Write a response to ONE of the following questions:"An important linguistic issue raised by these cases is whether a suspect has invoked his right to counsel by "requesting" the assistance of a lawyer. As we saw in chapter 3, courts typically take pragmatic information into account in deciding, for example, that during a routine traffic stop a police officer's question about whether the car's trunk opens is in fact a request to search inside the trunk. As we will see, courts are much more reluctant to consider such pragmatic information when suspects indirectly request to speak to an attorney" (p. 54). Discuss a case from the chapter that is a clear example of courts reluctant to accept a suspect's indirect request to an attorney. Discuss the example in relation to speech acts. Refer to the handout on speech acts provided in Week 4 folder.

OR

What are the similarities and differences between the following two cases: Innis and Brewer? What important point do the two cases make in terms of linguistics? (pp. 63-65).

Response should be between 150-200 words. Write a thoughtful response. You must demonstrate your understanding of the ideas in the chapter.