Constructing causation in language and memory: implications for access to justice in multilingual interactions
Issue: Vol 20 No. 1 (2013)
Journal: International Journal of Speech Language and the Law
Subject Areas: Linguistics
Abstract:
Can witness memory be different for speakers of different languages? English and Spanish differ significantly in the expression of causal intentionality, and this study explores the possibility that the systematic ambiguity of English causation constructions (e.g. ‘She dropped the keys’) detracts from memory of intentionality in causation events, while the consistent tendency to differentiate intentional from non-intentional events in Spanish can result in an advantage for memory. Results from a recall memory experiment suggest that the language-guided habit of paying explicit linguistic attention to this distinction in Spanish positively affects witness memory, while the lack of pressure to explicitly determine intentionality in expressions of causation in English conditions diminishes recall for this component in causation events. The results of this empirical study are placed in the context of their relevance for: a) access to justice in multilingual investigative interviewing and b) more efficient obtaining of information in translation assisted communication and c) methodological advances in forensic linguistics and related academic and professional areas.
Author: Luna Filipovic
References :
Berk-Seligson, S. (1990) The Bilingual Courtroom: Court Interpreters in Judicial Process. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fausey, C.M. and Boroditsky, L. (2010) Subtle linguistic cues influence perceived blame and financial liability. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 17(5): 644–650. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/PBR.17.5.644
Fausey, C. and Boroditsky, L. (2011) Who dunnit? Cross-linguistic differences in eye-witness memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 18(1): 150–157. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-010-0021-5
Filipović, L. (2007) Language as a witness: insights from cognitive linguistics. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14(2): 245–267.
Filipović, L. (2008) Typology in action: applying insights from typological contrasts. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 18 (1): 42–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1473-4192.2008.00189.x
Filipović L. (2009) Motion events in semantic typology and eyewitness interviews: typological and psycholinguistic perspectives. Language and Linguistics Compass 3(1): 300–313. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00115.x
Filipović, L. (2010a) Typology meets witness narratives and memory: theory and practice entwined in cognitive linguistics. In E. Tabakowska et al. (eds) Cognitive Linguistics in Action: Theory to Application and Back 269–291. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Filipović, L. (2010b) Thinking and speaking about motion: universal vs. language-specific effects. In G. Marotta et al. (eds) Space in Language 235–248. Pisa: University of Pisa Press.
Filipović, L. (2011) Speaking and remembering in one or two languages: bilingual vs. monolingual lexicalization and memory for motion events. International Journal of Bilingualism 15(4): 466–485. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1367006911403062
Filipović, L. and Geva, S. (2012) Language-specific effects on lexicalization and memory of motion events. In L. Filipović and K. Jaszczolt (eds) Space and Time across Languages and Cultures: Language Culture and Cognition 269–282 [Human Cognitive Processing 37]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Filipović, L. (2013) The role of language in legal contexts: a forensic cross-linguistic viewpoint. In M. Freeman and F. Smith (eds) Law and Language: Current Legal Issues (15) 328–343. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Filipović, L. Slobin, D.I. and Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. (in preparation) Can thinking for speaking influence witness memory?
Finkbeiner, M., Nicol, J., Greth, D. and Nakamura, K. (2002) The role of language in memory for actions. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 31: 447–457.
Gennari, S.P., Sloman, S.A., Malt, B.C., and Fitch, W.T. (2002) Motion events in language and cognition. Cognition 83(1): 49–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(01)00166-4
Gibbons, J. (2003) Forensic Linguistics. Oxford: Blackwell.
Ibarretxe-Antuñano, I. and Filipović, L. (2013) Lexicalization patterns and translation. In A. Rojo and I. Ibarretxe-Antunano (eds) Cognitive Linguistics and Translation 253–284. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Levinson, S.C. (2003) Space in Language and Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Loftus, E.F. and Palmer, J.C. (1974) Reconstruction of automobile destruction: an example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 13: 585–589. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(74)80011-3
Lucy, J. and Gaskins, S. (2003) Interactions of language type and referent type in the development of nonverbal classification preferences. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (eds) Language in Mind 465–492. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Malt, B.C., Sloman, S.A., and Gennari, S.P. (2003) Speaking versus thinking about objects and actions. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin-Meadow (eds), Language in Mind 81–111. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Mendoza-Denton, R. (2010) Are we born racist? Inside the science of stigma, prejudice and intergroup relations. www.psychologytoday.com/blog/are-we-born-racist/201012/linguistic-forensics.
Papafragou, A., Massey, C. and Gleitman, L. (2002) Shake, rattle, ’n’ roll: the representation of motion in language and cognition. Cognition 84(2): 189–219. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00046-X
Papafragou, A., Hulbert, J. and Trueswell, J. (2008) Does language guide event perception? Evidence from eye movements. Cognition 108: 155–184. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2008.02.007
Pountain, C. (2003) Exploring the Spanish Language. London: Hodder Arnold.
Regier, T. and Kay, P. (2009) Language, thought, and colour: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13: 439–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2009.07.001
Roberson, D., Davidoff, J., Davies, I.R.L and Shapiro, L.R. (2005) Color categories: evidence for the cultural relativity hypothesis. Cognitive Psychology 50: 378–411. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2004.10.001
Slobin, D.I. (1996) Two ways to travel: verbs of motion in English and Spanish. In M. Shibatani and S.A. Thompson (eds) Grammatical Constructions - Their Form and Meaning 195–219. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Slobin, D.I. (1997) Mind, code, and text. In J. Bybee, J. Haiman and S.A. Thompson (eds) Essays on Language Function and Language Type 437–467. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Slobin, D.I. (2003) Language and thought online: cognitive consequences of linguistic relativity. In D. Gentner and S. Goldin- Meadow (eds) Language in Mind 157–191. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Slobin, D.I. (2006) What makes manner of motion salient? Explorations in linguistic typology, discourse, and cognition. In M. Hickmann and S. Robert (eds) Space in Languages: Linguistic Systems and Cognitive Categories 59–81. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Talmy, L. (1985) Lexicalization patterns. In T. Shopen (ed.) Language Typology and Syntactic Description: Grammatical Categories and the Lexicon 59–149. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Talmy, L. (2000) Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Trueswell, J. and Papafragou, A. (2010) Perceiving and remembering events cross-linguistically: evidence from dual-task paradigms. Journal of Memory and Language 63: 64–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2010.02.006