It is becoming increasingly common for linguists to testify as expert witnesses in both civil and criminal trials. Often linguistic expertise is clearly helpful to the judge or jury. Based on published judicial opinions, from which we draw our data, it appears that courts have allowed linguists to testify on such issues as the probable origin of a speaker, the comprehensibility of a text, whether a particular defendant understood the Miranda warning, and the phonetic similarity of two competing trademarks. In other areas the admissibility of linguistic testimony has been more controversial, including author and speaker identification, discourse analysis, the meaning of legal texts, and the comprehensibility of jury instructions. Reasons for judicial reluctance to admit linguistic expertise include concerns that it is not sufficiently reliable, the belief that issues like the meaning of a text can just as well be decided by a jury, and sometimes even institutional and political considerations. Despite such reservations, courts generally recognize that there is a place for linguistic expertise in appropriate cases.

This article investigates an external variable critical to the understanding of sociolinguistic variation in a rural, tri-ethnic community in the Southern United States. Cultural identity, the orientation of the speaker to the community, was first observed in variationist work by Labov (1963) but has not been regularly analyzed as have sex, age, and ethnicity. Cultural identity is postulated as a speaker's orientation to the local and larger regional cultures, and in Warren County, North Carolina, this orientation correlates strongly with vernacular variants of present and past tense be. For copula absence (e.g. They ∅ real nice people), was regularization (e.g. We was going), and past tense wont (e.g. We wont gonna go), the cultural identity of the speaker had statistically significant effects on language variation. To understand language variation in this community, the interactions of cultural identity and other external variables must be considered.

Are linguistic signs really as arbitrary as they are assumed to be, and how exceptional are semantically motivated lexical patterns? These old questions are re-addressed with the help of new quantificational data on two genetically unrelated languages, Kambera (Austronesian) and Dutch (Indo-European). The hypothesis is that semantically complex items such as expressives favor a structurally complex form, and vice versa. An examination of seven distinct types of lexical items found statistically robust semantically motivated lexical patterns. Linguistic signs appear to be less arbitrary than is commonly assumed.

This article reconsiders the development and licensing of agreement as a syntactic projection and argues for a productive developmental relation between agreement and the category of focus. The authors suggest that focus projections are initially selected by a variety of functional heads with real semantic content. Over time however such selected focus frequently decays into a simple concord shell, and when this occurs, the lower half of the shell becomes a simple agreement projection parasitically licensed by the higher functional head, which does have a genuine semantic value.