‘You Don’t Have to Say Anything’: Modality and Consequences in Conversations About the Right to Silence in the Northern TerritoryFootnote^*

* This paper has developed from part of my Masters thesis, in relation to which I would like to thank my supervisor Jane Simpson as well as Denise Angelo and Susy Macqueen. A version of this paper was presented at the 2017 Australian Linguistics Society Conference in Sydney, and I thank participants for their helpful comments. I would also like to thank Michael Cooke and Prudy McLaughlin for allowing access to unpublished material. All errors, of course, remain my own.

References

• Ainsworth J 2008 ‘“You have the right to remain silent …  But only If You Ask for It just So”: the role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law’ International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 15(1): 1. doi: 10.1558/ijsll.v15i1.1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arthur JM 1996 Aboriginal English: a cultural study Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen A 2017 “It’s your rights, ok?”: explaining the right to silence to Aboriginal suspects in the Northern Territory MA thesis, Australian National University. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/1885/118730.
   Google Scholar
• COBUILD Advanced English Dictionary HarperCollins. Available at: www.collinsdictionary.com.
   Google Scholar
• Communication of Rights Group 2015 Guidelines for communicating rights to non-native speakers of English in Australia, England and Wales, and the USA. Available at: http://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/114873/Communication-of-rights.pdf.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke M 1995 ‘Understood by all concerned? anglo/aboriginal legal translation.’ in M Morris (ed) Translation and the Law Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. pp. 37–63.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke M 1996 ‘A different story: narrative versus ‘question and answer’ in Aboriginal evidence’ Forensic Linguistics 3(2): 1350–1771.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke M 1998 Anglo/yolngu communication in the criminal justice system PhD thesis, University of New England. Available at: https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/7102.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke M 2009 ‘Anglo/aboriginal communication in the criminal justice process: a collective responsibility’ Journal of Judicial Administration 19(1): 10.
   Google Scholar
• Cooke M & H Yunupingu 1998 Djambarrpuyngu police caution preamble Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Cotterill J 2000 ‘Reading the rights: a cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility’ International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 7(1): 4–25. doi: 10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.4
   Google Scholar
• Cotterill J 2005 ‘‘You do not have to say anything … ’: instructing the jury on the defendant’s right to silence in the English criminal justice system’ Multilingua-Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication 24(1–2): 7–24.
   Google Scholar
• De Haan F 1997 The interaction of modality and negation: a typoligical study New York, London: Garland.
   Google Scholar
• Deppermann A 2018 ‘Inferential practices in social interaction: a conversation-analytic Account’ Open Linguistics 4(1): 35–55. doi: 10.1515/opli-2018-0003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Disbray S 2008 More than one way to catch a frog: A study of children’s discourse in an Australian contact language PhD thesis, University of Melbourne. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/11343/35428; accessed 25 August 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Dittmar N & H Terborg 1991 ‘Modality and second language learning: A challenge for linguistic theory’ in T Huebner & CA Ferguson (eds) Crosscurrents in second language acquisition and linguistic theory Amsterdam: John Benjamins. pp. 347–384.
   Google Scholar
• Drew P & J Heritage 1992. ‘Analyzing talk at work: an introduction’ in P Drew & JC Heritage (eds) Talk at work: interaction in institutional settings, Studies in interactional sociolinguistics. New York: Cambridge University Press. pp. 3–65.
   Google Scholar
• Eades D 1983 English as an Aboriginal language in Southeast Queensland PhD thesis, University of Queensland. Available at: http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:184275/the2834.pdf; accessed 16 January 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Eades D 2008 Courtroom talk and neocolonial control. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Eades D 2013 Aboriginal ways of using English Canberra: Aboriginal Studies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ehmer O & M Rosemeyer 2018 ‘When “questions“ are not questions. inferences and conventionalization in Spanish But-prefaced partial Interrogatives’ Open Linguistics 4(1): 70–100. doi: 10.1515/opli-2018-0005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elturki E & T Salsbury 2016 ‘A cross-sectional investigation of the development of modality in English language learners’ writing: A corpus-driven study’ Issues in Applied Linguistics 20. Available at: http://escholarship.org/uc/item/19z4h5h0.pdf; accessed 28 February 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Elwell VMR 1979 English-as-a-second-language in Aboriginal Australia: a case study of Milingimbi MA thesis, Australian National University. Available at: https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/handle/1885/10764; accessed 26 February 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons J 2001. ‘Revising the language of New South Wales police procedures: applied linguistics in action’ Applied Linguistics 22(4): 439–469. doi: 10.1093/applin/22.4.439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons J 1996 ‘Distortions of the police interview process revealed by video-tape’ Forensic Linguistics: International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 3(2): 289–298.
   Google Scholar
• Godsey M 2006 ‘Reformulating the Miranda warnings in light of contemporary law and understandings’ Minnesota Law Review 90: 05–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodwin C 1994 ‘Professional vision’ American Anthropologist 96(3): 606–633. doi: 10.1525/aa.1994.96.3.02a00100
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Greatorex J & Charles Darwin University 2014 Yolŋu Matha Dictionary. Available at: http://yolngudictionary.cdu.edu.au; accessed 22 May 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Harkins J 1994 Bridging two worlds: aboriginal English and crosscultural understanding St Lucia, Qld: University of Queensland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage J 2012a ‘Epistemics in action: action formation and territories of knowledge’ Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1): 1–29. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646684
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage J 2012b ‘The epistemic engine: sequence organization and territories of knowledge’ Research on Language & Social Interaction 45(1): 30–52. doi: 10.1080/08351813.2012.646685
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heritage J & S Clayman 2011 Talk in action: interactions, identities, and institutions Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Heritage J & G Raymond 2005 ‘The terms of agreement: indexing epistemic authority and subordination in talk-in-Interaction’ Social Psychology Quarterly 68(1): 15–38. doi: 10.1177/019027250506800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heydon G 2005 The language of police interviewing Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Heydon G 2011 ‘Silence: civil right or social privilege? A discourse analytic response to a legal problem’ Journal of Pragmatics 43(9): 2308–2316. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heydon G 2013 ‘From legislation to the courts: providing safe passage for legal texts through the challenges of a police interview’ in C Heffer, F Rock, & J Conley (eds) Legal-Lay communication: textual travels in the Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 55–77.
   Google Scholar
• Holcombe S 2015 ‘The revealing processes of interpretation: translating human rights principles into pintupi-Luritja’ The Australian Journal of Anthropology 26(3): 428–441. doi: 10.1111/taja.12152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kirby MD 1980 ‘Tgh strehlow and Aboriginal customary laws’ Adelaide Law Review 7: 172–199.
   Google Scholar
• Koch H 1990 ‘Language and communication in Aboriginal land claim hearings’ Australian Review of Applied Linguistics 5: 1–47. doi: 10.1075/aralss.5.01koc
   Google Scholar
• Kurzon D 1996 ‘To speak or not to speak’ International Journal for the Semiotics of law 9(1): 3–16. doi: 10.1007/BF01130379
   Google Scholar
• Leech G 2004 Meaning and the English verb, 3rd edition London, New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Liddicoat AJ 2009 ‘Communication as culturally contexted practice: A view from intercultural communication’ Australian Journal of Linguistics 29(1): 115–133. doi: 10.1080/07268600802516400
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Linell P 1998 ‘Discourse across boundaries: on recontextualizations and the blending of voices in professional discourse’ Text-Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse 18(2): 143–158. doi: 10.1515/text.1.1998.18.2.143
   Google Scholar
• Lyons J 1977 Semantics Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Macbeth D 2011 ‘Understanding understanding as an instructional matter’ Journal of Pragmatics 43(2): 438–451. doi: 10.1016/j.pragma.2008.12.006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maryns K 2006 The asylum speaker Manchester: St Jerome.
   Google Scholar
• McKay G 1985 ‘Language issues in training programs for northern territory police: a linguist’s view’ Australian Review of Applied Linguistics Series S 2: 32–43. doi: 10.1075/aralss.2.02mck
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin P 1996 Caught in the caution: Aboriginal responses to police questioning: The case of Todd, Anthony and Moonlight MA thesis, University of Sydney.
   Google Scholar
• Mildren D 1997 ‘Redressing the imbalance against aboriginals in the criminal justice system’ Criminal Law Journal 21: 7–22.
   Google Scholar
• Morphy F 2008 ‘Whose governance for whose good? The laynhapuy homelands association and the neo-assimilationist turn in indigenous policy’ in J Hunt, D Smith, S Garling, & Sanders (eds) Contested governance: culture, power and institutions in indigenous Australia Canberra: ANU ePress. pp. 113–152.
   Google Scholar
• Moses K & G Wigglesworth 2008 ‘The silence of the frogs: dysfunctional discourse in the ‘English-only’ aboriginal classroom’ in J Simpson & G Wigglesworth (eds) Children’s language and multilingualism: indigenous language use at home and school London, New York: Continuum. pp. 129–153.
   Google Scholar
• Nakane I 2007 ‘Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews’ Applied Linguistics 28(2): 87–112. doi: 10.1093/applin/aml050
   Google Scholar
• Palmer FR 1986 Mood and modality Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rock FE 2007 Communicating rights: The language of arrest and detention Basingstoke; New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers R, LL Hazelwood, KW Sewell, DW Shuman, & HL Blackwood 2008 ‘The comprehensibility and content of juvenile Miranda warnings’ Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 14(1): 63–87. doi: 10.1037/a0013102
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers R, JE Rogstad, ND Gillard, EY Drogin, HL Blackwood, & DW Shuman 2010 ‘“Everyone knows their Miranda rights”: implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence’ Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 16(3): 300–318. doi: 10.1037/a0019316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Russell S 2000 ‘‘Let me put it simply … ’: the case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation’ International Journal of Speech Language and the Law 7(1): 26–48. doi: 10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.26
   Google Scholar
• Schultze-Berndt E, M Ponsonnet, & D Angelo in prep. Kriol Modality.
   Google Scholar
• Simpson J 2013 ‘What’s done and what’s said: language attitudes, public language activities and everyday talk in the Northern Territory of Australia’ Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development 34(4): 383–398. doi: 10.1080/01434632.2013.794811
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steiner HJ 1988 ‘Political participation as a human right’ Harvard Human Rights Yearbook 1: 77–134.
   Google Scholar
• Stephany U 1995 ‘Function and form of modality in first and second language Acquisition’ in AG Ramat & G Crocco (eds) From pragmatics to syntax: modality in second language acquisition Narr. pp. 105–120.
   Google Scholar
• Stivers T & F Rossano 2010 ‘Mobilizing Response’ Research on Language & Social Interaction 43(1): 3–31. doi: 10.1080/08351810903471258
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sweetser E 1990 From etymology to pragmatics: metaphorical and cultural aspects of semantic structure Tübingen: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler A 2008 ‘Cognitive linguistics and second language instruction’ in PJ Robinson & NC Ellis (eds) Handbook of cognitive linguistics and second language acquisition New York: Routledge. pp. 456–488. Available at: https://www.degruyter.com/view/CogBib/_12242; accessed 24 January 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Widdowson HG 2008 Text, context, pretext: critical issues in discourse analysis Malden, MA: John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkinson M 1991 Djambarrpuyŋu: A Yolŋu variety of northern Australia PhD thesis, University of Sydney. Available at: http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/handle/2123/1750; accessed 17 April 2016.
   Google Scholar
• Williams NM 1987 Two laws: managing disputes in a contemporary aboriginal community Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.
   Google Scholar
• Legal sources
   Google Scholar
• R v Anunga, R v Wheeler (1976) 11 ALR 412
   Google Scholar
• R v Thomas [2006] NTSC 87
   Google Scholar
• Evidence (National Uniform Legislation) Act 2011 (NT)
   Google Scholar
• Police Administration Act 1978 (NT)
   Google Scholar