Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-rdgjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-07T11:22:06.728Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Linguistic issues in the law

Review products

Language in the judicial process. Edited by JudithLevi and Anne GraffamWalker. (Law, Society and Policy, 5.) New York: Plenum, 1990. Pp. xxix, 373. $49.50.
The language scientist as expert in the legal setting: Issues in forensic linguistics. Edited by Robert W.Rieber and William A.Stewart (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 606.) New York: New York Academy of Sciences, 1990. Pp. 135. $25.00.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Peter M. Tiersma
Peter M. Tiersma*
Affiliation:
Loyola Law School
*
Loyola Law School, 1441 West Olympic Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90015
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'

Information

Type
Review Article
Information
Language , Volume 69 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 113 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

*

I thank Matthea Cremers, Bethany Dumas, Randy Kandel, David Leonard, Larry Solum, and Sarah Grey Thomason for their comments on an earlier draft of this article, and Leslie Nathan for research assistance. All responsibility for errors is my own.

References

Aitkin, Robert. 1989. California Evidentiary Objections. St. Paul: West.Google Scholar
Austin, J. L. 1975. How to do things with words. (2nd edn., ed. by Urmson, J. O. and Sbisà, Marina.) Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austin, John. 1832. The province of jurisprudence determined. (The province of jurisprudence determined) London: Lowe and Brydone.Google Scholar
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1990. The bilingual courtroom: Court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Bowers, Frederick. 1989. Linguistic aspects of legislative expression. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Charrow, Robert, and Charrow, Veda. 1979. Making legal language understandable: A psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review 79. 1307–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conley, John M., and O'Barr, William M. 1990. Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Conley, John M.; and O'Barr, William M.; and Allan Lind, E. 1978. The power of language: Presentational style in the courtroom. Duke Law Journal 78. 1375–99.Google Scholar
Danet, Brenda. 1980. Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review 14. 445–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donaldson, R. 1985. Admissibility of evidence as to linguistics or typing style (forensic linguistics) as basis of identification of typist or author. American Law Reports 4th 36. 598–610.Google Scholar
Finegan, Edward. 1982. Form and function in testament language. Linguistics and the professions, ed. by Di Pietro, Robert J., 113–20. Norwood, N.J.: Ablex.Google Scholar
Fried, Charles. 1981. Contract as promise. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Greenawalt, Kent. 1989. Speech, crime, and the uses of language. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1957. Meaning. Philosophical Review 66. 377–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grice, H. P. 1975. Logic and conversation. Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, ed. by Cole, Peter and Morgan, Jerry, 41–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Hancher, Michael. 1976. Speech acts and the law. Language use and the uses of language, ed. by Shuy, R. W. and Shnukal, A., 245–56. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. 1961. The concept of law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Henket, Maarten. 1989. Contracts, promises and meaning: The question of intent. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law 2. 129–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hollien, Harry. 1990. The acoustics of crime: The new science of forensic phonetics. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurd, Heidi. 1990. Sovereignty in silence. Yale Law Journal 99. 945–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeton, Robert E. 1973. Trial tactics and methods. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Raoul D., and Martin, James C. 1991. California expert witness guide. 2nd edn. Berkeley: Continuing Education of the Bar.Google Scholar
Kurzon, Dennis. 1986. It is hereby performed: Legal speech acts. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leonard, David. 1987. Use of character to prove conduct: Rationality and catharsis in the law of evidence. University of Colorado Law Review 58. 1–61.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1979. Activity types and language. Linguistics 17. 356–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, Karl. 1960. The common law tradition: Deciding appeals. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth F. 1979. Eyewitness testimony. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Loftus, Elizabeth F., and Palmer, John C. 1974. Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13. 585–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The language of the law. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Miller, Geoffrey. 1990. Pragmatics and the maxims of interpretation. Wisconsin Law Review 1990. 1179–1227.Google Scholar
Morrison, Mary Jane. 1989. Excursions into the nature of legal language. Cleveland State Law Review 37. 271–336.Google Scholar
Nimmer, M. B. 1989. Nimmer on Freedom of Speech. New York: Matthew Bender.Google Scholar
O'Barr, William. 1981. The language of the law. Language in the U.S.A., ed. by Ferguson, Charles A. and Heath, Shirley Brice, 386–406. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pearson, James O. 1980. Admissibility and weight of voiceprint evidence. American Law Reports 3d 97. 294–323.Google Scholar
Pullum, Geoffrey K. 1991. The linguistics of defamation. The great Eskimo vocabulary hoax and other irreverent essays on the study of language, 92–99. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rumble, Wilfred. 1968. American legal realism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Samek, R. A. 1965. Performative utterances and the concept of contract. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 43. 196–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schane, Sanford. 1987. The corporation is a person: The language of a legal fiction. Tulane Law Review 61. 563–610.Google Scholar
Schane, Sanford. 1989. A speech act analysis of consideration in contract law. Language and law: Proceedings of the first conference of the International Institute of Comparative Linguistic Law, ed. by Pupier, Paul and Woehrling, Jose, 581–98. Montreal: Wilson & Lafleur.Google Scholar
Searle, John. 1969. Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Searle, John. 1976. A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5. 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, M. B. W. 1985. Law and language: The role of pragmatics in statutory interpretation, University of Pittsburgh Law Review 46. 373–420.Google Scholar
Solum, Lawrence. 1987. On the indeterminacy crisis: Critiquing critical dogma. University of Chicago Law Review 54. 462–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tanford, J. Alexander. 1991. Law reform by courts, legislatures, and commissions following empirical research on jury instructions. Law and Society Review 25. 155–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1986. The language of offer and acceptance: Speech acts and the question of intent. California Law Review 74. 189–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1987. The language of defamation. Texas Law Review 66. 303–50.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1990. The language of perjury: ‘Literal truth’, ambiguity and the false statement requirement. Southern California Law Review 63. 373–431.Google Scholar
Tiersma, Peter M. 1992. Reassessing unilateral contracts: The role of offer, acceptance and promise. U.C. Davis Law Review 26. 1–86.Google Scholar
Unger, Roberto. 1986. The critical legal studies movement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, William D. 1986. The admissibility of expert testimony on the discourse analysis of recorded conversations. University of Florida Law Review 38. 69–115.Google Scholar