Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0920-9034
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9870
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Although in recent years researchers have intensified focus on the communication of the pre-trial right to silence or police caution to native and non-native speakers of English, most of this research has been concerned with linguistic complexity, comprehension, and comprehensibility issues. Relatively few studies have focused attention on the role played by the deliverer of the caution in the communicative equation (Cotterill 2000), particularly in situations where the caution has to be interpreted or translated by its deliverer. Drawing on a sociolinguistic variation approach, this study investigates the communication of the police caution to creole speakers, who remain nearly invisible in the research to date. It uses the categories of literal and free translation as tools to analyze spontaneous translations of the caution from English to French lexicon Creole (Kwéyòl) produced by ( = 25) police officers in St. Lucia. The results show considerable variability in these translations, which may have negative consequences for the accused. This study seeks to draw attention to these consequences, by underscoring some of the inaccuracies that may occur in translating or interpreting a caution written in English to Kwéyòl, and make a case for policy that would use the language of the accused in situations of language variation. The study argues that such a policy, which standardizes the Kwéyòl version of the caution, would not only obviate the potential for variability, but would also minimize misunderstandings, which could compromise the legal rights of the suspect.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Bayley, Robert
    2013 Variationist sociolinguistics. In Robert Bayley , Richard Cameron , & Celia Lucas (eds.), The Oxford handbook of sociolinguistics, 11–30. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199744084.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  2. Bayley, Robert & Ceil Lucas
    2007 Introduction. In Robert Bayley & Ceil Lucas (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, methods and applications, 1–2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619496.001
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619496.001 [Google Scholar]
  3. Berger, Mark
    2012 The right to silence in the Hague international criminal courts. University of San Francisco Law Review47(1). 1–55. doi: 10.15.1515/IJSL.2011.002
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Berk-Seligson, Susan
    2011 Negotiation and Communicative accommodation in bilingual police interrogations: A critical sociolinguistic perspective. International Journal of the Sociology of Language207. 29–58.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 2009Coerced confessions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110213492
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492 [Google Scholar]
  6. 2002 The Miranda warnings and linguistic coercion: The role of footing in the interrogation of a limited-English speaking murder suspect. In Janet Cotterill (ed.), Language in the legal process, 127–143. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230522770_8
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230522770_8 [Google Scholar]
  7. 2000 Interpreting for the police: Issues in pre-trial phases of the judicial process. Forensic Linguistics7(2). 212–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bowen, Alex
    2019 ‘You don’t have to say anything’: Modality and consequences about the right to silence in the Northern Territory. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 347–374. 10.1080/07268602.2019.1620682
    https://doi.org/10.1080/07268602.2019.1620682 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brière, Eugène J.
    1978 Limited English speakers and the Miranda rights. TESOL Quarterly12(3). 235–245. 10.2307/3586051
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586051 [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown-Blake, Celia & Paul Chambers
    2007 The Jamaican creole speaker in the UK criminal justice system. The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law14(2). 269–294. 10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.269
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.269 [Google Scholar]
  11. Brunner, Elizabeth G.
    2009 The study of variation from two perspectives. Language and Linguistics Compass3(3). 734–750. doi:  10.1111/j.1749‑818X.2009.00137.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-818X.2009.00137.x [Google Scholar]
  12. Butters, Ronald
    2007 Sociolinguistic variation and the law. In Robert Bayley & Ceil Lucas (eds.), Sociolinguistic variation: Theories, methods and applications, 318–337. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511619496.017
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511619496.017 [Google Scholar]
  13. Chaulk, Sarah J. , Joseph Eastwood , & Brent Snook
    2014 Measuring and predicting police caution comprehension in adult offenders. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice56(3). 323–340. doi:  10.3138/CJCCJ.2013.E02
    https://doi.org/10.3138/CJCCJ.2013.E02 [Google Scholar]
  14. Chen, Wallace
    2015 Sight translation. In Holly Mikkelson & Renée Jourdenais (eds.), The Routledge handbook of interpreting, 144–153. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chevrot, Jean-Pierre , Katie Drager , & Paul Foulkes
    2018 Editors’ introduction and review: Sociolinguistic Variation and cognitive science. Topics in Cognitive Science10. 679–695. doi:  10.1111/tops.12384
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12384 [Google Scholar]
  16. Colin, Joan & Ruth Morris
    1996Interpreters and the legal process. Winchester: Waterside Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Constitution of St. Lucia
    Constitution of St. Lucia. Statutory Instrument 1978 No. 1901, (U.K.), Schedule 1.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. CoRG (Communication of Rights Group)
    CoRG (Communication of Rights Group) 2015 Guidelines for Communicating Rights to Non-native Speakers of English in Australia, England and Wales, and the USA. https://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/114873/Communication-of-rights.pdf (6December 2019.)
