Keywords
criminal trial
amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 27.09.2013 in Poland
transformation of the inquisitorial criminal trial in Poland into adversarial criminal trial
How to Cite
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is twofold. Firstly, it introduces the transformations, which the criminal trial procedure in Poland will undergo following the amendment of the Code of Criminal Procedure of 27 September 2013. Secondly, it explains the consequences that the altered criminal law will have on Polish courtroom discourse. The paper comprises three major parts. It commences with the demonstration of the inquisitorial procedure of witness examination in criminal trials as investigated, described, and expounded by Bednarek (2014), prior to the amendment of criminal law in Poland. Subsequently, it presents the criticism of the inquisitorial criminal trial by the representatives of academia and legal practitioners in Poland, and explains the reasons for the transformation of the inquisitorial criminal trial into an adversarial one. Finally, it demonstrates the new regulations of the Code of Criminal Procedure pertaining to the criminal trial and establishes what effects they will have on Polish courtroom discourse. The paper ends with concluding remarks emphasizing the pressing need for novel and thorough investigations of the language used by judges, attorneys for the prosecution and attorneys for the defense in criminal trials in Poland following the amendment of the criminal law. At the time when this paper is being written the study of courtroom discourse conducted by Bednarek (2014) is the only investigation of talk in interaction in the milieu of Polish courts that focuses on the modus operandi of witness examination from the point of view of linguistics.References
Adelswärd, Viveka, Karin Aronsson, Linda Jönsson, and Peter Linell. 1987. The unequal distribution of interactional space: dominance and control in courtroom interaction. TEXT 7:4, 313-346.
Ainsworth, Janet. 2010. Miranda rights. Curtailing coercion in police interrogation: the failed promise of Miranda v. Arizona. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 111-126. London and New York: Routledge.
Aldridge, Michelle. 2010. Vulnerable witnesses in the criminal justice system. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 296-315. London and New York: Routledge.
Archer, Dawn. 2005. Questions and answers in the English courtroom (1640-1760). A sociopragmatic analysis. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Archer, Dawn. 2006. Tracing the development of advocacy in two nineteenth-century English trials. In Diachronic perspectives on domain-specific English. Ed. Dossena, Marina and Irma Taavitsainen. Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Archer, Dawn. 2007. Developing a more detailed picture of the English courtroom (1640-1760): Data and methodological issues facing historical pragmatics. In Methods in historical pragmatics. Ed. Fitzmaurice, Susan M and Irma Taavitsainen. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Archer, Dawn. 2010. A diachronic investigation of English courtroom practice. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 185-199. London and New York: Routledge.
Arundale, Robert B. 2005. Pragmatics, conversational implicature, and conversation. In Handbook of language and social interaction. Fitch, Kirsten L. And Robert E. Sanders, 41-67. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Asprey, Michèle. 2003. Plain language for lawyers. Sydney: The Federation Press.
Atkinson, J. Maxwell and Paul Drew. 1979. Order in court: the organization of verbal interaction in judicial settings. London: McMillan.
Baker, J.H. 2002. An introduction to English legal history. (Fourth Edition). London: Butterworths.
Baugh, Albert and Thomas Cable. 2002. A history of the English language.(Fifth edition) London: Routledge.
Bauman, Richard and Joel Sherzer. 1975. The ethnography of speaking. Annual Review of Anthropology 4: 95-119.
Bednarek, Grażyna Anna. 2014. Polish vs. American courtroom discourse: inquisitorial and adversarial procedures of witness examination in criminal trials. New York/ Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bednarek, Grażyna. 2014. Polish vs. American courtroom discourse: inquisitorial and adversarial procedures of witness examination in criminal trials. What court interpreters need to know about witness examination in criminal trials under disparate legal systems to provide a high level interpreting services in the light of Directive 2010/64/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010? In Comparative Legilinguistics: International Journal for Legal Communication 19/2014, 77-115. Poznań: Institute of Linguistics, Adam Mickiewicz University.
Berk-Seligson, Susan. 1990. The bilingual courtroom: court interpreters in the judicial process. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Bhatia, Vijay K. 1994. Cognitive structuring in legislative provisions. In Language and law. Ed. John Gibbons. London and New York: Longman.
Bhatia, Vijay K. 2010. Legal Writing: Specificity. Specification in Legal Writing: Accessibility, Transparency, Power and Control. In The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 21-37. London and New York: Routledge.
Bhatia, Vijay K., Maurizio Gotti, Jan Engberg and Dorote Heller, eds. 2005. Vagueness in normative texts. Germany: Peter Lang.
Bhatia, Vijay K., Christopher N. Candlin, and Jan Engberg, eds. 2008. Legal discourse across cultures and systems. Hong Kong: University Press.
