An illusion of understanding: how native and non-native speakers of English understand (and misunderstand) their Miranda rights
Issue: Vol 26 No. 2 (2019)
Journal: International Journal of Speech Language and the Law
Subject Areas: Linguistics
DOI: 10.1558/ijsll.39163
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.
Author: Aneta Pavlenko, Elizabeth Hepford, Scott Jarvis
References :
ACTFL (American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages) (2012) ACTFL Proficiency Guidelines. Retrieved on 19 November 2018 from https://www.actfl.org/publications/guidelines-and-manuals/actfl-proficiency-guidelines-2012
Ainsworth, J. (2008) ‘You have the right to remain silent … but only if you ask for it just so’: The role of linguistic ideology in American police interrogation law. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 15(1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v15i1.1
Ainsworth, J. (2010) Miranda rights: curtailing coercion in police interrogation: the failed promise of Miranda v. Arizona. In M. Coulthard and A. Johnson (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics 111–125. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch8
Atkins, E. L. and Weiss, K. J. (2011) Competency to waive Miranda rights. In E. Drogin, F. Dattilio, R. Sadoff and T. Gutheil (eds) Handbook of Forensic Assessment: Psychological and Psychiatric Perspectives 25–48. New York: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118093399.ch2
Berk-Seligson, S. (2009) Coerced Confessions: The Discourse of Bilingual Police Interrogations. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Blackwood, H. L., Rogers, R., Steadham, J. A. and Fiduccia, C. E. (2015) Investigating Miranda waiver decisions: an examination of rational consequences. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 42–43: 11–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.002
Chaulk, S., Eastwood, J. and Snook, B. (2014) Measuring and predicting police caution comprehension in adult offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 56(3): 323–340. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2013.e02
Cloud, M., Shepherd, G., Barkoff, A. and Shur, J. (2002) Words without meaning: the constitution, confessions, and mentally retarded suspects. The University of Chicago Law Review 69(2): 495–624. https://doi.org/10.2307/1600500
CoE (Council of Europe) (2018) Common European Framework of Reference for Languages: Learning, Teaching, Assessment. Companion Volume with New Descriptors. Retrieved on 19 November 2018 from https://www.coe.int/en/web/common-european-framework-reference-languages/level-descriptions
Cooper, V. and Zapf, P. (2008) Psychiatric patients’ comprehension of Miranda rights. Law and Human Behavior 32(5): 390–405. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-007-9099-3
CoRG (Communication of Rights Group) (2015) Guidelines for Communicating Rights to Non-native Speakers of English in Australia, England and Wales, and the USA. Retrieved on 19 November 2018 from https://www.aaal.org/guidelines-for-communication-rights
Domanico, A., Cicchini, M. and White, L. (2012) Overcoming Miranda: a content analysis of the Miranda portion of the police interrogations. Idaho Law Review 49(1): 1–22.
Eades, D. (2010) Sociolinguistics and the Legal Process. Bristol: Multilingual Matters.
Eades, D. (2018) Communicating the right to silence to Aboriginal suspects: lessons from Western Australia v Gibson. Journal of Judicial Administration 28: 4–21.
Eggington, W. and Cox, T. (2013) Using elicited oral response testing to determine the need for an interpreter. Harvard Latino Law Review 16: 127–146.
Einesman, F. (2010) Cultural issues in motions to suppress statements. In L. Friedman Ramirez (ed.) Cultural Issues in Criminal Defense 559–628. Huntington, NY: Juris Publishing.
English, F. (2010) Non-native speakers in detention: assessing non-native speaking detainees’ English language proficiency. In M. Coulthard and A. Johnson (eds) The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics 423–439. London: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203855607.ch28
Feld, B. (2006) Juveniles’ competence to exercise Miranda rights: an empirical study of policy and practice. Minnesota Law Review 91(1): 26-100.
Feld, B. (2013) Real interrogation: what actually happens when cops question kids Law & Society Review 47(1): 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12000
Fenner, S., Gudjonsson, G. H. and Clare, I. C. H. (2002) Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology 12(2): 83–93. https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.658
Goldstein, A. and Sevin Goldstein, N. E. (2010) Evaluating Capacity to Waive Miranda Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780195366174.001.0001
Goldstein, A., Zelle, H. and Grisso, T. (2012) Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments: MRCI. New York: Professional Resource Press.
Grisso, T. (1981) Juveniles’ Waiver of Rights: Legal and Psychological Competence. New York: Plenum.
Grisso, T. (1998) Instruments for Assessing Understanding and Appreciation of Miranda Rights. New York: Professional Resource Press.