  19. Cotterill, Janet
    2000 Reading the rights: A cautionary tale of comprehension and comprehensibility. Forensic Linguistics7(1). 4–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Dam, Helle V.
    1998 Lexical similarity vs lexical dissimilarity in consecutive interpreting. The Translator4(1). 48–68. 10.1080/13556509.1998.10799006
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13556509.1998.10799006 [Google Scholar]
  21. Davis, Krista , C. Lindsay Fitzsimmons , & Timothy E. Moore
    2011 Improving the comprehensibility of a Canadian police caution on the right to silence. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology26(2). 87–99. doi: 10.1007/s11896‑9086‑y
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-9086-y [Google Scholar]
  22. Eades, Diana
    2018 Communicating the right to silence to Aboriginal suspects: Lessons from Western Australia v Gibson. Journal of Judicial Administration28. 4–21.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Einesman, Floralyn
    2010 Cultural issues in motions to supress statements. In Linda F. Ramirez (ed.), Cultural issues in criminal defence, 559–628. Huntington, NY: Juris Publishing.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1999 Confessions and culture: The interaction of Miranda and diversity. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology90. 1–47. doi:  10.2307/1144162
    https://doi.org/10.2307/1144162 [Google Scholar]
  25. Evans, Sandra R.
    2019 We reduce it in writing: Exploring the status of Kwéyòl in the criminal justice system in St. Lucia. In Wendell C. Wallace (ed.), Caribbean perspectives on criminology and criminal justicevol.1, 175–197. Washington: Westphalia Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fenner, Susanne , Gisli H. Gudjonsson , & Isabel C. H. Clare
    2002 Understanding of the current police caution (England and Wales) among suspects in police detention. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology12. 83–93. doi:  10.1002/casp.658
    https://doi.org/10.1002/casp.658 [Google Scholar]
  27. Frank, David
    (ed.) 2001Kwéyòl dictionary. Castries: Ministry of Education Government of St. Lucia.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gibbons, John
    2001 Revising the language of New South Wales police procedures: Applied linguistics in action. Applied Linguistics22(4). 439–469. 10.1093/applin/22.4.439
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/22.4.439 [Google Scholar]
  29. Hocking, Barbara Ann & Laura Leigh Manville
    2001 What of the right to silence: Still supporting the presumption of innocence, or a growing legal fiction?Macquarie Law Journal1. 62–92.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Innis, Bronwen & Rosemary Erlam
    2018 Did he understand his rights? Assessing the comprehensibility of police cautions in New Zealand. The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law25(1). 21–51. 10.1558/ijsll.32748
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.32748 [Google Scholar]
  31. Kendall, Tyler
    2007 Listening to silence: Interpretation and transcription of pause and deposition. Proceedings of the 2nd European IAFL conference on forensic linguistics: Language and the law.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Labov, William
    1972Sociolinguistic patterns. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Laws of St. Lucia
    Laws of St. Lucia 2015 Criminal Code, chapter 3.01.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Léwis, Robyn
    1998Cyfiawnder dwyieithog? Bilingual justice?Llandysul: Gomer Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Louisy, Pearlette & Paul Turmel-John
    1983A handbook for writing Creole. Castries: Research St. Lucia Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Lu, Wei & Hong Fang
    2012 Reconsidering Peter Newmark’s theory on literal translation. Theory and Practice in Language Studies2(4). 741–746. doi:  10.4304/tpls.2.4.741‑746
    https://doi.org/10.4304/tpls.2.4.741-746 [Google Scholar]
  37. Moosmüller, Sylvia
    1997 Phonological variation in speaker identification. The International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law4(1). 29–47. 10.1558/ijsll.v4i1.29
    https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v4i1.29 [Google Scholar]
  38. Nakane, Ikuko
    2007 Problems in communicating the suspect’s rights in interpreted police interviews. Applied Linguistics28(1). 87–112. 10.1093/applin/aml050
    https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/aml050 [Google Scholar]