Bhatia, Vijay K., Christopher Candlin, and Maurizio Gotti, eds. 2003. Legal discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts: arbitration texts in Europe. Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Bocquet, Claude. 2008. La traduction juridique. Fondement et méthode. Bruxelles: De Boeck.
Brand, Oliver. 2009. Language as barrier to comparative law. In Translation Issues in Language and Law. Ed. Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz and Dieter Stein, 18-35. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLIAN.
Brodziak, Klaudiusz. 2004. O lingwistycznym statusie języka prawnego [On the linguistic status of the legal language]. In Język-Prawo-Społeczeństwo. Ed. Ewa Malinowska. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.
Butt, Peter and Richard Castle. 2006. Modern legal drafting: A guide to using clearer language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cameron, Deborah. 2001. Working with spoken discourse. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Cao, Deborah.1996. Towards a model of translation proficiency. Target 8 (2): 325-340.
Cao, Deborah. 2006. Translating law. Clevedon·Buffalo·Toronto: Multilingual Matters Ltd.
Cao, Deborah. 2007a. Inter-lingual uncertainty in bilingual and multilingual law. Journal of Pragmatics 39: 69-83.
Cao, Deborah and Zhao Xingmin. 2008a. Translation at the United Nations as specialized translation. The Journal of Specialized Translation 9: 39-54.
Cao, Deborah. 2008b. Illocutionary acts of Chinese legislative language. Journal of Pragmatics: 1-12.
Cao, Deborah. 2010. Legal translation. In Handbook of translation studies. Ed. Yves Gambier and Luc van Doorslaer, 191-195. Antwerp: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Cao, Deborah. 2010. Legal translation: Translating legal language. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 78-95. London and New York: Routledge.
Charrow, Veda R. and Jo Ann Crandall. 1978. Legal language: What is it and what can we do about it? Paper presented at the New Wave Conference of the American Dialect Society Washington D. C. November 4th 1978.
Chauvin, Tatiana, Tomasz Stawecki, i Piotr Winczorek. 2009. Wstęp do prawoznawstwa. [Introduction to the theory of law], Warszawa: C.H.Beck.
Choduń, Aleksandra. 2004. Język prawny a język potoczny [Legal language vs. ordinary language]. In Język-Prawo-Społeczeństwo. Ed. Ewa Malinowska. Opole: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Opolskiego.
Chruszczewski, Piotr P. 2011. Językoznawstwo antropologiczne: Zadania i metody. [Anthropological linguistics. Tasks and methods]. Wrocław: Polska Akademia Nauk Oddział we Wrocławiu.
Cole, George E. and Christopher E. Smith. 2011. Criminal justice in America. Wadsworth: WADSWORTH CENGAGE Learning.
Colin, Joan and Ruth Morris. 1996. Interpreters and the legal process. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Condor, Susan and Charles Antaki. 1997. Social cognition and discourse. In Discourse as structure and process. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk, 320-348. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Conley, John M. and William M. O’Barr. 1990. Rules versus relationships: The ethnography of legal discourse. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Conley, John M. and William M. O’Barr. 2005. Just words: Law, language and power. Chicago; London: The University of Chicago Press.
Cooren, Farnçois. 2005. The contribution of speech act theory to the analysis of conversation: How pre-sequences work. In Handbook of language and social interaction. Ed. Fitch, Kirsten L. And Robert E. Sanders, 21-41. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Cordonnier, Jean-Louis. 1997. Traduction et culture. Bruxelles: Hatier/Didier.
Cornu, Gerard. 2005. Linguistique juridique. Paris: Montchrestien.
Cotterill, Janet. 2003. Language and power in court: A linguistic analysis of the O. J. Simpson trial. Basigstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Cotterrell, Roger. 2004. Law in culture. Ratio Juris 1: 1-14.
Cotterrell, Roger. 2006. Law, culture and society: Legal ideas in the mirror of social theory. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Cotterrell, Roger. 2006. Comparative law and legal culture. In The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Ed. Reihmann, Mathias and Reinhard Zimmermann, 709-739. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, eds. The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. London and New York: Routledge.
Crystal, David and Derek Davy. 1969. Investigating English style. London: Longman.
Curran, Vivian, ed. 2002. Comparative law: An introduction. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.
Curran, Vivian. 2006. Comparative law and language. In The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Ed. Reihmann, Mathias and Reinhard Zimmermann, 675-709. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Dammer, Harry S. and Jay S. Albanese. 2014. Comparative Criminal Justice Systems. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Danet, Brenda. 1980. Language in the legal process. Law and Society Review 14: 445-564.
Danet, Brenda. 1984. Legal discourse. In Handbook of discourse analysis. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk. London: Academic Press 1, 273-291.
