Notes

1 Explorations of Courtroom Discourse

1 . The European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms may be accessed at the following Internet address: http://www.echr.coe.int/ NR/rdonlyres/D5CC24A7-DC13–4318-B457–5C9014916D7A/0/ENG_CONV. pdf (date of access: February 1, 2011). 2 . The Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union may be accessed at the following Internet address: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/ LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0389:0403:en:PDF. (date of access: October 1, 2011). 3 . Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and the Council of October 20, 2010 may be accessed at the following Internet address: http://www.eulita. eu/sites/default/files/directive_En.pdf (date of access: December 10, 2011). 4 . This directive is by no means the first legal instrument advocating vide- oconference interpreting in the EU, as the significance and full support for videoconference interpreting have been established under the Convention on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters between EU Countries of May 29, 2000, under Art. 10. 5 . AVIDICUS I (an EU Project JSL/2008/JPEN/037, 2008–2011) and AVIDICUS II (EU Project JUST/2010/JPEN/AG/1558, 2011–2013) are two EU projects that examine the use of videoconference interpreting in criminal proceedings in the EU and evaluate the competence of participating judicial authorities and courtroom interpreters. 6 . Formal aspects of the English language of law have been studied by: Mellinkoff (1963), Crystal and Davy (1969), Shuy and Larkin (1978) , Charrow and Charrow (1979), Gustaffson (1975b), Hiltunen (1984), Danet (1990), Bhatia (1994), Tiersma (1999), Gibbons (2003), Gotti (2003), Butt and Castle (2006), Mattila (2006) and Jopek-Bosiacka (2006). 7 . The data from the O.J. Simpson trial are available at the following Internet address: http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/Simpson/simpson.htm (date of access: February 1, 2011).

2 American Courtroom Discourse

1 . Judges of the U.S. Supreme Court are referred to as justices, and the judges of lower instance courts are called judges (del Carmen 2010: 5). 2 . McKinny tape, transcript no.1, page 45 (http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/www/ Info/fuhrman.html) (date of access February 20, 2011).

3 Polish Courtroom Discourse

1 . Group I comprised the so called Reichsdeutsche , Polish citizens and citizens of the of German origin, who expressly wished to obtain

182 Notes 183

German nationality; Group II encompassed persons from mixed marriages, the Masurians, , and other persons eligible for ; Group III included Polish citizens and citizens of the Free City of Danzig of Polish origin; and Group IV consisted of the Jews and Roma (Jurek 1998: 111). 2 . The Constitution of the Republic of is available in the English language at the following Internet address: http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/ angielski/kon1.htm. (date of access: February 1, 2012). 3 . The Act on the Bar may be accessed at the following Internet address http:// isaps.sejm.gov.pl (date of access: February 1, 2012). 4 . Following Article 175 sections 1 and 2 of the Code of Penal Procedure, the defendant provides explanations , whereas under Article 177 section 1 witnesses give testimony . 5 . The principal of substantive truth is sometimes referred to as the principle of objective truth, which assumes that the truth is founded on real facts and not on theses presumed a priori (Waltoś 2009: 221). 6 . Under Article 187 of the Code of Penal Procedure, a witness may testify with or without being sworn in. Pursuant to Article 188 of the Code of Penal Procedure, the witness swears as follows: “Being conscious of the validity of my words and responsibility before the law, I hereby solemnly swear that I will tell the truth without keeping secret anything that I am aware of.” 7 . Article 233 section 1of the Penal Code provides that whoever, in providing testimony which is to serve as evidence in courtroom or other proceedings conducted on the basis of law, gives false testimony or conceals the truth shall be subject to a penalty of deprivation of liberty for up to three years. 8 . Article 280 section 1 provides that whoever commits theft with the use of violence against a person by means of threatening the immediate use of violence or by causing a person to become unconscious or helpless shall be subject to penalty of deprivation of liberty for a term between 2 and 12 years. Article 282 of the Penal Code stipulates that whoever with the intention of obtaining material benefit by using violence or threatening the life or health of a person or threatening a violent attack against the property causes another person to dispose of her/his own property or the property of others or causes a person to cease running a business, shall be subject to penalty of depriva- tion of liberty for a term of between one and ten years. Article 13 section 1 provides that whoever, with the intention to commit a prohibited act, directly attempts its commission by his conduct, which subsequently does not take place is held liable for attempt. References

Adelswärd, Viveka, Karin Aronsson, Linda Jönsson, and Peter Linell. 1987. “The unequal distribution of interactional space: dominance and control in court- room interaction”, TEXT 7, 4, 313–346. Ainsworth, Janet. 2010. “Miranda rights. Curtailing coercion in police interroga- tion: the failed promise of Miranda v. Arizona ”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 111–126. Aldridge, Michelle. 2010. “Vulnerable witnesses in the criminal justice system”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 296–315. Archer, Dawn. 2005. Questions and answers in the English courtroom (1640–1760): A sociopragmatic analysis. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Archer, Dawn. 2006. “Tracing the development of advocacy in two nineteenth- century English trials”, in: Marina Dossena and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Diachronic perspectives on domain-specific English. Bern: Peter Lang AG. Archer, Dawn. 2007. “Developing a more detailed picture of the English courtroom (1640–1760): Data and methodological issues facing historical pragmatics”, in: Susan M Fitzmaurice and Irma Taavitsainen (eds), Methods in historical prag- matics . Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Archer, Dawn. 2010. “A diachronic investigation of English courtroom practice”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 185–199. Arundale, Robert B. 2005. “Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversa- tion”, in: Kirsten L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders (eds), Handbook of language and social interaction , 41–67. Asprey, Michèle. 2003. Plain language for lawyers . Sydney: The Federation Press. Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in court:The organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings . London: MacMillan. Atkinson, J. Maxwell and John Heritage (eds). 1984. Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Atkinson, J. Maxwell. 1984. “Public speaking and audience responses: some tech- niques for inviting applause”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 370–411. Atkinson, Maxwell J. 1992. “Displaying neutrality: formal aspects of informal court proceedings”, in: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 163–199. Auer, Peter. 2009. “Context and contextualization”, in: Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman (eds), Key notions for pragmatics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 86–102. Austin, John Langshaw, 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

