This chapter focuses on the phenomenon of bilingual discourse marking. The introductory part of the chapter provides a definition of discourse markers and discusses their borrowability. Subsequent sections describe the individual discourse marker systems in the core corpus, i.e., Barossa German, Volga German and Blumenau German, and also includes Namibian German and other Russian German varieties. The analysis shows that heritage language speakers use contact-language discourse markers interchangeably with their heritage language counterparts. This is especially true for turn-related particles with a dialogue-controlling function. In this sense, mixed-language discourse marking systems emerge that also contain bilingual markers (i.e., markers that have the same phonological form in both languages). In this domain, the interspeaker variation was extremely high and pointed to rather idiosyncratic dialogue-organizing repertoires. Furthermore, it is demonstrated that the specific system of German modal particles is reduced in heritage communities, and that there is a significant reduction across generations. In the final section, a model explaining the use of different discourse markers by utterance processing is proposed, based on different levels of speech processing. In addition, the section explains individual differences through access to literacy and Standard German.

This chapter explores the role of linguistics in language teacher preparation. Against a profound demographic shift currently underway in the US, it provides a rationale for preparing ESL and bilingual teachers who are well-equipped to work with diverse students in K-12 contexts. Crucially, the chapter explores two key points: the value of linguistic analysis and an equity-based approach to language teaching. Linguistic analysis allows teachers to recognize patterns in the language of their students; in doing so, teachers can isolate recurring errors, recognize where their students are in the learning process, and better target their teaching to address the errors and move students forward. The chapter also shows how linguistics training helps teachers understand language variation, dialects, and the role of society, especially for languages with less social power and prestige. It argues that teachers’ awareness of harmful language ideologies helps combat societal inequities that use language as a proxy for discrimination and subjugation. The chapter ends with suggestions for further reading and discussion questions for teachers and teacher educators.

This chapter explores the accuracy of private transcription services when transcribing Black English and Standard American English. Courts and lawyers in the US regularly rely on transcripts from such services, but third-party verification of their accuracy, especially with respect to their quality when faced with nonstandard language varieties, is lacking. This study draws on experimental methods to contrast the quality of transcription services offered by transcribers and AI route. The quantitative results show that transcription by humans and AI resulted in more mistakes when transcribing Black English than when transcribing Standard American English. Furthermore, a qualitative analysis reveals that these mistakes often changed or obscured meaning in legally relevant ways. If these results are generalizable, many transcripts currently in circulation, and crucial both to justice at the trial level and appellate review, contain disproportionately more legally important mistakes for Black English speakers. Given that Black English speakers are a highly overrepresented population in the US criminal system, the chapter proposes ways of redressing transcription shortcomings.

In covert surveillance operations, police monitor the activities of suspected individuals to gather investigative information, which is then used by public prosecutors and judges in legal proceedings. This practice presents multiple challenges when suspects use different languages and intercept interpreters/translators (IITs) support the process of conveying intercepted communications from investigative stages to court proceedings. This chapter fills a significant knowledge gap regarding the activities, responsibilities and competences of IITs. The authors show how communication surveillance unfolds in three temporally staggered phases each involving different participants: (1) suspects’ original communication, (2) IITs’ translation in collaboration with police and (3) integration of written translations into legal documents by police, public prosecutors and judges. Communication in these phases undergoes significant shifts to extract core information crucial for judicial decision-making, while IITs remain invisible in the process. The chapter concludes with an imperative for a clearly defined delineation of roles and responsibilities for IITs within the criminal justice system.