Danet, Brenda. 1983. Law, bureaucracy and language. Society 20 (4): 49-55.
Danet, Brenda. 1990. Language and law: An overview of fifteen years of research. In Handbook of language and social psychology. Ed. Howard Giles and W. Peter Robinson, 537-559. London: Wiley.
Danet, Brenda and Bryna Bogoch. 1994. Orality, literacy, and performativity in Anglo-Saxon wills. In Language and the law. Ed. John Gibbons, 100-135. London and New York: Longman.
David, René and John Brierly. 1985. Major legal systems in the world today. London: Stevens.
de Cruz, Peter. 1999. Comparative law in a changing world. London, Sydney: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
del Carmen, Rolando V. 2010. Criminal procedure: Law and practice. Wadsworth: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
D’hondt, Sigurd, Jan-Ola Östman, and Jef Verschueren, eds. 2009. The pragmatics of interaction. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Dijk, Teun A. van. 1997. Discourse as interaction in society. In Discourse as social interaction. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk, 1-38. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc.
Dossena, Marina and Irma Taavitsainen, eds. 2006. Diachronic perspective on domain-specific English. Bern: Peter Lang AG.
Drew, Paul and John Heritage, eds. 1992. Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, Paul. 1992. Contested evidence in courtroom cross-examination: The case of a trial for rape. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Ed. Drew, Paul and John Heritage, 418-470. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Drew, Paul. 2005. Conversation analysis. In Handbook of language and social interaction, 71-103. Ed. Fitch, Kirsten L. And Robert E. Sanders. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Drew, Paul and John Heritage. 1992. Analyzing talk at work: An introduction. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Ed. Drew, Paul and John Heritage, 3-66. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, Alessandro. 1997. Linguistic anthropology: A reader. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti , Alessandro, ed. 2001. Key terms in language and culture. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Duranti, Alessandro and Charles Goodwin, eds. 1997. Rethinking context: Language as interactive phenomenon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Eades, Diana. 1994. A case of communicative clash: Aboriginal English and the legal system. In Language and the law. Ed. John Gibbons, 217-234. London and New York: Longman.
Eggins, Suzanne and J.R. Martin. 1997. Genres and registers of discourse. In Discourse as structure and process. Ed. Teun A. van Dijk, 230-257. London, Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.
Ehrlich, Susan. 2010. The discourse of rape trials. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson. London and New York: Routledge, 265-281.
Endicott, Tim. 2000. Vagueness in law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Engberg, Jan. 2008. Vagueness and indeterminacy in law. In Legal discourse across cultures and systems. Ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher Candlin, and Jan Engberg. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Ervin-Tripp, Susan M. 2009. Developmental psychology. In Cognition and Pragmatics. Ed. Sandra, Dominiek, Jef Verschueren and Jan-Ola Östman, 146-156. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Fetzer, Anita. 2004. Recontextualizing context: appropriateness meets grammaticality. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Flis-Świeczkowska. 2013. Rola pełnomocnika w świetle wzmocnienia zasady kontradyktoryjności procesu karnego. In Kontradyktoryjność w polskim procesie karnym. Ed.Paweł Wiliński, 539-552. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Garner, Bryan A. 2002. The elements of legal style. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Gee, James Paul. 2005. An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method. London and New York: Routledge.
Geis, Michael L. 1995. Speech acts and conversational interaction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Gibbons, John, ed. 1994. Language and the law. London and New York: Longman.
Gibbons, John. 1999. Language and the law. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 19: 156-173. Cambridge University Press.
Gibbons, John. 2003. Forensic linguistics: An introduction to language in the justice system. Malden/Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Gotti, Maurizio, ed. 2003. Specialized discourse. Bern: Peter Lang.
Gotti, Maurizio. 2008. Cultural constraints on arbitration discourse. In Legal discourse in multilingual and multicultural contexts: Arbitration texts in Europe. Ed. Vijay K. Bhatia, Christopher Candlin, and Maurizio Gotti. Bern: Peter Lang.
Gotti, Maurizio. 2009. Globalizing trends in legal discourse. InTranslation issues in language and law. Ed. Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz and Dieter Stein, 55-76. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.
Greatbatch, David L. 1988. A turn-taking system for British news interviews. Language and Society 17(3): 401-430.
Greatbatch, David L. 1992. On the management of disagreement between news interviews. In Talk at work. Paul Drew and John Heritage, 268-301. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Grice, H. Paul. 1975. Logic and conversation. In Syntax and semantics 3: Speech Acts. Ed. Peter Cole and Jerry L. Morgan, 41-58. New York: Academic Press.
Grossfeld, Bernhrad. 2002. Kernfragen der Rechtsvergleichung. In Comparative law: An introduction. Ed. Vivian Grosswald Curran, 31-45. Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press.
