deirdre, B. and Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Talk and Social Structure: Studies in Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
D'hondt, S. (2010). The cultural defense as courtroom drama: the enactment of identity, sameness and difference in criminal trial discourse. Law and Social Inquiry 35(1): 67–98.Google Scholar
Diamond, J. (1996). Status and Power in Verbal Interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1985). Analyzing the use of language in courtroom interaction. In Van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 3. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 133–148.Google Scholar
Drew, P. (1990). Strategies in the contest between lawyer and witness, cross-examination. In Levi, J. and Walker, A. (eds.) Language in the Judicial Process. New York and London: Plenum.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Heritage, J. C. (1992). Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Drew, P. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (1997). Institutional dialogue. In Van Dijk, T. A. (ed.), Discourse as Social Interaction. Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Vol. 2. London: Sage, 92–118.Google Scholar
Duncan, S., Jr. (1972). Some signals and rules for taking speaking turns in conversation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 23: 383–392.Google Scholar
Eades, D. (2000). I don't think it's an answer to the question: Silencing Aboriginal witnesses in court. Language in Society 29: 161–195.Google Scholar
Fowler, R. (2001). Power. In van Dijk, T. A. (ed.) Handbook of Discourse Analysis. London: Academic Press, 61–82.Google Scholar
Fowler, R., Hodge, R., Kress, G. and Trew, T. (1979). Language and Control. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
Gee, J. P. (1999). An Introduction to Discourse Analysis: Theory and Method. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic Linguistics: An Introduction to Language in the Judicial System. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Goody, E. N. (1978). Questions and Politeness: Strategies in Social Interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, S. (1984). Questions as a Mode of Control in Magistrate's Courts. International Journal of Sociology of Language 1984 (49): 5–28.Google Scholar
Heritage, J. and Clayman, S. (2010). Talk in Action: Interactions, Identities, and Institutions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Hobbs, J. (1990). Topic Drift. In Dorval, B. (ed.) Conversational Organization and Its Development. Norwood,NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation, 3–22.Google Scholar
Ilie, C. (1999). Question-response argumentation in talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 31: 975–999.Google Scholar
Itakura, H. (2001). Conversational Dominance and Gender. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Liao, M. Z. (2004). A Study of Courtroom Questions, Responses and Their Interaction. Beijing: Law Press.Google Scholar
Liao, M. Z. (2005b). The goal-driven principle and goal analysis: A new way of doing pragmatics. Rhetorical Learning 3: 1–10 and 4: 5–11.Google Scholar
Liao, M. Z. (2009a). The goal-driven principle and communication. Foreign Language Research 4: 62–64 and 6: 101–109.Google Scholar
Liao, M. Z. (2009b). A study of interruption in Chinese criminal courtroom discourse. Text & Talk 29(2): 175–199.Google Scholar
Liao, M. Z. (2010). A comparative study of Chinese and American criminal sentencing discourse. ESP Across Cultures 7: 105–128.Google Scholar
Liao, M. Z. (2012). Courtroom discourse in China. In Solan, L. and Tiersma, P. (eds.) Handbook on Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 395–407.Google Scholar
Liao, M. Z. (2013). Power in interruption in Chinese criminal courtroom discourse. In Williams, C. and Tessuto, G. (eds.) Language in the Negotiation of Justice: Contexts, Issues and Applications. Surrey: Ashgate, 33–48.Google Scholar
Liao, M. Z. (2015). Speech or silence: Within and beyond language and law. In Solan, L. W., Ainsworth, J. and Shuy, R. (eds.) Speaking of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 127–130.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. (1975). Leading questions and eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology 7: 560–572.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, I. (1999). Power. In Ashe, F. (ed.) Contemporary Social and Political Theory. Philadelphia: Open University Press, 69–87.Google Scholar
Matoesian, G. M. (1995). Language, law, and society: Policy implications of the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Law & Society 29: 669–701.Google Scholar
Mayr, A. (2008). Language and Power: An Introduction to Institutional Discourse. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
O'Barr, W. M. (1982). Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Philips, S. U. (1998). Ideology in the Language of Judges: How Judges Practice Law Politics, and Courtroom Control. New York/Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Shuy, R. (1987). Conversational power in FBI covert tape recordings. In Kedar, L. (ed.) Language and Power. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 43–56.Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W. (1998). The Language of Confession, Interrogation and Deception. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Shuy, R. W. (2001). Discourse analysis in the legal context. In Schiffrin, D., Tannen, D. and Hamilton, H.. (eds.) The Handbook of Discourse Analysis. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 437–451.Google Scholar
Sidnell, J. and Stivers, T. (eds.) (2012). The Handbook of Conversation Analysis, London: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