184 References 185

Baker, J.H. 2002. An introduction to English legal history (Fourth Edition). London: Butterworths. Baugh, Albert and Thomas Cable. 2002. A history of the English language (Fifth Edition) London: Routledge. Bauman, Richard and Joel Sherzer. 1975. “The ethnography of speaking”, Annual Review of Anthropology 4, 95–119. Beattie, John M. (1986). Crime and Courts in England 1660–1800 . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Beaugrande, Robert de. 1997. “The story of discourse analysis”, in: Teun A. van Dijk, Discourse as structure and process . London,·Thousand Oaks and·New Delhi: Sage Publications, 35–63. Bednarek, Grażyna. 2009. “Translation of the European arrest warrant in the light of intercultural communication”, Investigationes Linguisticae , vol. XVII, Zeszyt Specjalny Zakładu Legilingwistyki, 84–99. Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1990. The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Bhatia, Vijay K. 1994. “Cognitive structuring in legislative provisions”, in: John Gibbons (ed.), Language and law. London and New York: Longman. Bhatia, Vijay K. 2010. “Legal Writing: Specificity. Specification in legal writing: Accessibility, transparency, power and control”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 21–37. Bhatia, Vijay K., Maurizio Gotti, Jan Engberg, and Dorote Heller (eds). 2005. Vagueness in normative texts. : Peter Lang. Bhatia, Vijay K., Christopher N. Candlin, and Jan Engberg (eds). 2008. Legal discourse across cultures and systems. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Bhatia, Vijay K., Christopher Candlin, and Maurizio Gotti (eds). 2003. Legal discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts: Arbitration texts in Europe. Bern: Peter Lang AG. Bix, Brian. 1995. Law, language and legal determinacy . Oxford: Clarendon Press. Blackledge, Adrian. 2005. Discourse and power in a multilingual world: Discourse approaches to politics, society and culture . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Blommaert, Jan. 2005. Discourse: A critical introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Juliane Hause, and Gabriele Kasper (eds). 1989. Cross- cultural pragmatics: Requests and apologies . Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Blum-Kulka, Shoshana and Gabriele Kasper (eds). 1993. Interlanguage pragmatics . Lake Bluff: Jupiter. Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1991. Discourse analysis: Cambridge textbooks in linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bocquet, Claude. 2008. La traduction juridique. Fondement et méthode. Bruxelles: De Boeck. Brand, Oliver. 2009. “Language as barrier to comparative law”, in: Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein (eds), Translation issues in language and law . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 18–35. Brodziak, Klaudiusz. 2004. “O lingwistycznym statusie języka prawnego” [On the linguistic status of the legal language], in: Ewa Malinowska (ed.), J ęzyk-Prawo- Społeczeństwo. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego. 186 References

Brown, Gillian and George Yule. 1991. Discourse analysis . Cambridge textbooks in linguistics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bühler, Karl. 1990. Theory of language: The representational function of the language (Translated by Donald Fraser Goodwin). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Bünting, Karl-Dieter. 1989. Wst ęp do lingwistyki. [Introduction to linguistics ] (Tłumaczenie Ewa Tomczyk-Popińska). Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Butt, Peter and Richard Castle. 2006. Modern legal drafting: A guide to using clearer language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bynon, Theodora. 1996. Historical linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with spoken discourse . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Ltd. Cao, Deborah.1996. “Towards a model of translation proficiency”, Target 8, 2, 325–340. Cao, Deborah. 2006. Translating law . Clevedon,·Buffalo·and Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd. Cao, Deborah. 2007a. “Inter-lingual uncertainty in bilingual and multilingual law”, Journal of Pragmatics 39, 69–83. Cao, Deborah and Zhao Xingmin. 2008a. “Translation at the United Nations as specialized translation”, The Journal of Specialized Translation Issue 9, January, 39–54. Cao, Deborah. 2008b. “Illocutionary acts of Chinese legislative language”, Journal of Pragmatics 1–12. Cao, Deborah. 2010. “Legal translation”, in: Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer (eds), Handbook of translation studies . Antwerp: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 191–195. Cao, Deborah. 2010. “Legal translation: Translating legal language”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguis- tics . London and New York: Routledge, 78–95. Charrow, V. R., R.P. Charrow. 1979. “Making legal language understandable: a psycholinguistic study of jury instructions”, Columbia Law Review 79, 1306–1374. Charrow, Veda R. and Jo Ann Crandall. 1978. “Legal language: What is it and what can we do about it?” Paper presented at the New Wave Conference of the American Dialect Society Washington, D.C., November 4, 1978. Chauvin, Tatiana, Tomasz Stawecki, i Piotr Winczorek. 2009. Wst ęp do prawoznawstwa . [Introduction to the theory of law ]. Warszawa: C.H. Beck. Choduń, Aleksandra. 2004. “Język prawny a język potoczny” [Legal language vs. ordinary language], in: Ewa Malinowska (ed.), J ęzyk-Prawo-Społeczeństwo . Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego. Chruszczewski, Piotr P. 2011. J ęzykoznawstwo antropologiczne: Zadania i metody [Anthropological linguistics. Tasks and methods]. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk Oddział we Wrocławiu. Cole, George E. and Christopher E. Smith. 2011. Criminal justice in America . Wadsworth: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Colin, Joan and Ruth Morris. 1996. Interpreters and the legal process. Winchester: Waterside Press. References 187

Condor, Susan and Charles Antaki. 1997. “Social cognition and discourse”, in: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process . London, Thousand Oaks and·New Delhi: Sage Publications, 320–348. Conley, John M. and William M. O’Barr. 1990. Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse . Mahwah, New Jersey; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Conley, John M. and William M. O’Barr. [1998] 2005. Just words: Law, language and power . Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press. Conley, John M. and William M. O’Barr. 2005. Just words: Law, language and power . Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Cooren, Farnçois. 2005. “The contribution of speech act theory to the analysis of conversation: How pre-sequences work”, in: Kirsten L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders (eds). Handbook of language and social interaction , 21–41. Cordonnier, Jean-Louis. 1997. Traduction et culture. Bruxelles: Hatier/Didier. Cornu, Gerard. 2005. Linguistique juridique . Paris: Montchrestien. Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O.J. Simpson trial . Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Cotterrell, Roger. 2004. “Law in culture”, Ratio juris 1, 1–14. Cotterrell, Roger. 2006. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory . Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Cotterrell, Roger. 2006. “Comparative law and legal culture”, in: Mathias Reihmann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford handbook of compara- tive law. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 709–739. Cotterrell, Roger. 2009. “The struggle for law: Some dilemmas of cultural legality”, International Journal of Law in Context . Cambridge University Press, 373–384. Coulthard, Malcolm. 1994. Advances in written text analysis . London and New York: Routledge. Coulthard, Malcolm. 1997. An introduction to discourse analysis . London and New York: Longman. Coulthard, Malcolm and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge. Craig, Paul and Gráinne de Búrca. 2008. EU law: Text, cases, and matters . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Crystal, David and Derek Davy. 1969. Investigating English style. London: Longman. Curran, Vivian. 1998. “Cultural immersion, difference and categories in U.S. comparative law”, American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 42. Curran, Vivian (ed.). 2002. Comparative law : An introduction. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. Curran, Vivian. 2006. “Comparative law and language”, in: Mathias Reihmann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 675–709. Danet, Brenda. 1980. “Language in the legal process”, Law and Society Review , vol. 14: 445–564. Danet, Brenda. 1984. “Legal discourse”, in: Teun A. van Dijk, (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis . London: Academic Press, vol. 1, 273–291. Danet, Brenda. 1983. “Law, bureaucracy and language”, Society 20, 4, 49–55. Danet, Brenda. 1990. “Language and law: An overview of fifteen years of research”, in: Howard Giles and W. Peter Robinson (eds), Handbook of language and social psychology . London: Wiley, 537–559. 188 References

