Trials heard by a foreign ear
A study of Chinese jurors’ comprehension of English trials in Hong Kong
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.23248Keywords:
linguistic disadvantage, L2 English speaker, legalese, jury comprehension, physical voicing, discursive voicing, voice projectionAbstract
Previous studies into jury comprehension have focused on Anglo-American courts and highlighted concerns about lay English-speaking jurors’ ability to understand jury instructions. Such studies have pointed to the use of legalese as the major cause of the problem and overlooked the impact of the manner of delivery on jury comprehension. This study sets out to examine Chinese jurors’ ability to understand trials conducted in English, which they speak as a second or even a foreign language (L2), and to explore what L2 speakers of English find problematic for their comprehension of courtroom discourse. A random sample of local Chinese eligible for jury service (n=53) are recruited from the community to take part in a comprehension test of courtroom discourse using authentic audio recordings of two jury trials from the High Court of Hong Kong. Taking the Voice Projection Framework (Heffer 2018) as a point of reference, this study demonstrates that, while discursive voicing is to blame for the participants’ comprehension problem, as manifested by studies with native English-speaking jurors, in the case of L2-speaking jurors, the speakers’ physical voicing of courtroom discourse is found to be a significant factor in impeding jurors’ comprehension of the discourse. This article argues that making courtroom discourse accessible to L2 speaking jurors requires more than improving discursive voicing. Physical voicing matters as much, if not more.
References
Agresti, A. (2018) Statistical Methods for the Social Sciences (5th edition). Boston: Pearson.
Altenberg, E. P. (2005) The perception of word boundaries in a second language. Second Language Research, 21(4), 325–358. https://doi.org/10.1191/0267658305sr250oa
Baguley, C., McKimmie, B. and Masser, B. (2020) Re-evaluating how to measure jurors’ comprehension and application of jury instructions. Psychology, Crime and Law 26(1): 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316x.2019.1634195
Berk-Seligson, S. (2009) Coerced Confessions. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110213492
Boersma, P. and Weenink, D. (2022) Praat: Doing Phonetics by Computer [Computer program]. Version 6.3.03. Retrieved 17 December 2022 from http://www.praat.org/
Brown-Blake, C. and Chambers, P. (2007) The Jamaican Creole speaker in the UK criminal justice system. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 14(2): 269–94. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.v14i2.269
Cecil, J. S., Hans, V. P. and Wiggins, E. C. (1991) Citizen comprehension of difficult issues: lessons from civil jury trials. American University Law Review 40(2): 727–774.
Charrow, R. P. and Charrow, V. R. (1979) Making legal language understandable: a psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review 79(7): 1306–1374. https://doi.org/10.2307/1121842
Chávez, E. L. (2008) New Mexico’s success with non-English speaking jurors. Journal of Court Innovation 1: 303–27.
Department of Justice (2021) Department of Justice – about us – key figures and statistics. 31 December. Retrieved 23 March 2022 from https://www.doj.gov.hk/en/about/stat.html
Duff, P., Findlay, M., Howarth, C. and Chan, T. F. (1992) Juries: A Hong Kong Perspective. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Duffy, K. (2017) Lost in translation: New Mexico’s non-English speaking jurors and the right to translated jury instructions. New Mexico Law Review 47(2): 376. Retrieved 23 March 2022 from https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol47/iss2/8
Dumas, B. K. (2000) US pattern jury instructions: problems and proposals. Forensic Linguistics 7(1): 49–71. https://doi.org/10.1558/sll.2000.7.1.49
Eades, D. (2008) Language and disadvantage before the law. In J. Gibbons and M. T. Turell (eds) Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics 179–195. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. https://doi.org/10.1075/aals.5.12ead
Gibbons, J. (2017) Towards clearer jury instructions. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 4(1): 142–160.
Heffer, C. (2005) The Language of Jury Trial: A Corpus-Aided Analysis of Legal-Lay Discourse. Basingstoke/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heffer, C. (2018) When voices fail to carry: voice projection and the case of the ‘dumb’ jury. In J. Leung and A. Durant (eds) Meaning and Power in the Language of Law 207–235. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Jury Ordinance, Cap 3, Laws of Hong Kong, § 4(1c) (1999) Retrieved on 19 December 2021 from https://www.elegislation.gov.hk/hk/cap3
Keskin, H., Ari, G. and Bastug, M. (2019) Role of prosodic reading in listening comprehension. International Journal of Education and Literacy Studies 7(1): 59–65. https://doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijels.v.7n.1p.59
Kramer, G. and Koenig, D. (1990) Do jurors understand criminal jury instructions? Analyzing the results of the Michigan Juror Comprehension Project. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 23: 401–437. Retrieved 15 December from https://repository.law.umich.edu/mjlr/vol23/iss3/2
Kurita, T. (2012). Issues in second language listening comprehension and the pedagogical implications. Accents Asia 5(1): 30–44.
Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong (2010) Report: Criteria for service as jurors. Retrieved 19 July 2021 from http://www.hkreform.gov.hk/en/docs/rjurors_e.pdf
McKimmie, B. M., Antrobus, E. and Baguley, C. (2014) Objective and subjective comprehension of jury instructions in criminal trials. New Criminal Law Review 17(2): 163–183. https://doi.org/10.1525/nclr.2014.17.2.163
Mellinkoff, D. (1963) The Language of the Law. Boston: Little, Brown.
Nakane, I (2010) Partial non-use of interpreters in Japanese criminal court proceedings. Japanese Studies 30(3): 443–59. https://doi.org/10.1080/10371397.2010.518603
Nakane, I. (2012) Language rights of non-Japanese defendants in Japanese criminal courts. In N. Gottlieb (ed.), Language and Citizenship in Japan 155–174. London: Routledge.
Nakane, I. (2015) Minority language speakers and disadvantage before the law: challenges for applied linguistics. Linguistics and the Human Sciences 11(1): 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1558/lhs.v11i1.19060
Napier, J. and Spencer, D. (2017) Jury instructions: comparing hearing and deaf jurors’ comprehension via direct or mediated communication. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 24(1): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.30878
New Zealand Law Commission (1999) Juries in Criminal Trials, part two, Preliminary Paper 37, volume 1. Retrieved 23 January 2022 from http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/nzlc/pp/PP37/PP37.pdf
Ng, E. N. S. (2016) Do they understand? English trials heard by Chinese jurors in the Hong Kong courtroom. Language and Law/Linguagem e Direito 3(2): 172–191.
Ng, E. N. S. (2018) Common Law in an Uncommon Courtroom: Judicial Interpreting in Hong Kong (Benjamins translation library 144). Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Ng, E. N. S. (2020) Linguistic disadvantage before the law: when non-native Englishspeaking witnesses waive their right to an interpreter. In E. N. S. Ng and I. H. M. Crezee (eds) Interpreting in Legal and Healthcare Settings: Perspectives on Research and Training, 21–44. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Co.
Ng, E. N. S. (2023) The right to a fair trial and the right to interpreting: a critical evaluation of the use of chuchotage in court interpreting. Interpreting, 87–108. https://doi.org/10.1075/intp.00082.ng
O’Barr, W. M. (1982) Linguistic Eevidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Ogloff, J. and Rose, V. G. (2005) The comprehension of judicial instructions. In N. Brewer and K. D. Williams (eds) Psychology and Law: an Empirical Perspective 407–444. New York: Guilford Press.
Pavlenko, A. (2017) Do you wish to waive your rights? Emotions and decision-making in multilingual speakers. Current Opinion in Psychology 17: 74–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.06.005
Pavlenko, A., Hepford, E. and Jarvis, S. (2019) An illusion of understanding: how native and non-native speakers of English understand (and misunderstand) their Miranda rights. International Journal of Speech, Language and the Law 26(2): 181–207. https://doi.org/10.1558/ijsll.39163
Rickford, J. R. and King, S. (2016) Language and linguistics on trial: hearing Rachel Jeantel (and other vernacular speakers) in the courtroom and beyond. Language 92(4): 948–988. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2016.0078
Ritter, J. L. (2004) Your lips are moving … but the words aren’t clear: dissecting the presumption that jurors understand instructions. Missouri Law Review 69(1): 163–214.
Steele, W. W. and Thornburg, E. G. (1991) Jury instructions: a persistent failure to communicate. Judicature 74(5): 249–254. Retrieved 11 November 2022 from https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1157&context=law_faculty
Thomas, C. (2010) Are Juries Fair? London: UK Ministry of Justice. Retrieved 23 March 2022 from https://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/publications/research-and-analysis/moj-research/are-juries-fair-research.pdf
Tiersma, P. M. (1999) Legal Language. Chicago/London: University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, P. M. (2008) The nature of legal language. In J. Gibbons and M. T. Turell (eds) Dimensions of Forensic Linguistics 7–25. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Tiersma, P. M. (2010) The origins of legal language. Loyola-LA Legal Studies Paper 2009-2044. Retrieved 23 March 2022 from https://ssrn.com/abstract=1695226
Trimboli, L. (2008) Juror understanding of judicial instructions in criminal trials. Crime and Justice Bulletin 119: 1–15. Retrieved 23 March 2022 from https://www.bocsar.nsw. gov.au/Publications/CJB/cjb119.pdf
Cases cited
HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing [2016] CACC 200.
HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing [2020] HKCA 938. Retrieved 23 March 2022 from https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=131891
HKSAR v. Chan Hon Wing [2021] HKCFA 45. Retrieved 23 March 2022 from https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=141159&currpage=T
HKSAR v. Lai She Hung [2005] CACC 46. Retrieved 23 March 2022 from https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=46390&currpage=T
Regina v. Christopher Huhne and Vasiliki Pryce [2013]
State of Florida v. George Zimmerman [2012] 592012CF001083A.