International Criminal Court (ICC) presents a unique blend of adversarial and inquisitorial legal traditions. By drawing on ethnomethodology and conversation analysis, this chapter explores the impact of ICC’s procedural blending on judicial interventions during witness examination.The common understanding is that ICC relies on the adversarial, party-led mode of presenting evidence – featuring examination-in-chief and cross-examination – but without the associated rules of evidence. Our study expands on this by demonstrating that the latitude provided by the ICC’s legal framework for judges to monitor and intervene in witness examination creates a field of tension for them, as they often oscillate between the roles of truth-finder and arbiter, to the point where the two seem to merge. By shedding light on the interactional accomplishment of these judicial interventions, our analysis illustrates how the ICC’s normative and procedural provisions are fleshed out in action, revealing the emerging tensions associated with judges’ dual role in questioning witnesses.

This chapter examines the legal contestation of language rights within courtroom proceedings, focusing on individuals’ assertions of their right to use a particular language in legal settings. It explores the intersection of legal procedural norms and the politics of language, analysing how these disputes unfold in broader sociopolitical contexts. Two primary types of language rights in legal proceedings are considered: universal language rights, rooted in the right to a fair trial and procedural fairness, and official language rights, derived from legislative recognition of specific languages. While universal language rights are broadly applicable, official language rights depend on jurisdictional policies and historical legacies. Drawing on the interdisciplinary analysis of court judgments and media reports across different jurisdictions, this chapter highlights how official language rights are often unevenly implemented despite their legal recognition. The chapter also demonstrates how language rights are negotiated and contested in legal proceedings, shedding light on the broader implications for multilingual legal orders and the evolving politics of language in legal systems.

Pronunciation issues in L2 arise from a variety of linguistic sources and can be quite complex, interrelated, and subtle. Differences in sound inventories, phonemic relationships among sounds, phonotactic patterns in syllables and words, and prosodic patterns can all wreak havoc on one’s best efforts at acquiring native-like pronunciation, sometimes in tandem. Drawn from the experience of a field linguist who has taught many to articulate sounds in unfamiliar languages (L2 students learning English pronunciation and English speakers learning sounds from the world’s languages) and to analyze phonological patterns, this chapter showcases the strengths of phonetics, phonology, and typology for exceptional L2 pronunciation teaching. Goals, topics, and resources for a linguistically well-grounded teacher training course in L2 pronunciation are proposed. Properly equipped, the teacher of pronunciation can quickly analyze the linguistic source of pronunciation issues as they arise in class, determine linguistically based strategies in response, and provide clear explanations and effective, individualized coaching on-the-ground with actual L2 learners, with results they see and appreciate.

Individuals lack linguistic presence if they do not have sufficient proficiency in the language used by the court. Linguistic presence for these individuals is a critical procedural assumption, and failure to provide an interpreter during police interviews can inhibit procedural fairness in the criminal justice system. When judges in Australia assess confessional evidence from police interviews with non-native speakers of English, they often need to form opinions about defendants’ linguistic competence. In doing so, judges make assumptions about their own competence to decide matters which are usually in the province of language experts. They also make assumptions about their own imperviousness to bias, including implicit social biases. This chapter analyses Australian criminal cases which involved judicial consideration of individuals’ English language capacity. Our findings indicate that judicial exceptionalism may factor in decision-making and we argue that gatekeeping errors in determining defendants’ linguistic presence can compound systemic errors cascading from the police interview, and result in miscarriages of justice.

The principle of orality is a key feature of adversarial legal systems. It safeguards the right of the parties to present their case in court and for court hearings to be heard in public, underpinning thus transparency and procedural justice. The implementation of the principle of orality in legal proceedings has, however, been challenged in legal research and practice. The chapter draws on linguistic frameworks to explore the principle of orality from the theoretical perspective and question its implementation in county and family courts across England and Wales. Focusing on these high-volume proceedings, the analysis expands on the conceptualisation of the principle of orality, presents a novel methodological approach to exploring orality in legal practice and identifies court procedures that support and those that impede on the effective implementation of the principle of orality. To address issues with reduced orality and its patchy implementation, the chapter argues for the need to uphold the quality assurance of the investigative and evidentiary process, support court users through guided elicitation and provide scope for procedural flexibility.