  39. O’Barr, William M.
    1982Linguistic evidence: Language, power, and strategy in the courtroom. San Diego: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Palumbo, Giuseppe
    2009Key terms in translation studies. London: Continuum International Publishing Group.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Pavlenko, Aneta , Elizabeth Hepford , & Scott Jarvis
    2019 An illusion of understanding: How native and non-native speakers of English understand (and misunderstand) their Miranda rights. The International Journal of Speech Language and the Law26(2). 181–207.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Pavlenko, Aneta
    2008 I’m very not about the law part: Non-native speakers of English and the Miranda warnings. TESOL Quarterly42(1). 1–30. 10.1002/j.1545‑7249.2008.tb00205.x
    https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1545-7249.2008.tb00205.x [Google Scholar]
  43. Poplack, Shana , Lauren Zentz , & Nathalie Dion
    2012 Phrase-final prepositions in Quebec French: An empirical study of contact, code-switching and resistance to convergence. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition15(2). 203–225. doi:  10.1017/S1366728911000204
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S1366728911000204 [Google Scholar]
  44. Rickford, John & Sharese King
    2016 Language and linguistics on trial: Hearing Rachel Jeantel (and other vernacular speakers) in the courtroom and beyond. Language92(4). 948–988. 10.1353/lan.2016.0078
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0078 [Google Scholar]
  45. Rock, Frances
    2007Communicating rights: The language of arrest and detention. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/9780230286504
    https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230286504 [Google Scholar]
  46. Rogers, Richard , Jill E. Rogstad , Jennifer A. Steadham , & Eric Y. Drogin
    2011 In plain English: Avoiding recognized problems with Miranda miscomprehension. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law17(2). 264–285. doi:  10.1037/a0022508
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022508 [Google Scholar]
  47. Rogers, Richard , Jill E. Rogstad , Nathan D. Gillard , Eric Y. Drogin , Hayley L. Blackwood , & Daniel W. Shuman
    2010 Everyone knows their Miranda rights: Implicit assumptions and countervailing evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law16(3). 300–318. doi:  10.1037/a0019316
    https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019316 [Google Scholar]
  48. Rogers, Richard , Amor A. Correa , Lisa L. Hazelwood , Daniel W. Shuman , Raquel C. Hoesting , & Hayley L. Blackwood
    2009 Spanish translations of Miranda warnings and the totality of circumstances. Law and Human Behaviour33. 61–69. doi:  10.1007/s10979‑008‑9129‑9
    https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-008-9129-9 [Google Scholar]
  49. Roy, John D.
    1990 The difficulties of limited-English-proficient individuals in legal settings. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences606. 73–83. doi:  10.1111/j.1749‑6632.1990.tb37737.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1990.tb37737.x [Google Scholar]
  50. Russell, Sonia
    2000 ‘Let me put it simply’: The case for a standard translation of the police caution and its explanation. Forensic Linguistics7(1). 26–48.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Scherr, Kyle C. & Stephanie Madon
    2013 Go ahead and sign: An experimental examination of Miranda waivers and comprehension. Law and Human Behaviour37(3). 208–218. doi:  10.1037/lhb0000026
    https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000026 [Google Scholar]
  52. Simmons-McDonald, Hazel
    2014 Instructional models for a creole-influenced vernacular context: The case of St. Lucia. In Ian Robertson & Hazel Simmons-Mc-Donald (eds.), Education Issues in creole and creole-influenced vernacular contexts, 119–150. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Solan, Lawrence M. & Peter M. Tiersma
    2005Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sexius v. the Attorney General of St. Lucia
    Sexius v. the Attorney General of St. Lucia [2017] UKPC 26, The Court of Appeal of the Eastern Caribbean Supreme Court (St. Lucia).
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Kwéyòl speakers; police officers; right to silence; St. Lucia; translation; variation
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error