Danet, Brenda and Bryna Bogoch. 1994. “Orality, literacy, and performativity in Anglo-Saxon wills”, in: John Gibbons (ed.), Language and the law . London and New York: Longman, 100–135. David, René and John Brierly. 1985. Major legal systems in the world today . London: Stevens. de Cruz, Peter. 1999. Comparative law in a changing world. London and Sydney: Cavendish Publishing Limited. del Carmen, Rolando V. 2010. Criminal procedure: Law and practice . Wadsworth: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. D’hondt, Sigurd, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren (eds). 2009. The prag- matics of interaction . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Dijk, Teun A. van. 1997. “Discourse as interaction in society”, in: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as social interaction . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 1–38. Dijk, Teun A. van. 1997. “The study of discourse”, in: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process . London, Thousand Oaks· and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 1–35. Dijk, Teun A. van. 2008. Discourse and context: A sociocognitive approach . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dijk, Teun A. van. 2008. Discourse and power . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Dijk, Teun A. van. (ed.). 1997. Discourse as structure and process . London, Thousand Oaks and·New Delhi: Sage Publications. Dijk, Teun A. van. (ed.). 1997. Discourse as social interaction . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc. Dijk, Teun A. van. 2009. Society and discourse: How social contexts influence text and talk . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dossena, Marina and Irma Taavitsainen (eds). 2006. Diachronic perspective on domain-specific English . Bern: Peter Lang AG. Drew, Paul and John Heritage (eds). 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Drew, Paul. 1984. “Speaker’s reportings in invitation sequences”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversa- tion analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 129–152. Drew, Paul. 1985. “Analyzing the use of language in courtroom interaction”, in: Teun van Dijk (ed.), Handbook of discourse analysis , vol. 3. Amsterdam: North- Holland, 133–148. Drew, Paul. 1992. “Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape”, in: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 418–470. Drew, Paul. 2005. “Conversation analysis”, in: Kirsten L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders (eds), Handbook of language and social interaction , 71–103. Drew, Paul and John Heritage. 1992. “Analyzing talk at work: An introduction”, in: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 3–66. Dunstan, R. 1980. “Context for coercion: Analyzing properties of courtroom questions”, British Journal of Law and Society , 7: 61–67. Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic anthropology: A reader . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. References 189

Duranti, Alessandro (ed.). 2001. Key terms in language and culture . Malden, MA: Blackwell. Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin (eds). 1997. Rethinking context: Language as interactive phenomenon . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Duszak, Anna. 1998. Tekst, dyskurs, komunikacja międzykulturowa. [ Text, discourse, intercultural communication ]. Warszawa: PWN. Duszak, Anna. 2002. Us and others: Social identities across discourses and cultures . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Eades, Diana. 1994. “A case of communicative clash: Aboriginal English and the legal system”, in: John Gibbons (ed.), Language and the law . London and New York: Longman, 217–234. Eggins, Suzanne and J.R. Martin. 1997. “Genres and registers of discourse”, in: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process . London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications, 230–257. Ehrlich, Susan. 2001. Reproducing rape . London: Routledge. Ehrlich, Susan. 2010. “The discourse of rape trials”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 265–281. Endicott, Tim. 2000. Vagueness in law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Engberg, Jan. 2008. “Vagueness and indeterminacy in law”, in: Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher Candlin, and Jan Engberg (eds), Legal discourse across cultures and systems . Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press. Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 2009. “Developmental psychology”, in: Dominiek Sandra, Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman (eds), Cognition and pragmatics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 146–156. Finch, Geoffrey. 2003. How to study linguistics: A guide to understanding language . London: Palgrave Macmillan. Fisiak, Jacek. 1993. An outline history of English. vol. 1: External history . Poznań: Kantor Wydawniczy SAWW. Fitch, Kristine L. and Robert E. Sanders (eds). 2005. Handbook of language and social interaction . Mahwah, New Jersey; London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers. Flowerdew, John and Michaela Mahlberg (eds). 2009. Lexical cohesion and corpus linguistics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Garfinkel, Harold. 1964. “Studies in the routine grounds of everyday activities”, Social Problems , 11(3), 225–250. Garfinkel, Harold. 1967. Studies in ethnomethodology . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Garfinkel, Harold. 1988. “Evidence for locally produced, naturally accountable phenomena of order, logic, reason, meaning, method, etc., in and as of the essential quiddity of immortal ordinary society (I of IV): An announcement of studies”, Sociological Theory 6, 10–39. Garner, Bryan A. 2002. The elements of legal style . Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Gee, James Paul. 2005. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method . London and New York: Routledge. Geis, Michael L. 1995. Speech acts and conversational interaction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 190 References

Gibbons, John (ed.). 1994. Language and the law . London and New York: Longman. Gibbons, John. 1999. “Language and the law”, Annual review of applied linguistics. Cambridge University Press, 156–173. Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Malden and Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz. 1982. “Znamiona czasownikowe w kodeksie karnym. Zagadnienie czasu gramatycznego i aspektu” [The nature of verbs in the Penal Code. The notion of grammatical tense and aspect], Studia prawn- icze, 1–2. Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz. 1983. “O sposobach formułowania dyrektyw” [On the methods of formulating directives], Studia semiotyczne XIII, 91–111. Gizbert-Studnicki, Tomasz. 1986. J ęzyk prawny z perspektywy socjolingwistcznej . [The language of law in the light of sociolinguistics ], Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego – Prace z nauk politycznych 26. Goddard, Cliff and Anna Wierzbicka. 1997. “Discourse and culture”, in: Teun A. van Dijk, (ed.), Discourse as social interaction . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 231–258. Goffman, Erving. 1964. “The neglected situation”, American Anthropologist 6, 2, 133–136. Goffman, Erving. 1969. Strategic interaction . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goffman, Erving. 1981. Forms of talk . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Goodenough, Ward. 1964. “Cultural anthropology and linguistics”, in: Dell H. Hymes (ed.), Language in culture and society . New York and London: Harper and Row, 36–39. Goodrich, Peter. 1987. Legal discourse: Studies in linguistics, rhetoric and legal anal- ysis . Hong Kong: The Macmillan Press Ltd. Goodwin, Charles. 1984. “Notes on story structure and the organization of participation”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 225–247. Goodwin, Charles and John Heritage. 1990. “Conversation analysis”, Annual Review of Anthropology , 19, 283–307. Gotti, Maurizio (ed.). 2003. Specialized discourse. Bern: Peter Lang. Gotti, Maurizio. 2008. “Cultural constraints on arbitration discourse”, in: Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher Candlin, and Maurizio Gotti (eds), Legal discourse in multi- lingual and multicultural contexts: Arbitration texts in Europe. Bern: Peter Lang. Gotti, Maurizio. 2009. “Globalizing trends in legal discourse”, in: Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein (eds), Translation issues in language and law . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 55–76. Greatbatch, David L. 1988. “A turn-taking system for British news interviews”, Language and Society 17, 3, 401–430. Greatbatch, David L. 1992. “On the management of disagreement between news interviews”, in: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at work . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 268–301. Grice, H. Paul. 1975. “Logic and conversation”, in: Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan (eds), Syntax and semantics 3 : Speech acts . New York: Academic Press, 41–58. References 191

