1) Describe the relative speaking rights in the courtroom for: the judge; the lawyers.

2) Give an example of a tag question.

3) What are the commonalities between abduction cases and rape cases?

4) What is 'Cognitive Academic Language Proficiency' (CALP)?

5) Give an example of a witness whose vulnerability is due to situated identity.

6) Ainsworth (2008) gives several examples of suspects in the US attempting

unsuccessfully to invoke their Miranda Right. Why were the attempts unsuccessful,

according to Ainsworth?

7) Briefly describe one strategy that a powerful witness can use to resist questioning in

a police interview. Give an example to illustrate your point.

8) Most people consider themselves to be 'experts' in their own language. How can

this mindset pose a challenge for linguistics expert witnesses who testify in court?

9) sentence that shows an example of referential indeterminacy. Underline the

relevant ambiguous element and briefly explain the ambiguity.

10)What kinds of decisions does a transcriber have to make when doing a general

transcription of a recording? 11)You are listening to a recording of an unknown speaker and you are asked to profile

them. List two pieces of information about the speaker that you might be able to

ascertain from profiling. 12)Adult siblings were in a dispute over their mother's will. The son was suspected by

his siblings of having created a new will with added provisions favouring only him.

Long explanation questions to answer:

1) Is legalese necessary? Discuss the pros and cons.

2) Explain how collaborative narration can be useful as a questioning strategy (a) in

examination-in-chief; and (b) in cross-examination. Use examples if they can help to

illustrate your point.

3) Philips (1998) did a study involving nine Arizona judges. Describe (a) how she

conducted the research; and (b) the outcomes of that research.

4) What arguments are commonly made against using an interpreter in the legal

system? What are the counter-arguments?

5) In New South Wales and the United States, police must check a suspect's

comprehension of their rights after the rights have been delivered orally. Police often by saying: "Do you understand that?" Why might an answer of "yes" to such a question be unreliable? How can the police get around this?

6) What are the short- and long-term aspirations for ensuring high quality expert linguistic evidence is provided to the court? How realistic/achievable are these aspirations?

7) What is the ASR approach? What are its advantages and disadvantages? When should this approach be used?