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 Free City of Danzig of German origin, who expressly wished to obtain 182 Notes 183 German nationality; Group II encompassed persons from mixed marriages, the Masurians, Kashubians, Silesians and other persons eligible for Germanisation; 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 Poland 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. Germany: Peter Lang.