Cover not available
Part of
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

Linguists and lawyers

| University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

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.

Keywords: law, lexicography, corpus linguistics, court interpreting, human rights, originalism
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
Published online: 20 May 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sihols.127.15kib
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
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
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
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
Kibbee, Douglas A.
2016 Language and the Law. Linguistic Inequality in America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
Lowth, Robert
1762 A Short Introduction to English Grammar: With Critical Notes. London: A. Millar and R. & J. Dodsley.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
Mikhail, John
2017 “The Definition of ‘Emolument’ in English Language and Legal Dictionaries, 1523–1806”. [URL], last consulted 25 August, 2018. DOI logo
Mulligan, Christina, Michael Douma, Hans Lind & Brian Quinn
2016 “Founding-Era Translations of the U.S. Constitution”. Constitutional Commentary 31.1–53.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
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
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 “Originalist Methodology”. University of Chicago Law Review 84.269–295.Google Scholar
Stinneford, John F.
2017 “The Original Meaning of Cruel”. Georgetown Law Journal 105.441–506.Google Scholar
Webster, Noah
1789 Dissertations on the English Language. Boston: Isaiah Thomas.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
Escobar v. State
Supreme Court of Arizona, 30 Ariz. 159 1926Google Scholar
U.S. ex rel. Negrón v. New York
U.S. District Court, Eastern District, N.Y., 306 F.Supp. 1304 1970Google Scholar
Manuel v. City of Joliet
U.S. Supreme Court, 137 S.Ct. 911 2017.Google Scholar
Marin v. Busby
U.S. District Court, California Central District 2014 U.S. Dist. 83112 2014Google Scholar
People v. Harris
Supreme Court of Michigan, 439 Mich. 332 2016Google Scholar
State v. Natividad
Supreme Court of Arizona, 111 Arizona 191 1974Google Scholar
US v. Dutchie
U.S. District Court, Utah, Central Division, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 66823 2008Google Scholar