Cover not available

In:History of Linguistics 2017: Selected papers from the 14th International Conference on the History of the Language Sciences, (ICHoLS 14), Paris, 28 August – 1 September
Edited by Émilie Aussant and Jean-Michel Fortis
[Studies in the History of the Language Sciences 127] 2020
► pp. 221–236

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload Book PDF
EPUB logo with download linkDownload Book EPUB
authorization required

Linguists and lawyers

 | University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.127.15kib
Abstract
The first article of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that “all men are born free and equal in dignity and rights”. It prohibits discrimination based on language, among other criteria, and defines a number of areas in which rights are guaranteed, including legal proceedings, education, elections, health care, commerce and the workplace. Each of these areas has a linguistic component, and every country addresses that linguistic component according to national traditions. After a brief history of the linguistic rights, the first part of this talk will focus on how the legal system in the United States treats those who do not speak English. In a second part we will examine issues within the English language itself, how the legal system uses prescriptive grammars and dictionaries to reach its decisions. While the examples presented will focus on the United States, the issues are universal and readers are encouraged to reflect on how the same issues are addressed in other national contexts.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Linguists as experts
    • 2.1Translation and interpretation
    • 2.2Understanding warnings
    • 2.3Determining the need for an interpreter
  • 3.Interpreting the Constitution and statutes
    • 3.1Dictionaries and grammars
    • 3.2Linguistic corpora
    • 3.3Translations and originalism
    • 3.4Originalism is a double-edged sword
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
  • Court cases
References (24)
References
Aprill, Ellen P. 1998. “The Law of the Word: Dictionary Shopping in the Supreme Court”. Arizona State Law Journal 30.275–336.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Eggington, William G. & Troy Cox. 2013. “Using Elicited Oral Response Testing to Determine the Need for an Interpreter”. Harvard Latino Law Review 16.127–146.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
González, Roseann Dueñas. 1977. The Design and Validation of an Evaluative Procedure to Diagnose the English Aural-Oral Competency of a Spanish-Speaking Person in the Justice System. PhD Dissertation, University of Arizona.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
González, Roseann Dueñas, Victoria F. Vásquez & Holly Mikkelson. 2012. Fundamentals of Court Interpreting. Theory, Policy and Practice. 2nd ed. Durham NC: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kibbee, Douglas A. 2016. Language and the Law. Linguistic Inequality in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kirchmeier, Jeffrey L. & Samuel A. Thumma. 2010. “Scaling the Lexicon Fortress: The Supreme Court’s Use of Dictionaries in the Twenty-First Century”. Marquette Law Review 94.77–261.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lowth, Robert. 1762. A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. London: A. Millar and R. & J. Dodsley.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maggs, Gregory E. 2014. “A Concise Guide to Using Dictionaries to Determine the Original Meaning of the Constitution”. George Washington University Law Review 82.358–393.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mikhail, John. 2017. “The Definition of ‘Emolument’ in English Language and Legal Dictionaries, 1523–1806”. [URL], last consulted 25 August, 2018.
Mulligan, Christina, Michael Douma, Hans Lind & Brian Quinn. 2016. “Founding-Era Translations of the U.S. Constitution”. Constitutional Commentary 31.1–53.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Phillips, James C., Daniel M. Ortner & Thomas R. Lee. 2016. “Corpus Linguistics & Original Public Meaning. A New Tool to Make Originalism More Empirical”. Yale Law Journal Forum 126.20–30.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Radmann, Jana. 2005. Do You Speak English? A Study on English-Language Proficiency Testing of Hispanic Defendants in U.S. Criminal Courts. M.A. Thesis, Louisiana State University.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence B. 2011. “What is Originalism? The Evolution of Contemporary Originalist Theory”. The Challenge of Originalism Theories of Constitutional Interpretation, ed. by Grant Huscroft & Bradley W. Miller, 12–41. Cambridge: Cambridge U. Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2017. “Originalist Methodology”. University of Chicago Law Review 84.269–295.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stinneford, John F. 2017. “The Original Meaning of Cruel”. Georgetown Law Journal 105.441–506.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Webster, Noah. 1789. Dissertations on the English Language. Boston: Isaiah Thomas.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Court cases
District of Columbia and State of Maryland v. Donald J. Trump. U. S. District Court, Maryland, 2018 Civil No. PJM 17–1596.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Escobar v. State Supreme Court of Arizona, 30 Ariz. 159, 1926Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
U.S. ex rel. Negrón v. New York U.S. District Court, Eastern District, N.Y., 306 F.Supp. 1304, 1970Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Manuel v. City of Joliet U.S. Supreme Court, 137 S.Ct. 911, 2017.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marin v. Busby U.S. District Court, California Central District, 2014 U.S. Dist. 83112, 2014Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
People v. Harris Supreme Court of Michigan, 439 Mich. 332, 2016Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
State v. Natividad Supreme Court of Arizona, 111 Arizona 191, 1974Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
US v. Dutchie U.S. District Court, Utah, Central Division, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66823, 2008Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue