How police investigators seek to secure that suspects speaking a second language understand their rights in investigative interviews

References

• Berk-Seligson, S. (2016). Totality of circumstances and translating the miranda warnings. In S. Ehrlich, D. Eades, & J. Ainsworth (Eds.), Discursive constructions of consent in the legal process (pp. 241–263). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bjerknes, O., & Fahsing, I. (2018). Etterforskning: Prinsipper, metoder og praksis [criminal investigation: principles, methods and practice]. Fagbokforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Bjerknes, O., & Williksen, E. (2015). Politirapport: 4. utgave. [Police Report: 4th edition]. Forlaget Vett & Viten.
   Google Scholar
• Bowen, A. (2019). ‘You don’t have to say anything’: Modality and consequences in conversations about the right to silence in the Northern Territory. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 39(3), 347–374. https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2019.1620682
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowen, A. (2021). ‘What you’ve got is a right to silence’: Paraphrasing the right to silence and the meaning of rights. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 28(1), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.18694
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bremer, K., Roberts, C., Broeder, P., Vasseur, M. T., & Simonot, M. (2013). Achieving understanding: Discourse in intercultural encounters. Longman. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315844954
   Google Scholar
• Chaulk, S. J., Eastwood, J., & Snook, B. (2014). Measuring and predicting police caution comprehension in adult offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 56(3), 323–340. https://doi.org/10.3138/CJCCJ.2013.E02
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CoRG. (2015). Guidelines for Communicating Rights to Non-Native Speakers of English in Australia, England and Wales, And the USA. Communication of Rights Group.Retrieved Jan 17, 2022, From http://www.aaal.org/?page=CommunicationRights.
   Google Scholar
• Cotterill, J. (2000). Reading the rights: A cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics, 7(1), 4–25. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.4
   Google Scholar
• Diepeveen, A., Svennevig, J., & Urbanik, P. (2022). Suspects’ opportunities to claim their legal rights in police investigative interviews. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 28(2), 171–200. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.20349
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumas, B. K. (2020). Non-native speakers, Miranda rights, and custodial interrogation. In M. Mason & F. Rock (Eds.), The discourse of police interviews (pp. 227–246). The University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eades, D. (2010). Sociolinguistics and the legal process. Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781847692559
   Google Scholar
• Fenner, S., Gudjonsson, G. H., & Clare, I. C. H. (2002). Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 12(2), 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.658
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferguson, C. A. (1975). Toward a characterization of English foreigner talk. Anthropological Linguistics, 17(1), 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Fischer, K. (2016). Designing speech for a recipient. The roles of partner modeling, alignment and feedback in so-called ‘simplified registers’. John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.270
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, J. (1987). Police interviews with people of non-English speaking background: Some.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons, J. (2001). Revising the language of New South Wales Police procedures: Applied linguistics in action. Applied Linguistics, 22(4), 439–469. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.4.439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gibbons, J. (2003). Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Wiley-Blackwell.
   Google Scholar
• Greer, T., & Leyland, C. (2018). Naming an activity: Arriving at recognitionals in team-teacher planning talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 126, 52–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.11.009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinemann, T., & Steensig, J. (2018). Justifying departures from progressivity. The Danish turn-initial particle altså. In M.-L. Sorjonen & J. Heritage (Eds.), Between turn and sequence. Turn-initial particles across languages (pp. 435–464). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/slsi.31.15hei
   Google Scholar
• Heritage, J. (2007). Intersubjectivity and progressivity in person (and place) reference. In N. J. Enfield & T. Stivers (Eds.), Person reference in interaction (pp. 255–280). Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Heydon, G. (2005). The language of police interviewing: A critical analysis. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230502932
   Google Scholar
• Innes, B., & Erlam, R. (2018). Did he understand his rights? Assessing the comprehensibility of police cautions in New Zealand. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 25(1), 21–51. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.32748
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jefferson, G. (2004). Glossary of transcript symbols with an introduction. In G. Lerner (Ed.), Conversation analysis: Studies from the first generation (pp. 13–31). John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.125.02jef
   Google Scholar
• Kim, Y. (2019). ‘What is stoyr-steruh type?’: Knowledge asymmetry, intersubjectivity, and learning opportunities in conversation-for-learning. Applied Linguistics, 40, 307–328. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx029
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leo, R. A., & White, W. S. (1999). Adapting to Miranda: Modern interrogators’ strategies for dealing with the obstacles posed by Miranda. Minnesota Law Review, 84(2), 397–472.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lieberman, K. (1981). Understanding aborigines in Australian courts of law. Human Organization, 40(3), 247–255. https://doi.org/10.17730/humo.40.3.7823t2m267261132
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nakane, I. (2007). Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews. Applied Linguistics, 28(1), 87–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml050
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pavlenko, A. (2021). Feigned incompetence: The pitfalls of evaluating Miranda comprehension in non-native speakers of English. Language and Law/Linguagem E Direito, 8(1), 97–119. https://doi.org/10.21747/21833745/lanlaw/8_1a6
   Google Scholar
• Pavlenko, A., Hepford, E., & Jarvis, S. (2019). An illusion of understanding: How native and non-native speakers of English understand (and misunderstand) their Miranda rights. International Journal of Speech, Language & the Law, 26(2), 181–207. problems. Legal Service Bulletin, 12, 183-184. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.39163
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robinson, J. D. (2014). What “What?” tells us about how conversationalists manage intersubjectivity. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 47(2), 109–129. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2014.900214
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rock, F. (2007). Communicating rights: The language of arrest and detention. Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Rock, F. (2016). Talking the ethical turn: Drawing on tick-box consent in policing. In S. Ehrlich, D. Eades, & J. Ainsworth (Eds.), Discursive constructions of consent in the legal process (pp. 93–117). Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W., & Hazelwood, L. L. (2007). An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: Comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior, 31(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9054-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L., & Shuman, D. W. (2010). ‘Everyone knows their Miranda rights’: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 16(3), 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019316
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Steadham, J. A., & Drogin, E. Y. (2011). In plain English: Avoiding recognized problems with Miranda miscomprehension. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 17(2), 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022508
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy, J. D. (1990). The difficulties of limited-English proficient individuals in the legal system. In R. W. Rieber & W. A. Stewart (Eds.), The language scientist as expert in the legal setting: Issues in forensic Linguistics. The New York academy of sciences (pp. 73–83). The New York academy of sciences.
   Google Scholar
• Russell, S. (2000). ‘Let me put it simply … ’: The case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation. Forensic Linguistics, 7(1), 26–48. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.26
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H. (1987). On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In G. Button & J. R. E. Lee (Eds.), Talk and social organisation (pp. 54–69). Multilingual Matters. https://doi.org/10.21832/9781800418226-004
   Google Scholar
• Sacks, H., Schegloff, E. A., & Jefferson, G. (1974). A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language, 50, 696–735. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1974.0010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, M. B., & Lyman, S. M. (1968). Accounts. American Sociological Review, 33, 46–62. https://doi.org/10.2307/2092239
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shuy, R. W. (1998). The language of confession, interrogation, and deception. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781452229133
   Google Scholar
• Snook, B., Eastwood, J., & MacDonald, S. (2010). A descriptive analysis of how Canadian police officers administer the right-to-silence and right-to-legal-counsel cautions. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 52(5), 545–560. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.52.5.545
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svennevig, J. (2010). Pre-empting reference problems in conversation. Language in Society, 39(2), 173–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404510000060
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svennevig, J. (2018). Decomposing turns to enhance understanding by L2 speakers. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 51(4), 398–416. https://doi.org/10.1080/08351813.2018.1524575
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svennevig, J. (in press). Self-reformulation as a preemptive practice in talk addressed to L2 speakers. Research on language and social interaction, 56(3).
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Svennevig, J., Gerwing, J., Jensen, B. U., & Allison, M. (2017). Pre-empting understanding problems in L1/L2 conversations: Evidence of effectiveness from simulated emergency calls. Applied Linguistics, 40(2), 205–227. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amx021
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tranekjær, L. (2018). The interactional management of ‘language difficulties’ at work – L2 strategies for responding to explicit inquiries about understanding. Journal of Pragmatics, 126, 78–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2017.10.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Urbanik, P., & Pavlenko, A. (2021). Securing understanding in a second language: Communication of rights in investigative interviews in the US and Norway. In R. Blackwood & U. Røyneland (Eds.), Spaces of multilingualism (pp. 92–112). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003125839-8
   Google Scholar
• Legal sources
   Google Scholar
• European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. (November. 4, 1950). 213 U.N.T.S. 22. Council of Europe. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3b04.html [Retrieved January 15, 2023]
   Google Scholar
• Påtaleinstruksen [Prosecution Instructions]. (1985). Forskrift om ordningen av påtalemyndigheten [Regulation of public prosecution]. Justis- Påtaleinstruksen [Prosecution Instructions]. Påtaleinstruksen [Prosecution Instructions]: https://lovdata.no/dokument/SF/forskrift/1985-06-28-1679.
   Google Scholar
• Riksadvokaten [Attorney General]. (2016). Politiavhør. Rundskriv fra Riksadvokaten nr.2/2016 [Police interview. Den høyere påtalemyndighet. Directive from the Attorney General no. 2/2016]Oslo: Den høyere påtalemyndighet.
   Google Scholar
• Straffeprosessloven [Criminal Procedure Act]. (1981). Lov Om Rettergangsmåten I Straffesaker [Act Relating to Legal Procedure in Criminal Cases]. Justis- og beredskapsdepartementet. og beredskapsdepartementet: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/1981-05-22-25.
   Google Scholar
• Tolkeloven [Interpreting Act]. (2021). Lov om offentlige organers ansvar for bruk av tolk mv. [Act relating to public bodies’ responsibility for the use of interpreters, etc.] Available at: https://lovdata.no/dokument/NL/lov/2021-06-11-79.
   Google Scholar