Grosswald Curran, Vivian. 2006. Comparative law and language. In The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Ed. Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann.Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 675-709.
Grundy, Peter. 1995. Doing pragmatics. London: Edward Arnold.
Grzegorczyk, Tomasz. 2013. Sytuacja procesowa stron w kontradyktoryjnej rozprawie w świetle projektu zmian k.p.k. z 2012r.. In Kontradyktoryjność w polskim procesie karnym. Ed. Paweł Wiliński, 45-55. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Gunnarson, Britt-Louise. 1997. Applied discourse analysis. In Teun A. van Dijk,, ed, Discourse as social interaction. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications Inc., 285-313.
Gustafsson, Marike. 1975b. Some syntactic properties of English law language. Turku, Finland: University of Turku, Department of English (Publication no. 4).
Haigh, Rupert. 2004. Legal English. New York: Cavendish Publishing Limited.
Hale, Sandra. 2010. Court interpreting. The need to raise the bar: Court interpreters as specialized experts. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 440-455. London and New York: Routledge.
Halliday, M.A.K. and Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London and New York: Longman.
Halliday, M.A.K. 1985. Introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
Hałas, Bożena. 1995. Terminologia języka prawnego. Zielona Góra: WSP TK.
Harder, Peter. 2009. Communication. In Key notions for pragmatics. Ed. Verschueren, Jef and Jan-Ola Östman, 62-86. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Harris, Sandra. 1984. Questions as a mode of control in magistrates’ courts. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 49: 5-27.
Heffer, Chris. 2010. Narrative in the trial. Constructing crimes stories in court. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 199-218. London and New York: Routledge.
Heinz, Adam. 1978. Dzieje językoznawstwa w zarysie. [A historical outline of linguistics], Warszawa: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe.
Heritage, John. 1984. Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Heritage, John. 1984. A change-of-stake token and aspects of its sequential placement. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Ed. Maxwell J. Atkinson and John Heritage, 299-346. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Heritage, John. 2005. Conversation analysis and institutional talk. In Handbook of language and social interaction. Ed. Fitch, Kirsten L. And Robert E. Sanders, 103-149. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Heritage, John and Steven Clayman. 2010. Talk in action: Interactions, identities, and institutions. Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford.
Hernand, Robert. 2013. „Nowelizacja procedury kanrej – inne spojrzenie. In Kontradyktoryjność w polskim procesie karnym. Ed. Paweł Wiliński, 156-173. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Hiltunen, Risto. 1984. The type and structure of clausal embedding in legal English. Text 5/3: 107-121.
Hiltunen, Risto. 1990. Chapters on legal English. Aspects past and present of the language of the law. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.
Hofmański, Piotr. 2013. Model kontradyktoryjny w świetle projektu zmian k.p.k. z 2012r. In Kontradyktoryjność w polskim procesie karnym. Ed. Paweł Wiliński, 33-39. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Holt, Elizabeth and Alison Johnson. 2010. Legal talk. Socio-pragmatic aspects of legal talk: Police interviews and trial discourse. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 21-37. London and New York: Routledge.
Hostettler, John. 2004. The criminal jury old and new: Jury power from early times to the present day. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Hostettler, John. 2006. Fighting for justice: The history and origins of adversary trial. Winchester: Waterside Press.
Hostettler, John. 2009. A history of criminal justice in England and Wales. Sherfield: Waterside Press.
Hutchby, Ian and Robin Wooffitt. 1998. Conversational analysis: An introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1964. Introduction: Toward ethnographies of communication. American Anthropologist, New Series 66 (2): The Ethnography of Communication: 1-34.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1974. Toward ethnographies of communication. In Foundations in sociolinguistics: An ethnographic approach. Ed. Dell Hymes, 3-66. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Hymes, Dell. 1972(a). On communicative competence. In Sociolinguistics. Ed. J. B. Pride and Janet Holmes, 269-293. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
Hymes, Dell. 1972(b). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In Directions in sociolinguistics. Ed. John Gumperz and Dell Hymes, 35-71. New York: Holt, Reinhart and Winston.
Jackson, Bernard S. 1995. Making sense in law: Linguistic, psychological and semiotic perspectives. Liverpool: Deborah Charles Publications.
Jopek-Bosiacka, Anna. 2006. Przekład prawny i sądowy [Legal translation and court interpretation]. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN.
Kierzkowska, Danuta. 2002. Tłumaczenie prawnicze. [Legal translation], Warszawa: TEPIS.
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2000(a). Representations of orality in early modern English trial records. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 1/2: 201-230.
