Language ideologies and speaker categorization: a case study from the U.S. legal system

References

Agar, Michael. 1985. Institutional discourse. Text 5(3). 147–168. https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1985.5.3.147.Search in Google Scholar

American Bar Association. 2012. Standards for language access in courts. Available at: https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/legal_aid_indigent_defendants/ls_sclaid_standards_for_language_access_proposal.authcheckdam.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Angermeyer, Philipp S. 2014. Monolingual ideologies and multilingual practices in small claims court: The case of Spanish-speaking arbitrators. International Journal of Multilingualism 11(4). 430–448. https://doi.org/10.1080/14790718.2014.944531.Search in Google Scholar

Angermeyer, Philipp S. 2021. Beyond translation equivalence: Advocating pragmatic equality before the law. Journal of Pragmatics 174. 157–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2020.12.022.Search in Google Scholar

Atkinson, J. Maxwell & Paul Drew. 1979. Order in court: The organisation of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Baffy, Marta & Alexandria Marsters. 2015. The constructed voice in courtroom cross-examination. The International Journal and Speech, Language and the Law 22(2). 143–165. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v22i2.17895.Search in Google Scholar

Brustin, Stacy L. 2022. A civil shame: The failure to protect due process in discretionary immigration custody & bond redetermination hearings. Brooklyn Law Review 88. 163–225.Search in Google Scholar

Chaemsaithong, Krisda. 2023. Membership categorization devices in courtroom opening and closing statements. Social Semiotics 33. 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10350330.2023.2184683.Search in Google Scholar

Cheng, Winnie & Le Cheng. 2012. Legal interpretation: Meaning as social construction. Semiotica 192. 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1515/sem-2012-0086.Search in Google Scholar

District of Columbia Courts. 2022. Language access program 2022 annual report. Available at: https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/divisionspdfs/2022_LANGUAGE_ACCESS_PROGRAM_ANNUAL_REPORT.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Domnarski, William. 2012. Judges should write their own opinions. The New York Times. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/opinion/judges-should-write-their-own-opinions.html.Search in Google Scholar

Drew, Paul. 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Paul Drew & John Heritage (eds.), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings, 471–520. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Eades, Diana. 2000. ‘I don’t think it’s an answer to the question’: Silencing Aboriginal witnesses in court. Language in Society 29. 161–195. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500002013.Search in Google Scholar

Flowerdew, John & John E. Richardson. 2018. Introduction. In John Flowerdew & John E. Richardson (eds.), The Routledge handbook of critical discourse studies, 1–10. London: Routledge.10.4324/9781315739342-1Search in Google Scholar

Georgetown University Law Center, The Writing Center [Georgetown Law Writing Center]. 2017. In chambers: Effective writing tips for judicial interns and law clerks. Available at: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/In-Chambers-Effective-Writing-Tips-for-the-Judicial-Interns-and-Law-Clerks.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Gonzales Rose, Jasmine B. 2020. Color-blind but not color-deaf: Accent discrimination in jury selection. New York University Review of Law and Social Change 44. 309–354.Search in Google Scholar

Haviland, John B. 2003. Ideologies of language: Some reflections on language and U.S. law. American Anthropologist 105(4). 764–774. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.2003.105.4.764.Search in Google Scholar

Hester, Stephen & Peter Eglin. 1997. Membership categorization analysis: An introduction. In Peter Eglin & Stephen Hester (eds.), Culture in action: Studies in membership categorization analysis, 1–23. Washington: International Institute of Ethnomethodology and Conversation Analysis & University Press of America.Search in Google Scholar

Hoffman, Craig. 2019. Practical legal English: Writing as a U.S. lawyer. St. Paul, MN: West Academic Publishing.Search in Google Scholar

Housley, William & Richard Fitzgerald. 2017. Introduction to membership categorisation analysis. In William Housley & Richard Fitzgerald (eds.), Advances in membership categorisation analysis, 2–24. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Interpreters for Hearing-Impaired and Non-English Speaking Persons Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-1901 et seq. 2001.Search in Google Scholar