Grossfeld, Bernhrad. 2002. “Kernfragen der Rechtsvergleichung”, in: Vivian Grosswald Curran (ed.), Comparative law: An introduction. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 31–45. Grosswald Curran, Vivian. 2006. “Comparative law and language”, in: Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford handbook of comparative law . Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 675–709. Grundy, Peter. 1995. Doing pragmatics . London: Edward Arnold. Gunnarson, Britt-Louise. 1997. “Applied discourse analysis”, in: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as social interaction . Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc., 285–313. Gustafsson, Marike. 1975b. “Some syntactic properties of English law language”, Turku, Finland: University of Turku, Department of English (Publication no. 4). Habermas, Jürgen. 1998. On the pragmatics of communication . Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, cop. Haigh, Rupert. 2004. Legal English. New York: Cavendish Publishing Limited. Hale, Sandra. 2010. “Court interpreting. The need to raise the bar: Court inter- preters as specialized experts”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 440–455. Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman. Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold. Hałas, Bożena. 1995. Terminologia języka prawnego . Zielona Góra: WSP TK. Harder, Peter. 2009. “Communication”, in: Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman (eds), Key notions for pragmatics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 62–86. Harris, Sandra. 1984. “Questions as a mode of control in magistrates’ courts”, International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49, 5–27. Hart, H.L.A. 1994. The concept of law . New York: Oxford University Press. Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1990. Discourse and the translator. New York: Longman. Hatim, Basil. 1997. Communication across cultures: Translation theory and contras- tive text linguistics. Devon: University of Exeter Press. Hatim, Basil and Ian Mason. 1997. The translator as communicator. London and New York: Routledge. Heath, Christian. 1984. “Talk and recipiency: Sequential organization in speech and body movement”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 247–266. Heffer, Chris. 2010. “Narrative in the trial. Constructing crimes stories in court”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 199–218. Heinz, Adam. 1978. Dzieje językoznawstwa w zarysie. [An historical outline of linguis- tics ]. Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe. Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology . Cambridge: Polity Press. Heritage, John. 1984. “A change-of-stake token and aspects of its sequential placement”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 299–346. 192 References

Heritage, John. 2005. “Conversation analysis and institutional talk”, in: Kirsten L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders (eds), Handbook of language and social interaction, 103–149. Heritage, John and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions . Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford. Hiltunen, Risto. 1984. “The type and structure of clausal embedding in legal English”, Text 5/3, 107–121. Hiltunen, Risto. 1990. Chapters on legal English: Aspects past and present of the language of the law . Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Hinnekamp, Volker. 1995. “Intercultural communication”, in: Jeff Verschueren, Jan-Ola and Jan Blommaert (eds), Handbook of pragmatics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Hofstede, Geert. 2001. Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. Thousand Oaks, London and New Delhi: Sage Publications International Educational and Professional Publisher. Holliday, Adrian, Martin Hyde, and John Kullman. 2004. Intercultural communica- tion: An advanced resource book . London and New York: Routledge. Holt, Elizabeth and Alison Johnson. 2010. “Legal talk. Socio-pragmatic aspects of legal talk: Police interviews and trial discourse”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 21–37. Hostettler, John. 2004. The criminal jury old and new: Jury power from early times to the present day . Winchester: Waterside Press. Hostettler, John. 2006. Fighting for justice: The history and origins of adversary trial . Winchester: Waterside Press. Hostettler, John. 2009. A history of criminal justice in England and Wales . Sherfield: Waterside Press. Hudson, R.A. 2007. Sociolinguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huscroft, Richard. 2009. The Norman Conquest: A new introduction. Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. Hutchby, Ian and Robin Wooffitt. 1998. Conversational analysis : An introduction . Cambridge: Polity Press. Hymes, Dell. 1964. “Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication”, American Anthropologist , New Series, vol. 66, Part 2: “The Ethnography of Communication”, 1–34. Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Hymes, Dell. 1974. “Toward ethnographies of communication”, in: Dell Hymes (ed.), Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 3–66. Hymes, Dell. 1972(a). “On communicative competence”, in: J.B. Pride and Janet Holmes (eds), Sociolinguistics . Harmondsworth: Penguin, 269–293. Hymes, Dell. 1972(b). “Models of the interaction of language and social life”, in: John Gumperz and Dell Hymes (eds), Directions in sociolinguistics . New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston, 35–71. Hayslett, Jerrianne. 2008. Anatomy of a trial: Public loss, lessons learned from People vs. O. J. Simpson . Missouri: University of Missouri Press. References 193

Hunt, Darnell M. 2004. Facts and fiction: News rituals in the construction of reality . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jackson, Bernard S. 1995. Making sense in law: Linguistic, psychological and semiotic perspectives . Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications. Jefferson, Gail. 1984. “On the organization of laughter in talk about troubles”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 346–370. Johnstone, Barbara. 2002. Discourse analysis . Malden, MA, and Oxford. Jopek-Bosiacka, Anna. 2003. “Legal discourse as cross-cultural communication”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation written under the supervision of A. Duszak. Poznań: Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza, Wydział Neofilologii, Instytut Filologii Angielskiej. Jopek-Bosiacka, Anna. 2001. “Relacja nadawca-odbiorca w polskim dyskursie prawnym i prawniczym w świetle pragmatyki komunikacyjnej” [The sender –receiver rela- tionship in the light of communicative pragmatics], in: Grażyna Habrajska (ed.), J ęzyk w komunikacji . Łódź: Wydawnictwo WSHE, vol. 1–3, 82–97. Jopek-Bosiacka, Anna. 2006. Przekład prawny i sądowy [Legal translation and court interpretation]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN. Jordan, Constance and Cunningham, Karen (eds). 2007. The law in Shakespeare . New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Jucker, Andreas H. and Irma Taavitsainen (eds). 2008. Speech acts in the history of English . Amsterdam and Philadelphia. John Benjamins Publishing Company. Jurek, Piotr. 1998. Historia państwa i prawa polskiego: Źródła prawa, sądownictwo. Zarys wykładu . [The history of the nation and Polish law ]. Wrocław: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Wrocławskiego. Kielar, Barbara. 1973. Angielskie ekwiwalenty polskich terminów prawno-ustrojowych . [English equivalents of Polish legal terms ]. Warszawa: PWN. Kierzkowska, Danuta. 2002. Tłumaczenie prawnicze . [Legal translation ]. Warszawa: TEPIS. Kurkowska, Halina and Stanisław Skorupka. 1966. Stylistyka polska. Zarys . [Polish stylistics. The outline ]. Warszawa: PWN. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2000a. “Representations of orality in early modern English trial records”, Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1, 2, 201–230. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2000b. “What is interesting about old court trial records. A confession of a freshly baked historical pragmaticist”, in: Stanisław Puppel, Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk (eds), Multis vocibus de lingua . Poznań: Motivex, 59–72. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2002. Synchronic and diachronic investigations in prag- matics . Poznań: Motivex. Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2006. “Legal pragmatics”, in: Encyclopedia of English language and linguistics 2 . Amsterdam: Elsevier, 13–20. Kastovsky, Dieter and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky. 2008. “Crimes and misdemeanors: Legal terminology versus lexical semantics and the role of pragmatics”, in: Marianne Thormählen (ed.), English Now: Selected papers from the 20 th IAUPE conference in Lund 2007 , 277–291. Kibbee, Douglas A. 1991. For to speke French trewely: The French language in England, 1000–1600: Its status, description, and instruction . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing. 194 References