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2000(b). What is interesting about old court trial records. A confession of freshly-baked historical pragmaticist. In Multis vocibus de lingua. Ed. Stanisław Puppel, Katarzyna Dziubalska-Kołaczyk, 59-72. Poznań: Motivex.
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2002. Synchronic and diachronic investigations in Pragmatics. Poznań: Motivex.
Kryk-Kastovsky, Barbara. 2006. Legal pragmatics. In Encyclopedia of English language and linguistics 2, 13-20. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Kastovsky, Dieter and Barbara Kryk-Kastovsky. 2008. Crimes and misdemeanors: Legal terminology versus lexical semantics and the role of pragmatics. In English Now: Selected papers from the 20th IAUPE conference in Lund 2007. Ed. Marianne Thormählen, 277-291.
Kischel, Uwe. 2009. Legal cultures-legal languages. In Translation issues in language and law. Ed. Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz and Dieter Stein, 7-18. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.
Kurzon, Denis.1989. Language of the law and legal language. In Special language: From humans thinking to thinking machines. Ed. Laurén Christier, Nordman, Marianne, 283-290. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.
Kurzon, Dennis. 1986. It is hereby performed: Explorations in legal speech acts. Amsterdam/Philadelphia. Benjamins Publishing Company.
Kurzon, Dennis. 1997. Legal language: Varieties, genres, registers, discourses. International Journal of Applied Linguistics 7 (2): 119-139.
Kwarciński, Tomasz. 2002. A speech act approach to legal discourse. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznań. Faculty of Modern Languages and Literature. School of English.
Labov, William. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Labov, William. 1972. Language in the inner city. Philadelphia: Philadelphia University Press.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. 2009. Conversational logic. In Key notions for pragmatics. Ed. Verschueren, Jef and Jan-Ola Östman, 102-114. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Langbein, John H. 2003. The origins of adversary criminal trial. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Legrand, Pierre. 2005. Issues in the translatability of law. In Nation, language and the ethics of translation. Ed. Bermann, Sandra and Michael Wood, 30-51. Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
Lipoński, Wojciech. 2001. Narodziny cywilizacji Wysp Brytyjskich. [The birth of civilization on the British Isles], Poznań: Wydawnictwo Poznańskie.
Lizisowa, Maria Teresa. 1986. Z badań nad terminologią prawną [On research into the legal terminology]. Rocznik Naukowo-Dydaktyczny WSP Kraków – Prace Językoznawcze 5: 5-20.
Luchjenbroers, June. 1997. In your own words: Questions and Answers in a Supreme Court Trial. Journal of Pragmatics 27: 477-503.
Madsen, Dorte. 1997. A model for translation of legal texts. In Translation as intercultural communication. Ed. Mary Snell-Hornby, Zuzanna Jettmarova, and Klaus Kaindl, 291-299. Amsterdam/Philadephia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Malinowski, Andrzej. 1980. Właściwości stylistyczne języka prawnego na tle właściwości języka potocznego [Stylistic traits of the Polish language of law in the light of the Polish ordinary language]. Państwo i Prawo 9: 67-76.
Malinowski, Bronisław. 1923. The problem of meaning in primitive languages. In The meaning of meaning. Charles Kay Ogden and Ivor Armstrong Richards, 296-336. London: Routledge and Keagan Paul.
Malinowski, Andrzej. 2006. Polski język prawny: Wybrane zagadnienia [The Polish legal language]. Warszawa: LexisNexis.
Małolepszy, Maciej. 2013. Kilka uwag na temat projektowanych zmian kodeksu postępowania karnego. In Kontradyktoryjność w polskim procesie karnym. Ed. Paweł Wiliński, 207-215. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
McAuliffe, Karen. 2009. Translation at the Court of Justice of the European Communities. In Translation issues in language and law. Ed. Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz and Dieter Stein, 99-116. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.
McBride, Alex. 2010. Defending the guilty: Truth and lies in the criminal courtroom. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
Melone, Albert P. And Allan Karnes. 2008. The American legal system: Perspectives, politics, processes and policies. Plymouth: Rowman and Littlefield Inc.
Mellinkoff, David. 1963. The language of the law. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Merryman, John Henry. 1969. The civil law tradition: An introduction to the legal systems of Western Europe and Latin America, Stanford, California: Stanford University Press.
Mikkelson, Holly. 2000. Introduction to court interpreting. Manchester, UK and Northampton MA: St. Jerome Publishing.
Morris, Marshall, ed. 1995. Translation and the law. American Translators Association. Scholarly Monograph Series. Volume VIII. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Neubert, Albrecht. 2000. Competence in language, languages, and in translation. In Developing translation competence. Ed. Schäffner, Christina and Beverly Adab, 3-19. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
O’Barr, William. 1982. Linguistic evidence: Language, power and strategy in the courtroom. New York: Academic Press.
