{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029666254635352288, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029666254635352285, 'mean_word_length': 4.7882689556509295, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Language and the Law in Deaf Communities (review)

Language and the Law in Deaf Communities edited by Ceil Lucas (Washington, D.C.: Gallaudet University Press, 2003. 200 pp., casebound $55.00) PROFESSOR LUCAS tells us in her too-short introduction to this collection of six essays written by linguists and attorneys-it is Roger Shuy's lead chapter in the volume that takes on the task of more fully introducing readers to the remainder of the contributions-that the volume will focus on "where language and the law intersect in deaf communities." That is an apt description, even though some of the contributors necessarily devote much space to legal language in general, rather than homing in immediately on the discussion's relevance for the deaf community. Shuy's essay ("The Language Problems of Minorities") sets the stage dramatically as he explains that, despite our fascination with Cops, Law and Order, and even Court TV, legal culture is unique and exotic: "Nowhere else do we need someone else to do our talking for us. Nowhere else are we prevented from introducing our own topics and telling our stories in our own way. Nowhere else are we forbidden to interrupt the speaker or ask our own questions." Much of Shuy's essay is devoted to the retelling of three case studies, only one of which involved a deaf litigant, a young man who had apparently been strong-armed into purchasing a car from a dealership. The deaf client won $6 million in damages. Ironically, he was better off because he was deaf, in that communication between him and the abusive salesman was done by passing notes back and forth, thus producing a clear record of evidence, such as when the client had written such pleas as "I'm not ready to buy" and "I want my check back now!" Rob Hoopes's contribution ("Interrogating Deaf Suspects") is the only report of quantitative research in the volume. How easy is it for deaf suspects to understand the famous Miranda warnings, he wondered, and how much docs that understanding vary as a function of the interpreter's level of experience? The Supreme Court-mandated warning, at least partially familiar to any crime TV junkie, provides You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to talk to a lawyer and have him present with you while you are being questioned. If you cannot afford to hire a lawyer, one will be appointed to represent you before questioning, if you wish. You can decide at any time to exercise these rights and not answer any questions or make any statements. "Interpreters" with beginning-level skills (these folks were taking their second class in American Sign Language [ASL]-forget about courses in interpreting!), when presented with the spoken Miranda text and asked to translate into ASL, "signed an average of only four lexical items." That is, the whole text might have been reduced to YOU HAVE RIGHT SILENT. Not surprisingly, these beginning-level subjects displayed no ability to transmit nonmanual grammar. Among other things, this would mean that the conditional tense articulated in ASL by eyebrow shifts would be completely missing. The "if" clause in the section about attorneys would be lacking, and a deaf suspect might therefore assume that the police department had already determined that he was indigent, and that the appointment of an attorney was in progress. A crucial part of Hoopes's research design had him asking a group of ten native signers how comprehensible they thought the Miranda renderings were from the three levels of interpreters. (Advanced interpreters generally had both Registry of Interpreters for the Deaf and National Association of the Deaf certifications, intermediate ones had completed at least eight courses in ASL interpreting). Interestingly, three of the ten native judges found even the advanced interpreters' Miranda warnings to be "confusing." There are problems with the design, to be sure. It elicits only a third-person judgment from the native signers-i. …