Kischel, Uwe. 2009. “Legal cultures–legal languages”, in: Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein (eds), Translation issues in language and law . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 7–18. Knowles, Gerry. 1997. A cultural history of the English language. London: Hodder Arnold. Kocbek, Alenka. 2008. “The cultural embeddedness of legal texts”, Journal of Language and Translation 9–2, 49–70. Kredens, Krzysztof and Ruth Morris. 2010. “Interpreting outside the courtroom. ‘A shattered mirror?’ interpreting in legal contexts outside the courtroom”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 455–473. Kurzon, Denis.1989. “Language of the law and legal language”, in: Laurén Christier and Marianne Nordman (eds), Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters, 283–290. Kurzon, Dennis. 1986. It is hereby performed: Explorations in legal speech acts. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Kurzon, Dennis. 1997. “Legal language: Varieties, genres, registers, discourses”, International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7, 2, 119–139. Kwarciński, Tomasz. 2002. “A speech act approach to legal discourse”. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. Faculty of Modern Languages and Literature. School of English. Labov, William. 1972a. Sociolinguistic patterns . Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Labov, William. 1972b. Language in the inner city . Philadelphia: Philadelphia University Press. Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 2009. “Conversational logic”, in: Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman (eds), Key notions for pragmatics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 102–114. Langbein, John H. 2003. The origins of adversary criminal trial . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Leech, Geoffrey. 1981. Semantics: The study of meaning . Harmondsworth, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books. Leech, Geoffrey. 1983. Principles of pragmatics . London: Longman. Leeuwen, Theo van. 2008. Discourse and practice . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Legrand, Pierre. 2005. “Issues in the translatability of law”, in: Sandra Bermann and Michael Wood (eds), Nation, language and the ethics of translation . Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press, 30–51. Leith, Dick. 1983. A social history of English . London and Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd. Lerner, Gene H. (ed.). 2004. Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Levinson, Stephen. 1983. Pragmatics . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. “Activity types and language”, in: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66–101. Levinson, Stephen C. 1992. “Activity types and language”, in: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 66–101. References 195

Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2005. An Introduction to conversation analysis . London: Continuum. Lipoński, Wojciech. 2001. Narodziny cywilizacji Wysp Brytyjskich . [ The birth of civi- lization on the British Isles ]. Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie. Lizisowa, Maria Teresa. 1986. “Z badań nad terminologią prawną” [On research into legal terminology], Rocznik Naukowo-Dydaktyczny WSP Kraków – Prace Językoznawcze 5, 5–20. Luchjenbroers, June. 1997. “In your own words ... : Questions and answers in a Supreme Court trial”, Journal of Pragmatics 27, 477–503. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John. 1977. Semantics. vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lyons, John. 1981. Language and linguistics: An introduction . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Madsen, Dorte. 1997. “A model for translation of legal texts”, in: Mary Snell- Hornby, Zuzanna Jettmarova, and Klaus Kaindl (eds), Translation as intercul- tural communication . Amsterdam and Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 291–299. Majewska, Teresa. 1968. “Z historii polskiego języka kancelaryjnego. Uwagi o składni” [On the history of the Polish administrative language. Remarks on the syntax], Poradnik Językowy 6, 306–318. Malinowski, Andrzej. 1980. “Właściwości stylistyczne języka prawnego na tle właściwości języka potocznego” [Stylistic traits of the of law in the light of the Polish ordinary language], Pa ństwo i Prawo 9, 67–76. Malinowski, Bronisław. 1923. “The problem of meaning in primitive languages”, in: Charles Kay Ogden and Ivor Armstrong Richards (eds), The meaning of meaning . London: Routledge and Keagan Paul, 296–336. Malinowski, Andrzej. 2006. Polski język prawny: Wybrane zagadnienia . [ Polish legal language ]. Warszawa: LexisNexis. Malmkjær, Kirsten (ed.). 1991. The linguistics encyclopedia . Matoesian, Gregory M. 1993. Reproducing rape: Domination through talk in the courtroom . Cambridge: Polity Press. Mattila, Heiki E.S. 2006. Comparative legal linguistics. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited. Maynard, Douglas W. 2003. Bad news, good news: Conversational order in everyday talk and clinical settings . London: The University of Chicago Press Ltd. McAuliffe, Karen. 2009. “Translation at the Court of Justice of the European Communities”, in: Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein (eds), Translation issues in language and law . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 99–116. McBride, Alex. 2010. Defending the guilty: Truth and lies in the criminal courtroom . London: Penguin Books Ltd. Melone, Albert P. and Allan Karnes. 2008. The American legal system: Perspectives, politics, processes and policies . Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Inc. Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The language of the law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Merryman, John Henry. 1969. The civil law tradition: An introduction to the legal systems of Western Europe and Latin America. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 196 References

Mikkelson, Holly. 2000. Introduction to court interpreting. Manchester and Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing. Mey, Jacob L. 1993. Pragmatics: An introduction . Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Mills, Sarah. 1997. Discourse . London and New York: Routledge. Mills, Sara. 2003. Gender and politeness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Morris, Marshall (ed.). 1995. Translation and the law. American Translators Association. Scholarly Monograph Series, vol. 8. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Neubert, Albrecht. 2000. “Competence in language, languages, and in trans- lation”, in: Christina Schäffner and Beverly Adab (eds), Developing transla- tion competence . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 3–19. O’Barr, William. 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language, power and strategy in the court- room. New York: Academic Press. Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel Schegloff, and Sandra Thompson (eds). 1996. Interaction and grammar . Cambridge: University of Cambridge. Paltridge, Brian. 2006. Discourse analysis: An introduction . London: Continuum. Philips, S.U. 1984. “The social organization of questions and answers in court- room discourse: A study of changes of plea in an Arizona court”, TEXT 4, 1/3, 225–248. Philips, S. U. 1987. “The social organization of questions and answers in court- room discourse”, in: L. Kedar (ed.), Power through discourse . Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 83–113. Philipsen, Gerry and Lisa M. Coutu. 2005. “The ethnography of speaking”, in: Kirsten L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders (eds), Handbook of language and social interaction , 355–381. Pieńkos, Jerzy. 1999 Podstawy juryslingwistyki: język w prawie – prawo w języku. [The background of legal linguistics: the language in law – the law in language ]. Warszawa: Muza SA. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Agreeing and disagreeing in assessments: some features of preferred and dispreferred turn shapes”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 57–102. Pomerantz, Anita. 1984. “Pursuing response”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 152–165. Pomerantz, Anita and Jenny Mandelbaum. 2005. “Conversation analytic approaches to the relevance and uses of relationship categories in interaction”, in: Kirsten L. Fitch and Robert E. Sanders (eds), Handbook of language and social interaction , 149–175. Psathas, George. 1995. Conversation analysis . Thousand Oaks: Sage. Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, and Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language . New York: Longman. Reimann, Mathias and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds). 2006. The Oxford handbook of comparative law . New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rock, Frances. 2010. “Witnesses and suspects in interviews. Collecting oral evidence: The police, the public and the written word”, in: Malcolm Coulthard References 197

and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 126–139. Robertson, Geoffrey. 2009. Sir William Garrow: His life, times and fight for justice . Sherfield: Waterside Press. Robinson, Jeffrey D. and John Heritage. 2005. “The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: the completion relevance of current symptoms”, Social Science and Medicine 61, 481–493. Robinson, Jeffrey D. and Tanya Stivers. 2001. “Achieving activity transitions in primary-care encounters: from history to physical examination”, Human Communication Research 27, 2, 253–298. Rosen, Lawrence. 2006. Law as culture : An invitation . Princeton: Princeton University Press. Roszkowski-Góźdź, Stanisław. 1999. “The language of the law as sublanguage”, in: Jerzy Tomaszczyk (ed.), Aspects of legal language and legal translation . Łódź: Łódź University Press, 7–17. Roter, Debra and Judith Hall. 2006. Doctors talking with patients/patients talking with doctors: Improving communication in medical visits (Second Edition). Westport, CT: Praeger. Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff, and Gail Jefferson. 1974. “A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation”, Language 50, 696–735. Sacks, Harvey. 1984. “Notes on methodology”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 21–27. Sacks, Harvey. 1984. “On doing ‘being ordinary’”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 413–430. Sacks, Harvey. 1987. “On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation”, in: Graham Button and John R.E. Lee (eds), Talk and social organization . Clevedon and Avon: Multilingual Matters, 54–69. Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation, vols. 1 and 2. Oxford: Blackwell. Sacks, Harvey. 2004. “An initial characterization of the organization of speaker turn-taking in conversation”, in: Gene H. Lerner (ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 35–43. Sager, Juan C. 1990. A practical course in terminology processing. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sager, Juan C. 1994. Language engineering and translation consequences of automa- tion. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Sapir, Edward. ([1929] 1949). Language: An introduction to the study of speech . New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co. Sapir, Edward. 1966. Culture, language and personality , in: David G. Mandelbaum (ed.), Selected essays . Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press. Sandig, Barbara and Margaret Selting. 1997. “Discourse styles”, in: Teun A. van Dijk (ed.), Discourse as structure and process . London, Thousand Oaks and·New Delhi: Sage Publications, 138–157. Sandra, Dominiek, Jef Verschueren, and Jan-Ola Östman. 2009. Cognition and prag- matics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. 198 References

Sapir, Edward. 1921. Language: An introduction to the study of speech . New York: Harcourt, Brace & World. Sarkowicz, Ryszard. 1985. “Poziomowa interpretacja tekstu prawnego” (Na przykładzie kodeksu karnego z 1969 r.) [The horizontal interpretation of the legal text (On the basis of the Penal Code of 1969)], Studia prawnicze 1–2, 143–180. Saussure, Ferdinand de. 1972. Course in general linguistics. London: Gerald Duckworth and Co. Ltd. Savigny, Friedrich Carl von. ([1831] 1975). Of the vocation of our age for legislation and jurisprudence . New York: Arno Press. Saville-Troike, Muriel. 1982. The ethnography of communication: An introduction . Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Sbisà, Marina. 2001. “Act”, in: Alessandro Duranti (ed.), Key terms in language and culture . Malden, MA: Blackwell, 4–7. Sbisà, Marina. 2009. “Speech act theory”, in: Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman (eds), Key notions for pragmatics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 229–245. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conver- sation analysis , vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schegloff, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks. 1973. “Opening up closings”, Semiotica 7, 289–327. Schegloff, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation”, Language 53, 361–382. Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1984. “On some questions and ambiguities in conversa- tion”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 28–53. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1984. “On some gestures’ relation to talk”, in: Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage (eds), Structures of social action: Studies in conversa- tion analysis . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 266–297. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1986. “The routine as achievement”, Human Studies 9, 2–3, 111–151. Schegloff, Emanuel. 1990. “On the organization of sequences as a source of ‘coherence’ in talk-in-interaction”, in: Bruce Dorval (ed.), Conversational organi- zation and its development . Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 51–77. Schegloff, Emmanuel. 1992. “On talk and its institutional occasions”, in: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 101–137. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to discourse . Oxford and Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen, and Heidi E. Hamilton (eds). 2001. The handbook of discourse analysis . Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Schubert, Frank August. 2008. Introduction to law and the legal system . Wadsworth: Wadsworth Cengage Learning. Scollon Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach . (Second Edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. References 199

Searle, John. 1975. Philosophy: A Contemporary Perspective , R. Hoffman, S. Gendin (eds.) Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Searle, John R. 1970. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. London: Cambridge University Press. Searle, John. 1975. Philosophy: A Contemporary Perspective, R. Hoffman, S. Gendin (eds) Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Co. Shuy, Roger. 1993. Language crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom . Oxford: Blackwell. Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction . London: Wiley- Blackwell. Siegel, Larry J. and Joseph J. Senna. 2007. Essentials of criminal justice . Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth. Smith, Jeremy J. 2006. “From Middle to Early Modern English”, in: Lynda Mugglestone (ed.), The Oxford history of English . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 120–147. Smits, Jan M. 2006. “Comparative law and its influence on national legal systems”, in: Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann (eds), The Oxford handbook of comparative law . Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 513–539. Smith, Sylvia A. 1995. “Cultural clash: Anglo-American case law and German civil law in translation”, in: Marshall Morris (ed.), Translation and the law . Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 179–200. Solan, Lawrence M. and Peter M. Tiersma. 2005. Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press. Solan, Lawrence M. 2009. “Statutory interpretation in the EU: the Augustinian approach”, in: Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein (eds), Translation issues in language and law . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 35–55. Solan, Lawrence M. 2010. “The Expert Linguist meets the adversarial system”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 395–411. Sperber, Dan and Deidre Wilson. 2004. Relevance: Communication and cognition (Second Edition). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. Stokoe, Elizabeth and Derek Edwards. 2010. “Lawyers in interviews. ‘I advise you not to answer that question’: Conversation analysis, legal interaction and the analysis of lawyers’ turns in police interrogations of suspects”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguis- tics . London and New York: Routledge, 155–169. Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language . Oxford: Blackwell. Swales, George. 1990. Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Szczepankowska, Irena. 2004. J ęzyk prawny I Rzeczypospolitej w “Zbiorze praw sądowych” Andrzeja Zamojskiego . Część I Poj ęcia prawne . Część II Wypowiedzi normatywne . [ The language of law of the First Polish Republic in “The collection of the court laws” Part I Legal notions. Part II Normative statements ]. Białystok: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu w Białymstoku. Šarčević, Susan. 1997. New approach to legal translation . The Hague: Kluwer Law International. 200 References