Ochs, Elinor, Emanuel Schegloff and Sandra Thompson, eds. 1996. Interaction and grammar. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Paltridge, Brian. 2006. Discourse analysis: An introduction. London: Continuum.
Philips, S.U. 1984. The social organization of questions and answers in courtroom discourse: A study of changes of plea in an Arizona court. TEXT 4 (1/3): 225-248.
Philipsen, Gerry and Lisa M. Coutu. 2005. The ethnography of speaking. In Handbook of language and social interaction. Ed. Fitch, Kirsten L. And Robert E. Sanders, 355-381. Mahwah, New Jersey, London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Pieńkos, Jerzy. 1999. Podstawy juryslingwistyki: język w prawie - prawo w języku. [The background of legal linguistics: the language in law - the law in language]. Warszawa: Muza SA.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech, Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. New York: Longman.
Reimann, Mathias and Reinhard Zimmermann, eds. 2006. The Oxford handbook of comparative law. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rock, Frances. 2010. Witnesses and suspects in interviews. Collecting oral evidence: The police, the public and the written word. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 126-139. London and New York: Routledge.
Robertson, Geoffrey. 2009. Sir William Garrow: His life, times and fight for justice. Sherfield: Waterside Press.
Robinson, Jeffrey D. And John Heritage. 2005. The structure of patients’ presenting concerns: the completion relevance of current symptoms. Social Science and Medicine 61: 481-493.
Robinson, Jeffrey D. And Tanya Stivers. 2001. Achieving activity transitions in primary-care encounters: from history to physical examination. Human Communication Research 27(2): 253-298.
Rosen, Lawrence. 2006. Law as culture: An invitation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Sacks, Harvey, Emmanuel A. Schegloff and Gail Jefferson. 1974. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50: 696-735.
Sacks, Harvey. 1984. Notes on methodology. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Ed. J. Maxwell Atkinson and John Heritage, 21-27. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, Harvey. 1984. On doing being ordinary. In Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis. Ed. Maxwell J Atkinson and John Heritage, 413-430. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sacks, Harvey. 1987. On the preferences for agreement and contiguity in sequences in conversation. In Talk and social organization. Ed. Graham Button and John R.E. Lee, 54-69. Clevedon, Avon: Multilingual Matters.
Sacks, Harvey. 1992. Lectures on Conversation. (Vol. I and II). Oxford: Blackwell.
Saville-Troike, Muriel. 1989. The ethnography of communication: An introduction. Oxford and new York: Oxford University Press.
Sbisà, Marina. 2001. Act. In Key terms in language and culture. Ed. Alessandro Duranti, 4-7. Malden, Mass.: Blackwell.
Sbisà, Marina. 2009. Speech act theory. In Key Notions for pragmatics. Ed. Verschueren, Jef and Jan-Ola Östman, 229-245. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. 2007. Sequence organization in interaction: A primer in conversation analysis, vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schegloff, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks. 1973. Opening up closings. Semiotica 7: 289-327.
Schegloff, Emanuel and Harvey Sacks. 1977. The preference for self-correction in the organization of repair in conversation. Language 53: 361-382.
Schegloff, Emmanuel. 1992. On talk and its institutional occasions. In Talk at work: Interaction in institutional settings. Ed. Drew, Paul and John Heritage, 101-137. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1994. Approaches to discourse. Oxford UK and Cambridge USA: BLACKWELL.
Schiffrin, Deborah, Deborah Tannen and Heidi E. Hamilton, eds. 2001. The handbook of discourse analysis. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
Schubert, Frank August. 2008. Introduction to law and the legal system. Wadsworth: WADSWORTH CENGAGE Learning.
Scollon Ron and Suzanne Wong Scollon. 2001. Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. (2nd edition). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Shuy, Roger. 1993. Language Crimes: The use and abuse of language evidence in the courtroom. Oxford: Blackwell.
Sidnell, Jack. 2010. Conversation analysis: An introduction. London: Wiley-Blackwell.
Siegel, Larry J. and Joseph J. Senna. 2007. Essentials of criminal justice. Belmont: Thomson Wadsworth.
Skorupka, Jerzy. 2013. Wpływ kontradyktoryjności rozprawy głowenj na przebieg postępowania przygotowawczego. In Kontradyktoryjność w polskim procesie karnym. Ed. Paweł Wiliński, 79-93. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Smith, Jeremy J. 2006. From Middle to Early Modern English. In The Oxford history of English. Ed. Lynda Mugglestone, 120-147. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smits, Jan M. 2006. Comparative law and its influence on national legal systems. In The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Ed. Mathias Reimann and Reinhard Zimmermann, 513-539. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.