Judicial Council of California. 2020. 2020 language need and interpreter use study. Available at: https://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/2020-Language-Need-and-Interpreter-Use-Study-Report-to-the-Legislature.pdf.Search in Google Scholar

Kroskrity, Paul V. 2004. Language ideologies. In Alessandro Duranti (ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology, 497–517. Oxford: Blackwell.10.1002/9780470996522.ch22Search in Google Scholar

Labov, William. 1981. Speech actions and reactions in personal narrative. In Deboran Tannen (ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk, 219–247. Washington: Georgetown University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Licoppe, Christian. 2017. Categorisation work in the courtroom: The ‘foundational’ character of membership categorization analysis. In William Housley & Richard Fitzgerald (eds.), Advances in membership categorisation analysis, 71–98. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.Search in Google Scholar

Lippi-Green, Rosina L. 1994. Accent, standard language ideology, and discriminatory pretext in the courts. Language in Society 23. 163–198. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047404500017826.Search in Google Scholar

Leeman, Jennifer. 2018. It’s all about English: The interplay of monolingual ideologies, language policies and the U.S. Census Bureau’s statistics on multilingualism. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 252. 21–43. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijsl-2018-0013.Search in Google Scholar

Lo Bianco, Joseph. 1999. The language of policy: What sort of policy making is the officialization of English in the United States? In Thom Hueber & Kathryn A. Davis (eds.), Sociolinguistic perspectives on language policy and planning in the USA, 39–65. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.10.1075/sibil.16.07lobSearch in Google Scholar

Luchjenbroers, June. 1997. ‘In your own words …’: Questions and answers in a Supreme Court trial. Journal of Pragmatics 27. 477–503. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(96)00033-1.Search in Google Scholar

Macey, David. 2000. Ideology. In The Penguin dictionary of critical theory. London: Penguin Books.Search in Google Scholar

Mason, Marianne. 2015. The role of interpreters in adjudicating blame: An examination of clitics and active-passive voice in a Spanish-English bilingual criminal trial. Translation and Interpreting Studies 10(2). 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1075/tis.10.2.02mas.Search in Google Scholar

Matoesian, Gregory. 2000. Intertextual authority in reported speech: Production media in the Kennedy Smith rape trial. Journal of Pragmatics 32. 879–914. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-2166(99)00080-6.Search in Google Scholar

Mazzi, Davide. 2010. “This argument fails for two reasons …”: A linguistic analysis of judicial evaluation strategies in US Supreme Court judgments. International Journal for the Semiotics of the Law 23. 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-010-9162-0.Search in Google Scholar

Mazzi, Davide. 2014. “Our reading would lead to …”: Corpus perspectives on pragmatic argumentation in US Supreme Court judgments. Journal of Argumentation in Context 3(2). 103–125. https://doi.org/10.1075/jaic.3.2.01maz.Search in Google Scholar

McDermott, Ray P. & Hervé Varenne. 1996. Culture, development, disability. In Richard Jessor, Anne Colby & Richard A. Shweder (eds.), Ethnography and human development: Context and meaning in social inquiry, 101–126. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

McKeown, Jamie. 2021. A corpus-based examination of reflexive metadiscourse in majority and dissent opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court. Journal of Pragmatics 186. 224–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2021.10.019.Search in Google Scholar

McKeown, Jamie. 2022. Stancetaking in the U.S. Supreme Court’s abortion jurisprudence (1973–present): Epistemic (im)probability and evidential (dis)belief. International Journal of Legal Discourse 7(2). 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2022-2075.Search in Google Scholar

Mertz, Elizabeth. 1990. Consensus and dissent in U.S. legal opinions: Narrative control and social voices. Anthropological Linguistics 30. 369–394.Search in Google Scholar

Mey, Jacob L. 2017. Discourse, interests, and the law: Some pragma-legal reflections. International Journal of Legal Discourse 2(1). 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2017-0004.Search in Google Scholar

