'Where' questions and their responses in Duna (Papua New Guinea)

Despite their central role in question formation, content interrogatives in spontaneous conversation remain relatively under-explored cross-linguistically. This paper outlines the structure of ‘where’ expressions in Duna, a language spoken in Papua New Guinea, and examines where-questions in a small Duna data set in terms of their frequency, function, and the responses they elicit. Questions that ask ‘where?’ have been identified as a useful tool in studying the language of space and place, and, in the Duna case and elsewhere, show high frequency and functional flexibility. Although where-questions formulate place as an information gap, they are not always answered through direct reference to canonical places. While some question types may be especially “socially costly” (Levinson 2012), asking ‘where’ perhaps provides a relatively innocuous way of bringing a particular event or situation into focus

Learning in complex tasks: A comparison of cognitvie load and dual space theories.

Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) and Dual Space Theory (DST) offer differing accounts of learning in complex settings. CLT argues that reducing processing demands on working memory (i.e. reducing cognitive load) will facilitate learning. Conversely, DST suggests that learning is improved by encouraging learners to focus on task rules (rule space search) rather than task instances (instance space search). Despite these differences, CLT researchers have proposed that the theories are complementary, suggesting that rule space search is contingent on low cognitive load. Three studies were conducted to examine this proposal with particular focus on the goal free effect. Study 1 trained participants on a complex task under conditions of high or low rule space search with cognitive load held constant. Results indicated that the high rule space search group acquired greater knowledge despite equivalent cognitive load between the groups. However, results may have been confounded by motivational differences. Study 2 manipulated rule space search and cognitive load in a 2 (goal type) x 2 (information level) between-subjects design. Manipulations were intended to create conditions where cognitive load and rule space search were both high or low, contrary to their proposed dependence. Results however were mixed. Whilst cognitive load and rule space search were unrelated in between-group comparisons, they were negatively related overall, consistent with CLT’s proposal. Study 3 refined the previous 2 x 2 design to clarify these findings. Results indicated that groups encouraged to search rule space did so independently of cognitive load, though results were not entirely consistent with either theory. Taken together, results tentatively suggest that cognitive load does not influence rule space search in all situations. The theories may therefore be independent explanations of learning in complex settings

Contents & Introduction, Law Text Culture, volume 24

This essay introduces a large and diverse special issue on ‘The Acoustics of Justice: Law, Listening, Sound’. Until recently the acoustic dimensions of law and justice were not a major concern in the academy, either in self-consciously legal scholarship, or elsewhere. Things are changing, as indeed the size of this collection suggests. And our hope is that the work gathered here will go some way to addressing this deficit. Nevertheless, this introduction does not attempt to theorise how. Though the collection was conceived in 2019, it was mostly produced since the arrival of COVID-19. And we are tired. We have been working from home too long; or rather our homes have been ‘requisitioned’ for work. Our teaching loads have increased and the teaching itself rapidly onlined. All while separated from loved ones and attempting to school or otherwise entertain our kids at home. And we are the lucky ones. This introduction is, in a sense, an anti-introduction, or a non-introduction then: a strategic withdrawal of labour that opens the door onto the collection but offers little in the way of guidance to readers once they step through. Whether that is generous or irresponsible we leave to readers to decide

Deaf citizens as jurors in Australian courts: Participating via professional interpreters

Australian deaf citizens are currently not permitted to perform jury duty, primarily due to their inability to hear the evidence and deliberate without interpreters. Although interpreters are routinely employed to interpret for defendants or witnesses in court, current legal frameworks do not permit interpreters to enter the deliberation room as a ‘thirteenth person’, for fear that they may influence the jurors or become active participants in the decision-making. Other objections to allowing deaf citizens to act as jurors include uncertainty about their ability to participate fully in the discussions, the impact the deaf juror’s and interpreter’s presence mayhave on the dynamics of the deliberations and on turn-taking, and the logistics and cost involved. Yet, deaf citizens see it as their right to be able to perform this very important civic duty, and recent decisions at the international level indicate that excluding deaf citizens from jury duty should be considered unlawful discrimination.This article presents results from the analysis of the jury deliberations with one deaf juror and two Auslan1 interpreters, and from a focus group discussion with the eleven hearing jurors and an interview with the deaf juror about their experience.The jury deliberation is one section of a large-scale study on the participation of deaf jurors in a criminal trial with Auslan interpreters, in New South Wales

Forensic Science Evidence and the Limits of Cross-Examination

The ability to confront witnesses through cross-examination is conventionally understood as the most powerful means of testing evidence, and one of the most important features of the adversarial trial. Popularly feted, cross-examination was immortalised in John Henry Wigmore’s (1863–1943) famous dictum that it is ‘the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth’. Through a detailed review of the cross-examination of a forensic scientist, in the first scientifically-informed challenge to latent fingerprint evidence in Australia, this article offers a more modest assessment of its value. Drawing upon mainstream scientific research and advice, and contrasting scientific knowledge with answers obtained through cross-examination of a latent fingerprint examiner, it illuminates a range of serious and apparently unrecognised limitations with our current procedural arrangements. The article explains the limits of cross-examination and the difficulties trial and appellate judges — and by extension juries — experience when engaging with forensic science evidence

Reglamento de la Cofradía del Glorioso San Roque establecida en San Claudio de Olivares, aneja a la Arciprestal de San Ildefonso de Zamora

Copia digital. Valladolid : Junta de Castilla y León. Consejería de Cultura y Turismo, 2009-201

Changing the International Justice Landscape: Perspectives on Deaf Citizenship and Jury Service

In Australia and other countries with adversarial court systems, such as Ireland and the United Kingdom, deaf people have not typically been permitted to serve as jurors because of a prohibition against having a sign language interpreter in the jury room. The United States is one country where there is an exception in that deaf people frequently serve as jurors in several states. We know that deaf people can understand courtroom discourse via sign language interpreters, but there has been no evidence as to how deaf people can participate in the jury deliberation process, or the impact of having a sign language interpreter present as “stranger” in the jury room. This had never been tested until this study, funded by the Australian Research [End Page 240] Council Linkage Program scheme, which is the first of its kind internationally to investigate whether deaf people can realistically participate as a juror in a trial and in the jury deliberation process. The project took the form of a simulated mock trial in a district court in Sydney with: a real jury; real police informants; current practicing lawyers; and a recently retired judge of the court. The results of this project will demonstrate whether the prohibition of a stranger (i.e., a sign language interpreter) in the jury room should be overturned. It will also explore the extent to which a deaf person can participate in jury deliberations via sign language interpretation, and how this study will pioneer domestic and international law reform. This article will: briefly track the prior research that led to this study and the current case law affecting the area; share the results of interviews with mock-trial participants and the stakeholder focus groups on their perspectives on the feasibility of deaf people serving as jurors; and present recommendations for the inclusion of deaf people as jurors