Smith, Sylvia A. 1995. Cultural clash: Anglo-American case law and German civil law in translation. In Translation and the law. Ed. Marshall Morris, 179-200. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Solan, Lawrence M. And Peter M. Tiersma. 2005. Speaking of crime: The language of criminal justice. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Solan, Lawrence M. 2009. Statutory interpretation in the EU: the Augustinian approach. In Translation issues in language and law. Ed. Frances Olsen, Alexander Lorz and Dieter Stein, 35-55. New York: PALGRAVE MACMILLAN.
Solan, Lawrence M. 2010. The Expert Linguist Meets the adversarial system. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 395-411. London and New York: Routledge.
Stubbs, Michael. 1983. Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis of natural language. Oxford: Balckwell.
Šarčević Susan. 1997. New approach to legal translation. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Šarčević Susan. 2000. Creativity in legal translation: How much is too much. In Translation Studies: An Interdiscipline. Ed.Andrew Chesterman, Andrew Natividad Gallardo San Salvador, and Yves Gambier, 281-293. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Verschueren, Jef. 1984. Linguistics and cross-cultural communication. Language in Society 13: 489-509.
Verschueren, Jef. 1999. Understanding pragmatics. London/New York: Arnold Publishers.
Tanskanen, Sanna-Kaisa. 2006. Collaborating towards coherence: Lexical cohesion in English discourse. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Ten Have, Paul. 1999. Doing conversation analysis. A practical guide. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Thomas, E.W. 2005. The judicial process: realism, pragmatism, practical reasoning and principles. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tiersma, Peter M. 1999. Legal language. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tiersma, Peter M. 1993. Linguistic issues in the law. Language 69: 113-137.
Tiersma. Peter M. 2010. Instructions to jurors. Redrafting California’s jury instructions. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 251-265. London and New York: Routledge.
Tiersma, Peter M. and Lawrence M. Solan, eds. 2012. The Oxford handbook of language and law. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tkačuková, Tatiana. 2010. Cross-examination questioning: Lay People as cross-examiners. In The Routledge handbook of forensic linguistics. Ed. Coulthard, Malcom and Alison Johnson, 333-347. London and New York: Routledge.
Tomaszczyk, Jerzy, ed. 1999. Aspects of legal language and legal translation. Łódź: Łódź University Press.
Varó, Alcaraz Enrique, and Hughes, Brian. 2002. Legal translation explained. Manchester and Northampton: St. Jerome Publishing.
Wagner, Anne and Le Cheng. (eds.) 2011. Exploring courtroom discourse. Farnhma; Burlington: Ashgate Publishing.
Wacks, Raymond. 2009. Understanding jurisprudence: An introduction to legal theory. New York: Oxford University Press.
Waltoś, Stanisław. 2009. Proces karny: Zarys systemu.[Penal process: An outline of the system], Warszawa: LexisNexis.
Waltoś, Stanisław. 2013. Kontradyktoryjność a prawda materialan. In Kontradyktoryjność w polskim procesie karnym. Ed. Paweł Wiliński, 39-44. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Wellman, Francis. [1904] 1997. The art of cross-examination. New York: TOUCHSTONE Rockefeller Center.
Wiliński, Paweł, ed. 2013. Kontradyktoryjność w polskim procesie karnym. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Wiraszka-Bereza, Beata. 2013. Przebieg prac nad projektem ustawy o zmianie ustawy – Kodeks postępowania karnego i niektórych innych ustaw. In Kontradyktoryjność w polskim procesie karnym. Ed. Paweł Wiliński, 19-26. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
Wodak, Ruth. 1980. Discourse analysis in courtroom interaction. Discourse Processes 3: 269-380.
Woodbury, Hanni. 1984. The strategic use of questions in court. Semiotica 48-3/4: 197-228.
Wronkowska, Sławomira. 2005. Podstawowe pojęcia prawa i prawoznawstwa [The fundamental notions in law and legal theory]. Poznań: Ars boni et aequi.
Wronkowska, Sławomira i Zygmunt Ziembiński. 2001. Zarys teorii prawa [An outline of the theory of law]. Poznań: Ars boni et aequi.
Yule, George. 1998. Pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zajda, Aleksander. 2001. Studia z historii polskiego słownictwa prawniczego i frazeologii [Study of the history of the Polish legal terminology and collocations]. Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
Ziembiński, Zygmunt. 1972. Analiza pojęć czynu [The analysis of the notion of an act]. Warszawa: Wiedza Powszechna.
Zweigert, Konrad and Hein Kötz. 1998. An introduction to comparative law. Tony Weir, trans. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Internet resources:
Uzasadnienie projektu ustawy o zmianie Ustawy Kodeks karny,
Kodeks postepowania karnego i niektórych ustaw. https://bip.ms.gov.pl/pl/projekty-aktow-prawnych/prawo-karne//
License
When submitting a paper the author agrees to the following publishing agreement and processing personal data.
