{"title":"An illusion of understanding: how native and non-native speakers of English understand (and misunderstand) their Miranda rights","authors":"A. Pavlenko, Elizabeth A. Hepford, S. Jarvis","doi":"10.1558/ijsll.39163","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The purpose of the Miranda rights in the USA is to ensure that suspects know their fundamental rights under the law, yet even native speakers of English do not always understand their rights (Rogers, Rogstad, Gillard, Drogin, Blackwood and Shuman, 2010; Rogers, Rogstad, Steadham and Drogin, 2011). To evaluate their understanding, Grisso (1998) developed Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI), normed with native speakers and widely accepted in the legal community. Comprehension by second language (L2) speakers of English, on the other hand, is inferred based on their L2 proficiency, but no studies to date offer the scientific basis for causal connections between L2 proficiency and understanding of the Miranda rights. The purpose of the present study was to compare understanding of the Miranda rights among native (n = 82) and advanced L2 speakers of English (n = 183) to determine whether standardised assessments of L2 proficiency can predict comprehension of the Miranda rights. Our results show that most of our L2 participants failed to understand their Miranda rights and displayed significant disadvantages in basic level processing in comparison to native speakers. Furthermore, they were unaware of the failure: using linguistic resources at their disposal these advanced L2 speakers constructed alternative meanings that created an illusion of understanding.","PeriodicalId":43843,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"14","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Speech Language and the Law","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.39163","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 14
Abstract
The purpose of the Miranda rights in the USA is to ensure that suspects know their fundamental rights under the law, yet even native speakers of English do not always understand their rights (Rogers, Rogstad, Gillard, Drogin, Blackwood and Shuman, 2010; Rogers, Rogstad, Steadham and Drogin, 2011). To evaluate their understanding, Grisso (1998) developed Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI), normed with native speakers and widely accepted in the legal community. Comprehension by second language (L2) speakers of English, on the other hand, is inferred based on their L2 proficiency, but no studies to date offer the scientific basis for causal connections between L2 proficiency and understanding of the Miranda rights. The purpose of the present study was to compare understanding of the Miranda rights among native (n = 82) and advanced L2 speakers of English (n = 183) to determine whether standardised assessments of L2 proficiency can predict comprehension of the Miranda rights. Our results show that most of our L2 participants failed to understand their Miranda rights and displayed significant disadvantages in basic level processing in comparison to native speakers. Furthermore, they were unaware of the failure: using linguistic resources at their disposal these advanced L2 speakers constructed alternative meanings that created an illusion of understanding.
米兰达权利在美国的目的是确保嫌疑人知道他们在法律下的基本权利,但即使是以英语为母语的人也并不总是理解他们的权利(Rogers,Rogstad,Gillard,Drogin,Blackwood和Shuman,2010;Rogers,Rogerstad,Steadham和Drogin(2011)。为了评估他们的理解,Grisso(1998)开发了Miranda Rights understanding Instruments(MRCI),该工具由母语人士规范,并在法律界广泛接受。另一方面,第二语言(L2)使用者对英语的理解是根据他们的第二语言熟练程度来推断的,但迄今为止没有任何研究为第二语言流利程度与对米兰达权利的理解之间的因果关系提供科学依据。本研究的目的是比较母语(n=82)和高级英语二语使用者(n=183)对米兰达权利的理解,以确定二语水平的标准化评估是否可以预测对米兰达权的理解。我们的研究结果表明,与母语为母语的人相比,我们的大多数二语参与者未能理解他们的米兰达权利,并且在基础处理方面表现出显著的劣势。此外,他们没有意识到失败:这些高级二语使用者利用自己掌握的语言资源构建了替代意义,产生了理解的幻觉。
期刊介绍:
The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law is a peer-reviewed journal that publishes articles on any aspect of forensic language, speech and audio analysis. Founded in 1994 as Forensic Linguistics, the journal changed to its present title in 2003 to reflect a broadening of academic coverage and readership. Subscription to the journal is included in membership of the International Association of Forensic Linguists and the International Association for Forensic Phonetics and Acoustics.