Šarčević, Susan. 2000. “Creativity in legal translation: How much is too much”, in: Andrew Chesterman, Andrew Natividad Gallardo San Salvador, and Yves Gambier (eds), Translation studies: An interdiscipline, 281–293. Verschueren, Jef. 1984. “Linguistics and cross-cultural communication”, Language in Society 13, 489–509. Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding pragmatics . London and New York: Arnold Publishers. Tannen, Deborah. 1984. Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends . Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Tannen, Deborah. 1994a. Gender and discourse . New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press. Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2006. Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Ten Have, Paul. 1999. Doing conversation analysis: A practical guide . Thousand Oaks: Sage. Thomas, E.W. 2005. The judicial process: Realism, pragmatism, practical reasoning and principles . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Tiersma, Peter M. 1993. “Linguistic issues in the law”, Language 69, 113–137. Tiersma, Peter M. 2010. “Instructions to jurors. Redrafting California’s jury instructions”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 251–265. Tkačuková, Tatiana. 2010. “Cross-examination questioning: Lay people as cross- examiners”, in: Malcolm Coulthard and Alison Johnson (eds), The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics . London and New York: Routledge, 333–347. Tomaszczyk, Jerzy (ed.). 1999. Aspects of legal language and legal translation. Łódź: Łódź University Press. Varó, Alcaraz Enrique and Brian Hughes. 2002. Legal translation explained . Manchester and Northampton, MA: St. Jerome Publishing. Varó, Alcaraz Enrique. 2009. “Isomorphism and anisomorphism in the transla- tion of legal texts”, in: Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz, and Dieter Stein (eds), Translation issues in language and law . New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 182–193. Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding pragmatics . London: Arnold. Verschueren, Jef and Jan-Ola Östman (eds). 2009. Key notions for pragmatics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Verschueren, Jef. 2009. “Introduction: The pragmatics perspective”, in: Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman (eds), Key notions for pragmatics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1–28. Verschueren, Jef and Frank Bisard. 2009. “Adaptability”, in: Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman (eds), Key notions for pragmatics . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 28–45. Wacks, Raymond. 2009. Understanding jurisprudence: An introduction to legal theory . New York: Oxford University Press. Waldron, Jeremy. 1994. “Vagueness in law and language: Some philosophical issues”, California Law Review, 82(3): 509–540. Waltoś, Stanisław. 2009. Proces karny: Zarys systemu .[Penal process: An outline of the system ]. Warszawa: LexisNexis. Watts, Richard J. 2003. Politeness . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. References 201

Wellman, Francis. [1904] 1997. The art of cross-examination . New York: Touchstone Rockefeller Center. Whalen, Jack and Don H. Zimmerman. 2005. “Working a call: multiparty manage- ment and interactional infrastructure in calls for help”, in: Carolyn D. Baker, Michael Emmison, and Alan Firth (eds), Calling for Help . Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 309–346. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 1996. “The legal performative and the language of legis- lation”, Translation and meaning , Part 4. Maastricht: Rijkshogeschool, 413–418. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2003. “Modulation of meaning in English legal texts”, in: Research and scholarship in integration processes , Barbara Lewandowska- Tomaszczyk and Elżbieta Oleksy (eds). Łódź: Łódź University Press, 199–209. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona and Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski. 2003. “The role of comparable corpora in teaching legal translation: A few practical techniques”, in: Piotr Mamet (ed.), Języki specjalistyczne. Zagadnienia dydaktyki i przekładu . Katowice: Śląsk – Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 173–184. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona and Stanisław Goźdź-Roszkowski. 2004. “Pragmatic aspects of English legal texts with some guidelines for translation”, Research in language 2, 137–146. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2005. “English legal texts in translation – The rele- vance-theoretic approach”, Relevance studies in Poland , vol. 2. Warsaw: Institute of English Studies, University of Warsaw, 169–181. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2006. “Angielski język prawny-opis pragmatyczny w kategoriach teorii relewancji”, [The English legal language: Pragmatic descrip- tion in the light of theory of relevance], Neofilologia , vol. 9. Zeszyty Naukowe PWSZ w Płocku. Płock: PWSZ, 147–162. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2008. “The relevance of vague expressions in legal language”, Research in Language 6, 165–186. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2009. “A note on legal discourse semantics and J.L. Austin’s theory of speech acts”, in: Marta Dynel (ed.), Advances in discourse approaches . Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 92–111. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona and Monika Kopytowska. 2010. “Badania nad pragmaty- cznymi aspektami dyskursu w Katedrze Pragmatyki Językowej Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego” [Research into pragmatic aspects of discourse at the University of Lodz Chair of Pragmatics], in: Piotr Chruszczewski and Stanisław Prędota (eds), Prace Komisji Nauk Filologicznych Oddziału Polskiej Akademii Nauk we Wrocławiu II. Wrocław: PAN, 191–193. Witczak-Plisiecka, Iwona. 2010. “Granice między semantyką i pragmatyką w świetle (klasycznej) teorii aktów mowy Johna L. Austina” [The border between semantics and pragmatics in the light of John L. Austin’s classic theory of speech acts], in: Anna Ginter (ed.), Z zagadnień semantyki i stylistyki tekstu . Łódź: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Łódzkiego, 79–88. Whorf, Benjmin. 1966. Language, thought, and reality: Selected writings of Benjamin Lee Whorf . Edited by John B. Carroll. Cambridge, MA: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Williamson, Timothy. 1996. Vagueness . New York: Routledge. Widdowson, Henry. 1995. “Discourse analysis: A critical review”, Language and Literature 4, 3, 157–172. Wierzbicka, Anna. 1991. Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interac- tion . Berlin and New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 202 References

Wodak, Ruth and Paul Chilton (eds). 2005. A new agenda in (critical) discourse anal- ysis: Theory, methodology and interdisciplinarity . Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Wodak, Ruth and Michael Meyer (eds). 2001. Methods of critical discourse analysis . London, Thousand Oaks and New Delhi: Sage Publications. Wodak, Ruth. 1980. “Discourse analysis in courtroom interaction”, Discourse Processes 3, 269–380. Wojtak, Maria. 1992. “O stylowym wariancie języka na przykładzie tekstów urzędowych” [On the stylistic variant of the language on the basis of adminis- trative texts], in: Stanisław Gajda (ed.), Systematyzacja pojęć w stylistyce. Materiały konferencji z 24–26 X 1991 [ Systematization of the notions in stylistics. Conference materials of 24–26 X 1991 ]. Opole: WSP. Woodbury, Hanni. 1984. “The strategic use of questions in court”, Semiotica 48, 3/4, 197–228. Wronkowska, Sławomira. 2005. Podstawowe pojęcia prawa i prawoznawstwa [Fundamental notions in law and legal theory ]. Poznań: Ars boni et aequi. Wronkowska, Sławomira i Zygmunt Ziembiński. 2001. Zarys teorii prawa [An outline of the theory of law ]. Poznań: Ars boni et aequi. Yule, George. 1998. Pragmatics . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Zajda, Aleksander. 2001. Studia z historii polskiego słownictwa prawniczego i fraze- ologii [Study of the history of Polish legal terminology and collocations ]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Ziembiński, Zygmunt. 1972. Analiza pojęć czynu [Analysis of the notion of an act ]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna. Zimmerman, Don H. 1984. “Talk and its occasion: The case of calling the police”, in: Deborah Schiffrin (ed.), Meaning, form, and use in context: Linguistic applica- tions . Georgetown University Round Table on Languages and Linguistics 35. Washington, D.C.: Cambridge University Press, 210–228. Zimmerman, Don H. 1992. “The interactional organization of calls for emergency assistance”, in: Paul Drew and John Heritage (eds), Talk at work: Social interac- tion in institutional settings . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 418–469. Zweigert, Konrad and Hein Kötz. 1998. An introduction to comparative law (Translated by Tony Weir). Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ż abiński, Zbigniew. 1983. “Uwagi o języku kodeksu cywilnego” [Remarks on the language of the Civil Code], Studia Prawnicze 1, 35–50. Index