Solan, L. M., Ainsworth, J. and Shuy, R. (eds.) (2015). Speaking of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stenstrom, A.-B. (1984). Questions and Responses in English Conversation. Malmo: Liber Foerlag.Google Scholar
Tiersma, P. M. and Solan, L. M. (2012). Handbook of Language and Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Walker, A. G. (1987). Linguistic manipulation, power and the legal setting. In Kedar, L. (ed.) Power Through Discourse. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing, 57–83.Google Scholar
Walsh, M. (1994). Interactional Styles in the Courtroom: An Example from Northern Australia. In Gibbons, J. (ed.) Language and the Law. London: Longman Group, 217–233.Google Scholar
Weigand, E. and Dascal, M. (2001). Negotiation and Power in Dialogic Interaction. John Benjamins Publishing Company: Amsterdam/Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1980). Discourse analysis and courtroom interaction. Discourse Processes 3: 269–390.Google Scholar
Wodak, R. (1985). The interaction between judge and defendant. In van Dijk, T.A., Handbook of Discourse Analysis, Vol. 4: Discourse Analysis in Society. London: Academic Press, 181–191.Google Scholar
Woodbury, H. (1984). The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica 48(3/4): 197–228.Google Scholar
Yu, P. (2002). Glittery promises vs. dismal reality: The role of a criminal lawyer in the People's Republic of China after the 1996 revision of the Criminal Procedure Law. Vanderbilt Journal Transnational Law 35: 827.Google Scholar
Zhang, W. Y. (2006). An overview of contrastive studies of the Chinese English and Languages. Journal of Central China Normal University (Humanities Edition) 45(01): 133–137.Google Scholar
References
Ahmed, A. A. (2009). Specters of Macaulay: Blasphemy, The Indian Penal Code and Pakistan's Predicament. In Mazzarella, W. and Kaur, R. (eds.) Censorship in South Asia: Cultural Regulation from Sedition to Seduction. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 172–205.Google Scholar
Barendt, E. (2013). “Hate Speech”, Lecture given at Hull University, 21 November, www2.hull.ac.uk/fass/pdf/Eric%20Barendt-HATE%20SPEECH.pdfGoogle Scholar
Bhatia, G. (2015). Offend, Shock, or Disturb: Free Speech under the Indian Constitution. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Burra, A. (2008). Arguments from Colonial Continuity: The Constitution (First Amendment Act), 7 December 1951, available at SSRN, http://ssrn.com/abstract=2052659Google Scholar
Coordination of Democratic Rights Organisations (2012). The Terror of Law: UAPA and the Myth of National Security, New Delhi, April.Google Scholar
Dhavan, R. (2007). Harassing Husain: Uses and Abuses of the Law of Hate Speech. New Delhi: Sahmat.Google Scholar
Dhavan, R. (2008). Publish and Be Damned: Censorship and Intolerance in India. New Delhi: Tulika Books.Google Scholar
Donogh, W. R. (1911). A Treatise on the Law of Sedition and Cognate Offences in British India. Calcutta: Thakker, Spink and Co.Google Scholar
Hansen, T. B. (2001). Wages of Violence: Naming and Identity in Postcolonial Bombay. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Hare, I. and Weinstein, J. (eds.) (2009). Extreme Speech and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kalven, H. (1965). The Negro and the First Amendment 140. Cited in McGaffey, R. (1973) The Heckler's Veto: A Reexamination. Marquette Law Review 57 (1): 39–64, available at http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol57/iss1/3Google Scholar
Law Commission of India, 43rd Law Commission Report on Offences Against the National Security, August 1971.Google Scholar
Matsuda, M. J., Lawrence, C. R., Delgado, R. and Crenshaw, K. W. (1993). Words That Wound: Critical Race Theory, Assaultive Speech and the First Amendment. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Mazzarella, W. and Kaur, R. (eds.) (2009). Censorship in South Asia: Cultural Regulation from Sedition to Seduction. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
McGaffey, R. (1973). The Heckler's Veto: A Reexamination. Marquette Law Review 57(1): 39–64, available at http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol57/iss1/3Google Scholar
Mehta, D. (2008). Words That Wound, Archiving Hate in the Making of Hindu and Muslim Publics in Bombay. In Khan, N. (ed.) Beyond Crisis: Re-evaluating Pakistan. New Delhi: Routledge India.Google Scholar
Mehta, P. B. (2015). The Crooked Lives of Free Speech: Liberals Lose Plot from Paris to Delhi. Open Magazine 7(5), 4–10 February.Google Scholar
Nair, N. (2013). Beyond the ‘Communal’ 1920s: The Problem of Intention, Legislative Pragmatism, and the Making of Section 295A of the Indian Penal Code. Indian Economic Social History Review 50: 317–340.Google Scholar
Narrain, S. (2016). Hate Speech, Hurt Sentiment and the (Im)Possibility of Free Speech, Economic and Political Weekly LI (17), 23 April: 119–126.Google Scholar
The Parliamentary Debates, Official Report, Part II, May 29, 1951.Google Scholar
Punwani, J. (2014). Why There's No Noise about the Mumbai Riots, 14 February, http://www.rediff.com/news/column/jyoti-punwani-why-theres-no-noise-about-the-mumbai-riots/20140204.htmGoogle Scholar
Rao, S. (ed.) (2010). The Framing of India's Constitution: Select Documents Vol. 2. Delhi: Universal Law Publishing.Google Scholar
Rosenfeld, M. (2003). Hate Speech in Constitutional Jurisprudence: A Comparative Analysis. Cardozo Law Review 24 (4): 1523–1568.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (2005). The Exceptional First Amendment, KSG Working Paper No. RWP05–021, http://ssrn.com/abstract=668543, February.Google Scholar
‘What Saamna Said’, (2000) Frontline, Vol. 17, Issue 16, 5–18 August, http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1716/17160160.htm.Google Scholar