Miller, Maxwell A., Lynn W. Davis, Adam Prestidge & William G. Eggington. 2011. Finding justice in translation: American jurisprudence affecting due process for people with limited English proficiency together with practical suggestions. Harvard Latino Law Review 14. 117–153.Search in Google Scholar

New Mexico Judiciary, Administrative Office of the Courts. 2017. Language access plan 2017–2019. Available at: https://languageaccess.nmcourts.gov/language-access-plans/.Search in Google Scholar

Ng, Kwai Hang. 2009. Beyond court interpreters: Exploring the idea of designated Spanish-speaking courtrooms to address language barriers to justice in the United States. In Rebecca L. Sandefur (ed.), Access to justice, 97–118. Bingley: Emerald Group.10.1108/S1521-6136(2009)0000012008Search in Google Scholar

Omnibus Public Safety Amendment Act of 2006, 2006 D.C. Laws 16-306 (Act 16-482).Search in Google Scholar

Ortega, Pilar, Tiffany M. Shin & Glenn A. Martínez. 2022. Rethinking the term “limited English proficiency” to improve language-appropriate healthcare for all. Journal of Immigrant Minority Health 24(3). 799–805. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10903-021-01257-w.Search in Google Scholar

Pavlenko, Aneta. 2024. Language proficiency as a matter of law: Judicial reasoning on Miranda waivers by speakers with limited English proficiency (LEP). International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 37(2). 329–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-023-10037-8.Search in Google Scholar

Pavlenko, Aneta. 2002. ‘We have room for but one language here’: Language and national identity in the US at the turn of the 20th century. Multilingua 21. 163–196. https://doi.org/10.1515/mult.2002.008.Search in Google Scholar

Philips, Susan U. 1998. Ideology in the language of judges: How judges practice law, politics, and courtroom control. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780195113402.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Philips, Susan U. 2018. Language ideologies. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, 557–575. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Rocha-Guzmán v. D.C. Dept. of Empl. Servs., 170 A.3d 170 (D.C. 2017).Search in Google Scholar

Ruiz, Richard. 1984. Orientations in language planning. NABE Journal 8(2). 15–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/08855072.1984.10668464.Search in Google Scholar

Rumsey, Alan. 1990. Wording, meaning, and linguistic ideology. American Anthropologist 92(2). 346–361. https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1990.92.2.02a00060.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1972. An initial investigation of the usability of conversational data for doing sociology. In David Sudnow (ed.), Studies in social interaction, 31–74. New York: Free Press.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1974. On the analysability of stories by children. In Roy Turner (ed.), Ethnomethodology: Selected readings, 216–232. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Search in Google Scholar

Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on conversation, Vols. I and II. Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Santaniello, Lisa. 2018. If an interpreter mistranslates in a courtroom and there is no recording, does anyone care? The case for protecting LEP defendants’ constitutional rights. Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy 14. 91–124.Search in Google Scholar

Schegloff, Emanual. 2007. A tutorial on membership categorization. Journal of Pragmatics 39. 462–482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2006.07.007.Search in Google Scholar

Solan, Lawrence M. 1999. The language of judges. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Search in Google Scholar

Stokoe, Elizabeth. 2012. Moving forward with membership categorization analysis: Methods for systematic analysis. Discourse Studies 14(3). 277–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445612441534.Search in Google Scholar

Titscher, Stefan, Michael Meyer, Ruth Wodak & Eva Vetter. 2000. Methods of text and discourse analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.10.4135/9780857024480Search in Google Scholar

Torres v. United States, 929 A.2d 880 (D.C. 2007).Search in Google Scholar

Torres v. United States, Brief for Appellant, 2004 WL 5536279, Nov. 16, 2004 (D.C. Ct. of App.).Search in Google Scholar

United States Census Bureau. 2019. American community survey, language spoken at home. Available at: https://data.census.gov/.Search in Google Scholar

Wagner, Anne, Aleksandra Matulewska & Le Cheng. 2020. Law as a culturally constituted sign-system – a space for interpretation. International Journal of Legal Discourse 5(2). 239–267. https://doi.org/10.1515/ijld-2020-2035.Search in Google Scholar