act sequence social role during the inquisitorial act sequence with reference to the procedure of witness American criminal trial, 38–39 examination of witnesses, act sequence with reference to the 135–137 Polish criminal trial, 120 attorney for the prosecution in the adversarial procedure of witness United States examination under Common attorneys for the prosecution in Law in the United States, 1, 2, the American criminal trial, 23–93, 165–178 34–35 approaches to the study of language education, appointment to formal and functional approaches the position and tasks in the to the study of language, 5 criminal trial, 30–32 attorney for the defense social role during the adversarial attorney for the defense in Poland procedure of witness attorneys for the defense in the examination of witnesses, 58–60 Polish criminal trial, 115 education, appointment to Civil Law legal system in Poland, 1, 2, the position and tasks in the 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 94–102 criminal trial, 114–116 Common Law legal system in the social role during the inquisitorial United States, 1, 2, 9, 11, 12, procedure of witness 13, 14, 16, 23–27 examination of witnesses, communicative competence, 16, 176, 129–137 184 attorney for the defense in the comparative law definition, 10 United States context, 1, 2, 8, 12, 15, 16, 17, 20, 23, attorneys for the defense in the 92, 164, 165 American criminal trial, 34–35 conversation analysis, 16–17, 42–75, education, appointment to 93, 129–150, 165, 169–173 the position and tasks in the conversation analysis approach to criminal trial, 32–36 American courtroom discourse, social role during the adversarial 42–75, 169–173 procedure of witness conversation analysis approach to examination of witnesses, Polish courtroom discourse, 60–66 129–150, 169–173 attorney for the prosecution co-operative principle by Grice (1975), attorney for the prosecution in 19, 75–83, 150–164 Poland court system in Poland, 102–107 attorneys for the prosecution in court system in the United States, the Polish criminal trial, 113 27–29 education, appointment to courtroom interaction, 1, 2, 9, 52–66, the position and tasks in the 129–138 criminal trial, 110–113 culture definition, 13

203 204 Index defendant hypotheses, 14, 166 defendant in the American criminal trial, 37 inquisitorial procedure of witness defendant in the Polish criminal examination under Civil Law in trial, 117–118 Poland, 120, 140–143, 146–150 diachronic study of courtroom instrumentalities discourse, 8 instrumentalities with reference to American courtroom discourse, ends 39–40 ends with reference to the American instrumentalities with reference to criminal trial, 38 Polish courtroom discourse, ends with reference to the Polish 121–122 criminal trial, 119 English language of law judge idiosyncratic traits of the English judge under Civil Law in Poland language of law, 39–40 education, appointment to ethnography of communication, 1, the position and tasks in the 9, 15, 16, 17, 23, 94, 164, 165, criminal trial, 107–109 166, 167, 168, 171, 176, 179 social role during the inquisitorial ethnography of communication procedure of witness approach to American examination of witnesses, courtroom discourse, 23–41, 129–138 169–173 judge under Common Law in the ethnography of communication United States approach to Polish courtroom education, appointment to discourse, 94–128, 167–173 the position and tasks in the evidence, types of, 43 criminal trial, 29–30 examination of witnesses social role during the inquisitorial examination of witnesses under procedure of witness Civil Law in Poland examination of witnesses, free and unrestricted explanation 52–58 by defendant, 120, 140–143, jury, 35–37 146–150 free and unrestricted testimony key by witnesses, 120, 143–146, key with reference to American 146–150 courtroom discourse, 39 examination of witnesses under key with reference to Polish Common Law in the United courtroom discourse, 121 States cross-examination of witnesses, law definition, 10 38–39, 47–52, 66–75 lay assessors, 117, 125, 167, 180 direct examination of witnesses, legal norm 38–39, 47–52, 66–75 definition, 10 legal norms under Civil Law, 10 genres legal norms under Common Law, American courtroom discourse as 10 genre, 41–44 legal system Polish courtroom discourse as genre, definition of legal system, 10 128–129 legal system in Poland, 94–102 Index 205 legal system – continued social roles of judges, attorneys for legal system in the United States, the prosecution and attorneys 23–27 for the defense in the American types of legal systems, 11 criminal trial, see under linguistic anthropology, 2, 10, 13 attorneys for the prosecution; attorneys for the defense in the methodology applied in the study of American and Polish criminal American and Polish courtroom trials; judges discourse, 1, 2, 6, 9, 13–21, 22, SPEAKING grid, 15, 16 165, 166, 179 speech acts, 15, 16, 17, 18, 83–92, 93, 122, 158, 164, 174 norms of interaction speech acts in American courtroom norms of interaction with reference discourse, 83–92 to the American criminal trial, speech acts in Polish courtroom 40–41 discourse, 158–164 norms of interaction with reference speech community, 15, 19, 41, 42, 86, to the Polish criminal trial, 122, 128, 158 122–128 speech event, 15, 16, 38, 92, 119, 120, 128, 164, 168, 169, 170, 173, pragmatic aspects of American 176, 180 courtroom discourse, 75–92, speech situation, 15, 16, 173–176 164 pragmatic aspects of Polish courtroom stare decisis, 10, 26, 27 discourse, 150–164, 173–176 synchronic study of courtroom pragmatics, 1, 2, 15, 17, 19, 23, 83, 94, discourse, 8, 166 122, 158, 166, 173, 174, 176, 177, 179, 180 translational competence, 3 precedent, 10, 24, 26, 27 principle of formal truth, 20, 38, 41, victims 124, 172, 173, 177, 180 victims in the American criminal principle of substantive truth, 119, trial, 37 123, 124, 140, 153, 157, 164, victims in the Polish criminal trial, 169, 172, 173, 177, 180 117 questions witnesses questions asked in the American witnesses in the American criminal criminal trial, 66–75 trial, 38 questions asked in the Polish witnesses in the Polish criminal criminal trial, 146–150 trial, 118–119