The International Journal of Law, Language & Discourse

Cognition, Language, and Law: Introspective Reflections on How we Learn, Teach, and Understand Law Across Languages and Legal Systems

Juan Diaz-Granados — 2024-03-26

I was invited to write this article to reflect upon my cognitive experience as a lawyer and
academic with some proficiency in English and Spanish and with training in both the Common
Law and the Civil law legal systems.1 This article incorporates reflections on the intrinsic
relationship between law and language and the cognitive process of learning, teaching, and
understanding law across different languages and legal systems –– with particular focus on
the legal constructs ‘constitution’ and ‘corporation’ –– based on my academic and
professional trajectory. Considering the nature of this invitation and the purpose of this issue,
I consider it appropriate to first provide the reader with a summary of my academic and
professional background to contextualise the reflections that follow.

The Cognitive Aspect of Language: Unveiling Subconscious Multilingual Meanings

Zebisno Nasirova — 2024-03-26

Language, as a vessel for human expression, is an intricate tapestry that weaves together
culture, cognition, and communication. Beneath the surface of words lies a fascinating realm
of subconscious multilingual meanings. This article explores the cognitive intricacies of
language, exploring how our subconscious mind processes and interprets words differently
across languages, ultimately shaping our perceptions and understanding.
Language is not merely a set of interchangeable labels for objects and concepts; it shapes the
very fabric of thought itself. Cognitive linguistics posits that words are not isolated symbols,
but rather dynamic triggers that evoke mental images, emotions, and associations. Our
subconscious mind is adept at seamlessly navigating these linguistic landscapes, even across
different languages.

My Law and Language Experience of the U.S. and Indonesia

Luther Lie — 2024-03-26

I grew up in Jakarta, Indonesia, multilingual. My primary languages, however, are English and
Indonesian (Bahasa Indonesia), which I learned at home and school. This includes my legal
education, where I was trained in the American and Indonesian legal systems, in English and
Indonesian. I pursued my legal studies at Harvard Law School and University of Indonesia Faculty
of Law (FHUI). My first encounter with non-Indonesian legal systems including the American law
was not at Harvard. At FHUI, I studied the influence of Dutch and American legal systems on the
Indonesian law. While the trace of Dutch law in Indonesia is widely renowned, the American
influence on the Indonesian law was not explicit. It was, however, at Harvard through active
reading and research that I uncovered this missing but critical piece of the puzzle of the
Indonesian legal system—a piece that was barely discussed in academia or practice.

Interpreting power in virtual courtrooms An analysis of tag questions

Ran YI — 2024-03-27

Drawing on 2,250 minutes of audio recordings, this article reported the
interpretation of tag questions in virtual courtroom examinations. As an important
stylistic feature of the power differential, tag questions are strategically employed
by opposing counsels in adversarial courtrooms. However, little has been known
about the interpreters’ rendition of tag questions into Chinese during remote
interpreting. To investigate their remote interpreting performance, experiments
were conducted with 50 certified interpreters with varying modes and conditions
of interpreting. Interpreters listened to the English utterances in courts and
interpreted them into Chinese. Their interpretations were transcribed for further
analysis. It is revealed that, regardless of their significance, tag questions were
systematically disregarded and mistranslated into less coercive question types (e.g.
interrogatives), predominantly in the simultaneous mode via the video link and the
consecutive mode via the audio link. The findings suggest that the alterations of
illocutionary force may have implications for the accuracy of remote interpreting
in virtual courtrooms.