PUBLICATION AGREEMENT, COPYRIGHT LICENSE, PERSONAL DATA PROCESSING CONSENT
This is a publication agreement and copyright license (“Agreement”) regarding a written manuscript currently submitted via Pressto platform
(“Article”) to be published in Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Journal”).
The parties to this Agreement are:
the Author or Authors of the submitted article (individually, or if more than one author, collectively, “Author”) and Comparative Legilinguistics International Journal for Legal Communication (“Publisher”), address al. Niepodległości 4, 61-874 Poznań, represented by its editor in chief Aleksandra Matulewska.
§1. LICENSE OF COPYRIGHT
a) The Author and the Publisher agree that the Author grants a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which is incorporated herein by reference and is further specified at Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0 copyright license in the Article to the general public.
b) The Author grants to the Publisher a royalty-free, worldwide nonexclusive license to publish, reproduce, display, distribute, translate and use the Article in any form, either separately or as part of a collective work, including but not limited to a nonexclusive license to publish the Article in an issue of the Journal, copy and distribute individual reprints of the Article, authorize reproduction of the entire Article in another publication, and authorize reproduction and distribution of the Article or an abstract thereof by means of computerized retrieval systems (such as Westlaw, Lexis and SSRN). The Author retains ownership of all rights under copyright in the Article, and all rights not expressly granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author grants to the Publisher the power to assign, sublicense or otherwise transfer any and all licenses expressly granted to the Publisher under this Agreement.
d) Republication. The Author agrees to require that the Publisher be given credit as the original publisher in any republication of the Article authorized by the Author. If the Publisher authorizes any other party to republish the Article under the terms of paragraphs 1c and 1 of this Agreement, the Publisher shall require such party to ensure that the Author is credited as the Author.
§2. EDITING OF THE ARTICLE
a) The Author agrees that the Publisher may edit the Article as suitable for publication in the Journal. To the extent that the Publisher’s edits amount to copyrightable works of authorship, the Publisher hereby assigns all right, title, and interest in such edits to the Author.
§3. WARRANTIES
a) The Author represents and warrants that to the best of the Author’s knowledge the Article does not defame any person, does not invade the privacy of any person, and does not in any other manner infringe upon the rights of any person. The Author agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Publisher against all such claims.
b) The Author represents and warrants that the Author has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to grant the licenses granted in this Agreement.
c) The Author represents and warrants that the Article furnished to the Publisher has not been published previously. For purposes of this paragraph, making a copy of the Article accessible over the Internet, including, but not limited to, posting the Article to a database accessible over the Internet, does not constitute prior publication so long as the as such copy indicates that the Article is not in final form, such as by designating such copy to be a “draft,” a “working paper,” or “work-in-progress”. The Author agrees to hold harmless the Publisher, its licensees and distributees, from any claim, action, or proceeding alleging facts that constitute a breach of any warranty enumerated in this paragraph.
§4. TERM
a) The agreement was concluded for an unspecified time.
§5. PAYMENT
a) The Author agrees and acknowledges that the Author will receive no payment from the Publisher for use of the Article or the licenses granted in this Agreement.
b) The Publisher agrees and acknowledges that the Publisher will not receive any payment from the Author for publication by the Publisher.
§6. ENTIRE AGREEMENT
a) This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements, either oral or in writing, between the Author and the Publisher with respect to the subject of this Agreement. This Agreement contains all of the warranties and agreements between the parties with respect to the Article, and each party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises, or agreements have been made by or on behalf of any party except those warranties and agreements embodied in this Agreement.
b) In all cases not regulated by this Agreement, legal provisions of Polish Copyright Act and Polish Civil Code shall apply.
c) Any disputes arising from the enforcement of obligations connected with this Agreement shall be resolved by a court competent for the headquarters of the Publisher.
d) Any amendments or additions to the Agreement must be made in writing and signed by authorised representative of both parties, otherwise being ineffective.
e) This Agreement is signed electronically and the submission of the article via the PRESSto platform is considered as the conclusion of the Agreement by the Author and the Publisher.
f) Clause for consent to the processing of personal data - general
g) The Author shall give his or her consent to the processing of their personal data in accordance with the Act of 10 May 2018 on the protection of personal data and Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of persons physical in connection with the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46 / EC (General Data Protection Regulation) for the purpose and in connection with making publications available on the PRESSto scientific journals platform and DeGruyter platform, guaranteeing the security of services rendered, and improving them.
I HAVE READ AND AGREE FULLY WITH THE TERMS OF THIS AGREEMENT.
The Author The Publisher