Hulstijn, J. (2011) Language proficiency in native and nonnative speakers: an agenda for research and suggestions for second-language assessment. Language Assessment Quarterly 8(3): 229–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434303.2011.565844
Hulstijn, J. (2015) Language Proficiency in Native and Non-native Speakers: Theory and Research. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/lllt.41
Innes, B. and Erlam, R. (2018) Did he understand his rights? Assessing the comprehensibility of police cautions in New Zealand. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 25(1): 21–51. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.32748
Kassin, S. M., Leo, R. A., Meissner, C. A., Richman, K. D., Colwell, L. H., Leach, A.-M. and La Fon, D. (2007) Police interviewing and interrogation: a self-report survey of police practices and beliefs. Law and Human Behavior 31(4): 381–400. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9073-5
Larson-Hall, J. (2010) A Guide to Doing Statistics in Second Language Research Using SPSS. New York: Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203875964
Leo, R. (2008) Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lu, X. (2010) Automatic analysis of syntactic complexity in second language writing. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 15(4): 474–496. https://doi.org/10.1075/ijcl.15.4.02lu
MELAB (Michigan English Language Assessment Battery) (2017) Linking the Common European Framework of Reference and the Michigan English Language Assessment Battery. Technical report. Retrieved on 19 November 2018 from https://michiganassessment.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/MELAB-CEFR-Linking-Technical-Report.pdf
Papageorgiou, S., Tannenbaum, R., Bridgeman, B. and Cho, Y. (2015) The Association between TOEFL iBT Test Scores and the Common European Framework of Reference (CEFR) Levels. Retrieved on 19 November 2018 from https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RM-15-06.pdf
Pavlenko, A. (2008) ‘I’m very not about the law part’: nonnative speakers of English and the Miranda warnings. TESOL Quarterly 42(1): 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00205.x
Rock, F. (2007) Communicating Rights: The Language of Arrest and Detention. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rogers, R., Correa, A. A., Hazelwood, L. L., Shuman, D. W., Hoersting, R. C. and Blackwood, H. L. (2009) Spanish translations of Miranda Warnings and the totality of the circumstances. Law and Human Behavior 33(1): 61–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9129-9
Rogers, R. and Drogin, E. (2015) Miranda rights and wrongs: matters of justice. Court Review 51: 150–156.
Rogers, R., Fiduccia, C. E., Drogin, E. Y, Steadham, J. A., Clark III, J. W. and Cramer, R. J. (2013) General knowledge and misknowledge of Miranda rights: are effective Miranda advisements still necessary? Psychology, Public Policy and Law 19(4): 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0033964
Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Hazelwood, L. L. and Sewell, K. W. (2007) Knowing and intelligent: a study of Miranda warnings in mentally disordered defendants. Law and Human Behavior 31(4): 401–418. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9070-8
Rogers, R., Harrison, K. S., Shuman, D. W., Sewell, K. W. and Hazelwood, L. L. (2007) An analysis of Miranda warnings and waivers: comprehension and coverage. Law and Human Behavior 31(2): 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-006-9054-8
Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Gillard, N. D., Drogin, E. Y., Blackwood, H. L. and Shuman. D. W. (2010) ‘Everyone knows their Miranda rights’: implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy and Law 16(3): 300–318. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019316
Rogers, R., Rogstad, J. E., Steadham, J. A. and Drogin, E. Y. (2011) In plain English: avoiding recognized problems with Miranda miscomprehension. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17(2): 264–285. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022508
Rogers, R., Sewell, K., Drogin, E. and Fiduccia, C. (2012) Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA). New York: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Scherr, K. C. and Madon. S. (2013) ‘Go ahead and sign’: an experimental examination of Miranda waivers and comprehension. Law and Human Behavior 37(3): 208–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000026
Sevin Goldstein, N. E., Riggs Romaine, C., Zelle, H., Kalbeitzer, R., Mesiarik, C. and Wolbransky, M. (2011) Psychometric properties of the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments with a juvenile justice sample. Assessment 18(4): 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111400280
Shuy, R. W. (1997) Ten unanswered language questions about Miranda. Forensic Linguistics 4(2): 175–196. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v4i2.175
Snook, B., Eastwood, J. and McDonald. S. (2010) A descriptive analysis of how Canadian police officers administer the right-to-silence and right-to-legal-counsel cautions. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 52(5): 545–560. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.52.5.545
US Census Bureau (2018) 2017 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates. Retrieved on 19 November 2018 from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=ACS_17_1YR_S0501&prodType=table
Wrightsman, L. and Pitman, M. (2010) The Miranda Ruling: Its Past, Present and Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cases cited
Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 157 (1986).
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).